Connect with us



Peter Smith




Notwithstanding the reality that more than 48 000 have associated themselves with a petition calling on Zimbabwe’s first citizen, President Mnangagwa to live up to his constitutional obligations as a custodian of the rule of law, it was sad to see President Ramaphosa squander the time with Biden to expose his oblivion on this litmus test for SADC leaders.

The petition seeks that sanctions against perceived enemies of Mnangagwa be lifted and the promise entrenched in the constitution that no person is above the law be delivered.

President Mnangagwa occupies a position of public trust and as such he is public property yet his refusal and failure to take notice of the unacceptable use of public power to divest and deprive persons of their rights and freedoms without any SADC head of state and government displaying any distaste for this kind of thuggish and unaccountable conduct.

President Mnangagwa took an oath of office to uphold, defend, obey and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of Zimbabwe per s90 of the Constitution yet is is obsessed to bring billionaires through the agency of Prof Mthuli Ncube.

One wonders why the Chairman of CBZ, an American, would fail to sign this petition if he understood that absent the rule of law, there is no wealth.

One African remarked pointily that the difference between poverty and wealth is the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court in terms of s167 has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the President’s refusal to take notice of the petition constitutes conduct that is in breach of his oath.

A person like Professor Mupasiri who launched an application to impeach the President who refused and failed to give an account of his state of knowledge and involvement in the decimation of juristic entities using his running dogs like Manikai has been protected by the apex court resulting in Patel JCC reprimanding him for saying that no independent and impartial judiciary would openly acquiesce to a President who believes that he is untouchable.

I would recommend that the petitioners take a leaf from the experiences of a reluctant self-actor who has exposed the complicity of the Malaba-led court in undermining the rule of law in a fact-based manner.

One of the jokes making the rounds is that Mupasiri issued an application citing President Mnangagwa as a Respondent. He included Manikai as the Second Respondent.

He was able to serve the application only on Manikai but surprisingly President Mnangagwa who was not served with the application opposed the application leading Mupasiri to launch an interlocutory application seeking the President to account for how he opposed an application that was not served on him.

When the President’s unconstitutional conduct in dealing with this matter, a nameless and faceless judge intervened by issuing directives exempting the President from giving the court his own account under oath of how the AG was circumvented and how DMH ended up defending the President in a matter involving his oath of office.

If SADC knew that the promise of the doctrines of equality and separation of powers is a pipe dream, joining the anti-sanctions chorus goes a long way towards exposing the hypocrisy of this regional body.

By the way what happened to the SADC Tribunal? The Sikhala affair is not about the person of Sikhala but is about raising awareness that no one is safe when public power and institutions are used as weapons to entrench this borrowed power to benefit billionaires and create a façade of what businessman Hersov calls incompetent and corrupt cabal.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply