Commonwealth spokesman Joel Kibazo told that Mr Mugabe?s decision to withdraw was ?very disappointing?.

Zimbabwe?s fate has dominated the summit and number of leaders are deeply unhappy with the outcome. Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth last year after an election widely seen as flawed.

Mr Mugabe had earlier threatened to leave the 54-nation group if the country was not ?treated as an equal?. After the Commonwealth decision was taken, he received explanatory phone calls from Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, South African President Thabo Mbeki and Jamaican Prime Minister PJ Patterson.

In response, Mr Mugabe said the decision was unacceptable as Zimbabwe would settle for nothing short of the removal of the suspension.

<B>Careful diplomacy</B>

?Anything that you agreed to on Zimbabwe which is short of this position ? no matter how sweetly worded ? means Zimbabwe is still the subject of the Commonwealth,? he said. ?It is unacceptable. This is it. Zimbabwe quits and quits it will be.?

Mr Kibazo, however, said the Commonwealth wanted Zimbabwe to return and would work to continue trying to engage with its government. Correspondents say Mr Mugabe?s move in effect removes any leverage or pressure that Commonwealth leaders could have brought to bear on him. It also leaves the careful diplomacy of the Abuja summit in tatters.

The summit which has been overshadowed by Zimbabwe from start to finish came to an end amidst acrimony and division yesterday.

The Commonwealth had hoped to move on during its final day and discuss other issues, but there has been no further talks about Zimbabwe.

Commonwealth officials and leaders of countries like Britain, Australia and Canada will now have to work extremely hard to restore the organisation?s sense of unity.

<B>?Right outcome? </B>

Before Zimbabwe?s decision, Mr Obasanjo was given the crucial role of deciding whether Zimbabwe had progressed enough for it to return to the Commonwealth. He said Zimbabwe could probably have returned within ?months rather than ... years?.

Flying back to London from the summit, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the Commonwealth decision had been ?the right outcome? and that it was important for the Commonwealth to send ?a strong signal? to Zimbabwe.

In a speech at the end of his Zanu-PF party?s conference in Masvingo on Saturday, Mr Mugabe had harsh words for the grouping.

Commenting on Zimbabwe?s suspension, and his lack of an invitation to the summit in Nigeria, he likened the Commonwealth to characters in George Orwell?s novel, Animal Farm, where some members are more equal than others.

<B>Questions & answers

Why was President Mugabe not invited to Nigeria? </B>

Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth after his controversial re-election in March 2002. The Commonwealth observer group said the election was held in a «climate of fear». The opposition says the election results were rigged and their supporters attacked, raped and murdered during the campaign.

<B> Was the decision to suspend Zimbabwe unanimous? </B>

Far from it. South Africa had lobbied for Mr Mugabe to be invited and Nigeria?s President Olusegun Obasanjo earlier this year said the situation in Zimbabwe had greatly improved. Mr Mugabe says that his re-election was free and fair and accuses Britain of using the club of its former «white» colonies to gang up on him because of his policy of taking white-owned land and giving it to blacks. Some African and Asian countries instinctively agree with such arguments and find it difficult to publicly criticise Mr Mugabe. It was only last week that Mr Obasanjo made it clear that Mr Mugabe would not be invited.

<B> Is Zimbabwe being unfairly singled out for criticism? </B>

Mr Mugabe certainly thinks so. And the governments of many former colonies say they cannot be expected to hold multi-party elections just a few decades after independence, when the UK, for example, took hundreds of years years to make the transition from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy.

Human Rights Watch point out that the host, Nigeria, has its own human rights problems and its elections in April certainly had their flaws. While Uganda is only now moving to allow multi-party elections, which Zimbabwe has held non-stop since independence in 1980. However, Zimbabwe is the only country where the government is accused of organising militias nationwide to intimidate the opposition, often with the support of the state security forces.