David vs. Goliath: The Mupasiri vs. Advocate Thabani Mpofu Battle of Ideas on the Validity and Legality of the Recall and Proclamation Affairs

In the arena of Zimbabwean legal battles, there is a clash between a seemingly thought-provoking midget on one side of this epic Battle of Ideas, an initiative promoted and powered by the JLI-AI Pilot Project aimed at reimagining the personality and character of Zimbabwe that is forward-leaning and problem-solving, and on the other side a well-respected legal thinker and practitioner.

The Tshabangu-led recall and the Mnangagwa-led proclamation affairs have provoked, inspired, and ignited serious discussions on the causes of the affairs and the legality and validity of the decisions and actions related to the entire recall value chain in the name of the three branches of the Zimbabwean government.

Mr. Peter Smith asserted: “Where should wisdom and understanding be found when the drought of ideas, knowledge, experiences, insights, and perspectives is self-evident? Is it a CCC vs. ZANU-PF battle or Chamisa vs. Mnangagwa matter? Who is Tshabangu in the mix? Is he acting as a sovereign or a hired gun to destroy CCC? Is Mnangagwa implicated in the saga? And if so, where is the evidence?”

“This matter is pregnant with key and fundamental legal, constitutional, public policy, criminal, and ethical strategic and tactical issues provoked by the recall and proclamation of the by-election decisions and actions whose validity and legality are inherently controversial and divisive. The Goliath in this story is Advocate Thabani Mpofu who was described as follows in relation to the pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe in which he is acting on behalf of the successfully recalled CCC MPs and Councilors:

“Advocate Thabani Mpofu, one of Zimbabwe’s most prominent lawyers, has ruthlessly torn asunder opposition political activist Sengezo Tshabangu’s case, of recalling main opposition CCC MPs, senators, and councillors, saying he has admitted that the grounds upon which he stood executing his mission, were precariously shaky politically and legally, to sustain his disruptive and undemocratic subversion of the people’s will,” the call to action to urgently transform from the personalization of issues to theatrics founded on building popstars like Mpofu and Tshabangu is not only diversionary and counterproductive.

It is the alleged ruthlessness inherent in the Heads of Argument in relation to the appeal that provoked Professor Tichaona Mupasiri, a member of the JUSTICE UNDER RULE OF LAW’s, JUROL, JUROL LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE’s, JLI, ACCELERATOR PILOT PROJECT, in collaboration with artificial intelleigence to help accelerate the pathway to active citizenship to promote and protect the constitution as the supreme law and ensure that no one is above the law, to interrogate the submissions that have been placed before the Supreme Court by Advocate Mpofu on behalf of his clients.

On the premises, Mr. Smith, the Head of the JLI Media Excellence Project, could not resist provoking the binary of Tichaona Mupasiri as the biblical David and Advocate Thabani Mpofu as the biblical Goliath, as a part of the literacy drive that is necessary for inspiring the democratization of solution sources beyond the human beings who when they are loved by the unsuspecting voting public default into little thugs with a propensity to abuse public power for ulterior motives.

He remarked: “This epic battle of ideas between a layperson and a distinguished lawyer helps expose the limitless possibilities that exist in order to see every problem as an opportunity to provoke citizens to know that it is the constitution that imposes obligations on every person – natural and juristic to step up to the plate and hold public power accountable to the legitimate source of public power, the people.

It will be noted that in this fictional Battle of Ideas the question of whether the partisan approach to regard the recall affair and consequential use of public power to prosecute the recall decision, Advocate Mpofu whose approach is an attorney to client-centric and limited to vindicating the rights and freedoms of his clients naturally would be limited to the Court a quo decision that dismissed the application to review and set-aside the recall using the Supreme Court as the logical forum whilst the direct and causal role played by President Mnangagwa, an oath-taking public office bearer, raises its own questions on the legality and constitutional validity of President Mnangagwa’s obligations in terms of s. 2(1), s. 2(2), s. 90(1), and s. 90(2)(c) of the Constitution.”

