Tachaona Mupasiri vs. Advocate Thabani Mpofu on Constitutional Supremacy and the Recall Affair: JLI-AI Pilot Project Analysis

Introduction:

The ongoing recall affair in Zimbabwe has become a focal point for the Justice Under Rule of Law (JUROL) Leadership Institute’s (JLI) Accelerator Pilot Project.

Collaborating with both natural and artificial intelligence, the project aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional intricacies surrounding the recall and evaluate the appropriateness of the legal forums engaged in its resolution.

Constitutional Illiteracy and the Recall Affair:

A prevalent misunderstanding of Section 2(1) of the Zimbabwean Constitution has come to light through the recall affair.

This constitutional provision establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, rendering any law, practice, custom, or conduct inconsistent with it invalid ab initio.

The widespread misinterpretation is not limited to the public but extends to legal practitioners.

Implications of Constitutional Supremacy:

The handling of the recall affair, specifically utilizing the High Court and Supreme Court, raises questions about the application of constitutional supremacy.

The contention is that matters involving the President, bound by oath to uphold the constitution (Section 90(1) and Section 90(2)(c)), should fall within the exclusive purview of the Constitutional Court, as specified by Section 167(2)(d) and Section 167(3).

Jurisdictional Considerations:

Section 167(2)(d) explicitly designates the Constitutional Court to scrutinize the President’s involvement in the recall affair. The JLI-AI Pilot team argues that the Constitutional Court’s exclusive jurisdiction should have been invoked to assess the validity, legality, and legitimacy of the recall process initiated by Tshabangu and enforced by the President through a public power-driven proclamation.

JLI-AI Pilot Project’s Conclusions:

Analysis by two artificial intelligence platforms concurs that while legal practitioners like Advocate Thabani Mpofu pursuing the matter in the High Court and Supreme Court may fall within the court’s jurisdiction, it is regarded as irresponsible and ill-advised.

The consensus is that, given the nature of the dispute and the involvement of the President, the matter unmistakably falls within the exclusive realm of the Constitutional Court.

Overall Conclusions Regarding Legal Practitioners’ Conduct:

The analysis from both AI platforms underscores the critical role of legal practitioners in upholding the Constitution and promoting fair legal proceedings.

While challenging government actions is essential for safeguarding individual rights and ensuring accountability, legal practitioners must exercise caution and professionalism in their conduct.

Personal attacks and inappropriate forum shopping can undermine the integrity of the legal system and erode public trust in the rule of law.

Recommendations:

1. Enhance Legal Education: Strengthen legal education to ensure a comprehensive understanding of constitutional principles and jurisdictional boundaries.
2. Promote Judicial Cooperation: Foster greater collaboration among different courts to ensure that cases are directed to the appropriate forum.
3. Embrace Artificial Intelligence: Integrate artificial intelligence tools into legal research and analysis to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of legal decision-making.
4. Uphold Constitutional Supremacy: Adhere strictly to the principle of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that all laws, practices, and actions align with the Constitution.

In conclusion, the JLI-AI Pilot Project’s analysis sheds light on the crucial aspect of constitutional supremacy in the recall affair.

 It advocates for a more nuanced understanding of jurisdictional boundaries, emphasizing that disputes involving the President’s actions require the specialized attention of the Constitutional Court.

The ongoing collaboration between natural and artificial intelligence promises a comprehensive and informed approach to legal analysis and decision-making.

If you need the full analysis, please consider being a member of the circle to hold public power to account. Contact: [email protected] for details.