The struggle for democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe
Eddie Cross
This xerert from the Hansard for Tuesday this week is rather long but revealing as it shows how the MDC is fighting back against a regime that is hell bent on destroying what reputation we have left as a stable, law abiding democratic State.
In the recent past, the Chief Justice, a long standing appointment who could be relied upon to rule consistently in favor of the State, retired. Mr. Mugabe wanted a former army officer to take the position but was unable to get his way because our 2013 Constitution gives the right of selection to Parliament and he must then make a decision from a panel submitted to him after public hearings in the matter.
The process clearly identified a respected and senior Judge as the leading candidate and after a lengthy delay while they tried to manipulate the process – he was appointed – but is only 2 years away from retirement. Immediately the Minister of Justice brought to the House of Assembly a bill to amend the Constitution to restore the Presidents sole right to make such appointments. This was the outcome after three attempts to get the required 180+ 1 votes to pass the amendment through the House. A maverick MP – Tembo Mliswa who is an “independent” voted with the Zanu PF Members and although we objected vigorously, because we could not substantiate the numbers, the vote was forced through. Leading Members of the House simply took a list of Zanu PF Members and ticked them off the attendance list.
We did not in fact vote at all – not even a show of hands was allowed and the Chamber was so crowded that a proper count was impossible. So much for democracy.
We pointed out to the Vice President in this process that he was violating the views of the Nation clearly expressed in the Constitutional reform process and referendum, he was violating the key principle of the separation of powers, he was violating the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law and was sending the wrong message to the international Community. He just brushed all our objections aside and refused to change one word in the Bill.
Yesterday a Constitutional lawyer, talking about the preparations for the 2018 elections stated that in his view the whole electoral process was a sham. He stated “it is a show designed to produce a predetermined result and should be rejected by every Zimbabwean”. I could not have said it better myself and the clip at the end of this extract shows what the former Commander of the Zipra armed forces had to say about the role of the military in the process today.
I despair of sanity in this Mental Institution where the inmates seem to be in charge.
Eddie Cross
27th July 2017
How Mugabe was given powers to appoint key judges with MDC kicking and screaming
===================================================================
Zimbabwe’s four-year-old constitution was amended yesterday to give the President powers to appoint three key judges- the chief justice, deputy chief justice and judge president.
But the motion was full of drama.
==========================
First the Movement for Democratic Change, whose numbers have been depleted since the 2013 elections because of the party split and then the MDC-T’s refusal to participate in subsequent by-elections, tried to prevent the amendment from being debated insisting that the House should debate the 2016 budget review which was moved first.
When the motion was finally brought in and the House divided, there was a dispute about the votes with the MDC-T insisting that there were only 173 for the amendment when 180+ were needed.
Even after it was proved that 182 had voted YES against 41 who voted NO, the MDC-T chief whip Innocent Gonese still insisted that the voting was not procedural.
“I want to reiterate and conclude by saying, there was no vote at the end of the day,” he said.
=======================================================================
Here is what transpired in full:
=========================
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. E. MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, Tuesday is Government business day. Item No. 1, Item No. 2 and Item No. 3 are Government business. I am Leader of Government business and I set priority as to what must be debated. I have adjourned Government business on Item No. 1, not closing it but adjourning it so that we dispose of Government business on Item No. 3. I so move.
HON. GONESE: Thank you Mr. Speaker…
=================================
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order! You are the last one to debate the adjournment. – [HON MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I am on the Chair.
======================================================================================
HON. GONESE: I am rising on a matter of privilege Mr. Speaker. In response to what the Hon. Vice President has said which I believe cannot be correct. My take is that the order we are debating is Government business and that is appreciated and there can be no debate about that. The point is that once a debate has commenced, any motion for adjournment is subject to the same rules. – [AN HON. MEMBER: We can divide the House.] – No, we cannot start by dividing because there are members who want to debate.
Mr. Speaker Sir, the point that I am making is procedural. There is a lot of noise…
THE HON. SPEAKER: Just a second Hon. Gonese and please take your seat.
HON. GONESE: Alright.
THE HON. SPEAKER: You may continue.
Continued next page
(220 VIEWS)
Page 2 of 13in |
HON. GONESE: The point I wanted to emphasise is that I have got some difficulty in appreciating the manner in which the Hon. Vice President is approaching this matter. For me, when we are in this august House, we should be governed by rules, processes and more importantly, we should be governed by due process. The fact that something is Government business does not give the Leader of Government business the unfettered discretion to just do as he pleases at any particular point in time.
The procedures in this august House are that when you have asked for debate, the debate must be exhausted. What has been happening is that the Hon. Vice President is not waiting to see whether there are other members who want to debate. We have got members on this side of the House who wanted to debate that adjournment, only for the Vice President to rise on his feet and immediately respond without giving you an opportunity to check whether there are other members. We abide by your ruling that we are only debating the adjournment.
