PART 3 – MNANGAGWA V THE RULE OF LAW

Title: The Toxicity of a Broken Governance Order: Constitutional Court’s Role in Question

Introduction:

In a country striving for democracy and the rule of law, the role of the Constitutional Court holds immense significance. It is an institution tasked with the responsibility of upholding the principles enshrined in the constitution and ensuring that those in power are held accountable for their actions. However, a recent affidavit has shed light on concerning allegations that point to a broken governance order in which the Constitutional Court’s integrity and independence are called into question. This article aims to raise awareness of the toxicity inherent in such a system and the potential implications it has on the rule of law.

The Affidavit’s Allegations:

The affidavit, filed by Mutumwa Mawere, presents a series of serious allegations regarding President Mnangagwa’s conduct and the response of the Constitutional Court. One key issue raised is the failure to serve the Mupasiri application on the respondent, who occupies a significant position within the government. This failure raises concerns about procedural irregularities and the impact it may have on the validity of the proceedings.

Additionally, the affidavit raises doubts about the impartiality and independence of the Constitutional Court. The involvement of DMH Attorneys, allegedly without the knowledge and involvement of the Attorney General, raises questions about potential bias and whether the court is truly acting independently. These allegations undermine public confidence in the court’s ability to deliver fair and impartial judgments.

The affidavit also challenges the validity and legality of the Reconstruction Act, which the court is called upon to assess. It alleges that the Act is based on false premises, inconsistent with the constitution, and amounts to state capture. These claims highlight the need for a thorough examination of the Act’s compatibility with constitutional rights and principles to ensure its validity.

Implications for the Rule of Law:

The urgency of the matter and its potential implications for the rule of law cannot be overstated. The Constitutional Court, as the apex court with exclusive jurisdiction, has the responsibility to hold the President accountable for any conduct that violates constitutional principles. However, the affidavit suggests a lack of action and accountability in addressing these alleged violations.

A broken governance order, in which the Constitutional Court fails to fulfill its obligations, undermines the foundation of democracy and the rule of law. It erodes public trust in the judiciary and gives rise to a culture of impunity, where those in power can act without fear of consequence. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future, signaling that the rule of law can be disregarded and manipulated for personal or political gain.

Raising Awareness:

The issues presented in the affidavit highlight the urgent need to raise awareness of the challenges faced by the Constitutional Court and the potential consequences of a broken governance order. By shedding light on these concerns, society can engage in informed discussions, demand accountability, and work towards safeguarding the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Conclusion:

The allegations raised in the affidavit paint a concerning picture of a broken governance order and raise questions about the Constitutional Court’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate. It is essential for citizens, civil society organizations, and the international community to pay attention to these issues, as they have far-reaching implications for the rule of law and democracy. By addressing the toxicity inherent in this broken governance order, steps can be taken to restore public confidence in the judiciary and ensure that no one is above the law.