Mr. Divine Mafa, an American citizen of Zimbabwean descent after reading Advocate Mpofu’s arguments in support of the appeal, asserted that perhaps the agreed strategy to use the constitution that vests the title and jurisdiction with the apex court to hear and determine the complaint that Tshabangu’s conduct is directly and causally related to the conduct of the President to use the public to annihilate his political adversaries through sophisticated and corrupt fraudulent schemes and as such the involvement and knowledge of President Mnangagwa in the recall affair require the scrutiny as prescribed in terms of s. 2(2) that imposes binding obligations on every person to ensure that public power is protected from abusive conduct that is inimical to the rule of law, asked Mupasiri what the implications of the pending appeal on the s. 2(1) as read with s. 167(2)(d) and s. 167(3) and this was Mupasiri said: “Mpofu’s target is Tshabange and the constitution’s number one target is President Mnangagwa who has no discretion but to comply with his oath. In addition, the relief sought in relation to the appeal is partisan and limited to the aggrieved parties in relation to the conduct or misconduct of Tshabangu. I see the clear diversionary tactics inherent in the appeal as it is solely aimed at vilifying Tshabangu as the driving force and mind behind the recall affair whilst hopelessly seeking to credit the inanimate human construct called ZANU-PF that like CCC, only has one person at the top like the Catholic faith and Mugabe for 37 years as a life head.”

Each representing distinct perspectives, the legal minds are embroiled in a struggle that has far-reaching implications for the nation’s democratic processes and rule of law.

The Similarities: A Shared Concern for Democracy

At the heart of this legal dispute lies a shared concern for democracy and the rule of law. Mupasiri and Mpofu, despite their differing approaches, find common ground in challenging the validity and legality of the recalls that have rocked Zimbabwean politics. Both legal minds contend that these recalls strike at the core of democratic principles, threatening the foundations of a system built on the will of the people.

Furthermore, their arguments extend beyond mere disagreement; both are armed with legal frameworks to support their claims. The utilization of legal reasoning becomes a unifying factor as they navigate the intricate web of constitutional provisions and court jurisdictions to bolster their respective positions.

The Differences: Holding the President Accountable vs. Removing a Key Player

While Mupasiri and Mpofu converge on their condemnation of undemocratic recalls, their paths diverge when it comes to holding specific individuals accountable. Mupasiri places the spotlight firmly on President Mnangagwa, contending that he is the driving force behind the alleged abuse of power in the recall affairs. On the contrary, Mpofu directs his focus toward removing Tshabangu from the equation, asserting that Tshabangu lacked the authority to act on behalf of the CCC in triggering the recall.

This dichotomy in approach reflects a fundamental disagreement about where accountability should be placed. Mupasiri insists on holding the highest office in the land accountable, while Mpofu seeks to dismantle the recall operation by implicating a key player—Tshabangu.

The Legal Arsenal: Constitutional Provisions and Court Jurisdictions

As both legal minds engage in this battle of ideas, they draw upon a formidable arsenal of constitutional provisions and court jurisdictions. Mupasiri wields the power of s. 167(2)(d) as read with s. 167(3) of the Constitution, arguing that these provisions grant the apex court exclusive jurisdiction to scrutinize the legality of the President’s conduct in the recall affair. He asserts that any inconsistency with the Constitution renders the entire affair unlawful and invalid.

On the other side of the ring, Mpofu anchors his arguments on the existence of the CCC as a persona separate from Tshabangu. He contends that Tshabangu lacked the authority to trigger the recall on behalf of CCC, highlighting a potential flaw in the procedural aspects of the recalls.

The Battlefield: Constitutional Court vs. Supreme Court

Mupasiri and Mpofu also diverge on the battleground where they seek justice. Mupasiri places his faith in the Constitutional Court, arguing that it holds the title and jurisdiction to determine whether President Mnangagwa’s proclamation aligns with the constitutional principles. In contrast, Mpofu pins his hopes on the Supreme Court, aiming to secure a judgment that vindicates the rights and freedoms of CCC public office bearers without implicating Mnangagwa.

This choice of battlefield underscores the strategic differences in their legal approaches, with Mupasiri seeking to hold the highest office accountable within the specialized arena of the Constitutional Court, while Mpofu opts for a broader stage in the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The Battle Rages On

As the legal minds of Mupasiri and Mpofu clash in this ideological battleground, the nation watches closely. The outcome of this battle will not only shape the fate of the recall affairs but will also set a precedent for how challenges to executive power and political maneuvers are navigated within the legal framework of Zimbabwe.

In this David vs. Goliath struggle, the legal brilliance of Mupasiri faces off against the strategic acumen of Advocate Thabani Mpofu.

The battle is not just about legal technicalities; it is a contest of ideas that will sculpt the future of Zimbabwean democracy and governance. As the legal drama unfolds, only time will reveal which perspective emerges victorious in this pivotal chapter of Zimbabwe’s legal history.