After Hon. Chamisa debated, that debate has not yet been exhausted, only on the adjournment. After Hon. Maridadi, we only have to check whether there are any other members who want to debate that particular point under consideration, and only if there are none, can the Vice President respond. I do not agree that at any moment, the Hon. Vice President can say that because I am the Leader of Government business, I then determine. Once something is under consideration, it is subject to the same rules.
If you want to adjourn a debate, you do not simply come and say no, I am the Leader of Government business and I am stopping this debate. That is why you move a motion. Our rules have made that provision that you move a motion and when you move a motion, whoever is in the Chair asks whether there is any debate on that motion. For that reason Mr. Speaker Sir, as a matter of procedure, let us first of all exhaust the debate and only when we have exhausted the debate on the adjournment, can we then move to the next step.
The Hon. Vice President has jumped the gun by trying to prematurely close the debate. So, I say the debate cannot and must not be prematurely closed. It can only be closed when it has been exhausted. That is my matter of privilege which I have raised Mr. Speaker.
THE HON. SPEAKER: What I noticed is repetition and this House cannot listen to repetition unless you come up with something fresh, I will allow debate, otherwise I shall rule against any further debate on the adjournment.
HON. MLISWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I think this is a time when a voice of reason for an independent thinker should come to fruition. I do understand that the Hon. Vice President wanted the debate adjourned and I think the opposition objected to that, which is equally fair. However, I think we must be progressive too. I wish that we really count the amount of time we are spending in debating this when the outcome is obvious – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – the majority will have their say and the minority will have their own.
Continued next page
(220 VIEWS)
Page 2 of 13«12345...10...»Last »
Page 3 of 13
in |
My appeal is, while the opposition objects, I think it is true that there is a debate and it must be there but no one is saying the debate is not going to continue. The Hon. Vice President is saying the debate will continue, but with due respect, Parliament has been attacking the Executive for not coming. Today they are here – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Mr. Speaker, the debate of the Budget Review is very important and by no way has anybody said it is not important. I think it is about us being progressive so that we do not waste time. Mr. Speaker, ultimately, you are sitting there with all powers invested in you. As the Chair, the Standing Rules and Orders are very clear in terms of the position you must take. As such, I implore you to make a decision so that progress can be made because this is a sheer waste of time. Thank you – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order. This debate may continue ad infinitum. The issue before us is that the first Order has not been concluded, it has merely been stood over and there will be ample time to debate it, which is very important – (An Hon. Member having been speaking whilst the Hon. Speaker was speaking) – I do not want to throw you out Hon. Member please. I respect you and you should respect the Chair. We cannot debate ad infinitum on the question whether we should debate the adjournment or not. So, it is my ruling that I shall put the question and there shall not be any further debate on the adjournment.
HON. GONESE: Divide the House – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.
HON. GONESE: I challenge your ruling Mr. Speaker. If I challenge your ruling, I am entitled…
=======================================================================
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order. We should not play gymnastics here. You want the House to be divided? – [HON. MEMBERS:Yes.] – and the statistics is so clear that in terms of numbers – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – order, order. I am saying that it is unnecessary to divide the House. I will ask us therefore to proceed accordingly.
Motion put and agreed to.
Debate to resume: Wednesday, 26th July, 2017.
THIRD READING
CONSTITUTION OF ZIMBABWE AMENDMENT (NO. 1) BILL [H. B. 1, 2017]
Third Order read: Third Reading: Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.1) Bill [H.B. 1, 2017].
============================================================================
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. E.D. MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I move that the Third Reading of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Bill [H.B. 1, 2017] be read the third time.
Continued next page
(221 VIEWS)
Page 3 of 13«12345...10...»Last »
Page 4 of 13
in |
HON. GONESE: Before you put the question Mr. Speaker, I have a motion – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I have the Standing Orders …
=================================================================================
THE HON. SPEAKER: I am not putting a question.
HON. GONESE: No, before you put the question.
THE HON. SPEAKER: I am not putting any question. Can I hear you? Can you approach the Chair Hon. Gonese?
Hon. Gonese approached the Chair.
HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker Sir, can I just beg your indulgence because there is an important matter which I want to raise.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order, take your seat. This is a Constitutional Bill and we have to go according to the Constitution in terms of Section 328 (5). I shall proceed. Section 328 (5) – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
HON. GONESE: No, no, no. Mr. Speaker, this is improper. Mr. Speaker, this House has Standing Orders – we have our Bible. I have a point which is very valid.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you sit down, can you sit down? Order, order! Standing Orders cannot override constitutional provisions. So, I am proceeding in terms of constitutional provision Section 328 (5) of the Constitution and no Standing Order can override a constitutional provision. Please sit down. Can you please sit down? – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I have ruled. Order, order! Hon. Chief Whip of the opposition, can you listen? You kindly showed me the provision of the Standing Order and I am saying, the section of the Standing Order that you have shown me when I had tete-a-tete with you, does not override the constitutional provisions. – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
MR. GONESE: I have to stand for my rights, I have not made my submission.
=============================================================
THE HON. SPEAKER: I have ruled.
=============================
MR. GONESE: What have you ruled on? I have not made my submission. Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, you can take me to court – yes.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order. I had ruled already after the Hon. Chief Whip showed me the section of the Standing Order – [HON. CHIBAYA: Which section?] – He has it there. Order! I cannot rule against my own ruling – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]
Continued next page
(222 VIEWS)
Page 4 of 13« First«...23456...10...»Last »
Page 5 of 13
in |
HON. GONESE: On a point of privilege. I will try to be as brief as I can. Firstly, Mr Speaker Sir, I want to seek your guidance because I am ready for both. First of all, let me start with the matter of privilege. I will go for my substantive motion in terms of Standing Order 152. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir. I am moving a motion in terms of the provisions of Standing Order 152 (3), which provisions I will just read quickly. “When a Bill has been reported, a Motion maybe moved to recommit the Bill either wholly or in respect only of particular clauses”. In this regard, I am moving that this Bill be recommitted in respect of clause 6, and I will give you the reasons why I am moving that motion.
On the 27th of June 2017, during the debate at the Committee Stage, and I am going to quote the words of the Hon. Vice President, Hon. Mnangagwa, from the official record of the Hansard, “ The appointment of the Chief Justice will be done by the President after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission. It is very clear in the Constitution that for every office that falls vacant, that of the Chief Justice included, there is need to have three nominees for each vacant position. In the case of the Chief Justice, the President has to submit these three nominees to the Judicial Service Commission for the purpose of consulting the Judicial Service Commission in relation to qualifications, probity and integrity. This is then read and recommendations are made to the President. The President has the discretion to select from the three as evaluated by the Judicial Service Commission”. So, these are the critical words on the basis upon which I am moving that the Bill be recommitted to the Committee Stage.
The Hon. Vice President is a legal practitioner of many years standing, and I believe that he could not have made a mistake. What he said reflects the thinking of the Executive that in terms of the consultation that has to take place, the President must give three nominees to the Judicial Services Commission and thereafter, recommendations are made appropriately.
However, when we look at the provisions of the Bill before us, that is not what it said. I do not want to think for one moment that the Hon. Vice President who is a man of integrity wanted to mislead this august House. I do not want to think for one moment that the Hon. Vice President wanted to mislead the Nation of Zimbabwe. So, those are the words which are in black and white. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker Sir, because I believe that this is a man of integrity who is before us, obviously there must be an error on the Bill, because the Bill does not say what he said.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recommit the Bill, so that the Bill reflects the thinking of the Executive as adumbrated by the Hon. Vice President in this august House. This is precisely the reason why I am saying we cannot proceed with the Bill as it stands, because the official record of the Hansard says one thing and that thing is what the Executive intends and we want the Bill to reflect precisely the thinking of the Executive that you must then have three names which are for the purpose of consultation submitted to the Judicial Service Commission. For that reason we cannot remain with a record which is inaccurate, contradicting the words which are in the print.
The only way to regularize and to rectify that anomaly is to recommit the Bill to the Committee Stage so that at that particular point in time, the Hon. Vice President can, it is not me who is going to make the amendments, we want him to make the amendments which are in sync with what he told us unless, God forbid, the Hon. Vice President decided – to mislead this august House, decided to mislead the nation of Zimbabwe, decided – for lack of a better word, to lie to this august House. So, that is the basis upon which I am making this motion that let us proceed in terms of Standing Order 152 – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]-
Continued next page
(223 VIEWS)
Page 5 of 13« First«...34567...10...»Last »
Page 6 of 13
in |
THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Member can you withdraw your statement, ‘lie’.
==========================================================
HON. GONESE: I withdraw. In conclusion, in terms of process I want to make submission that the procedure which I have adopted is, in my respectful submission, correct and I will explain why I think that…
=====================================================================
THE HON. SPEAKER: Again?
HON. GONESE: In conclusion, I submit that the Procedure in terms of stages of Bills for an ordinary Bill and a Constitutional Bill is not different. The only difference comes in that in a Constitutional Bill, there is no reference to the Parliamentary Legal Committee where the amendments are not referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee that in my respectful view is the only point of departure. In terms of stages we have the First Reading on an ordinary Bill and a First Reading on a Constitutional Bill. After the First Reading on an ordinary Bill, it is referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee, whereas on a Constitutional Bill it is not referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee. Similarly, when you have got the Second Reading, after that you go to the Committee Stage in respect of both Bills. After the Committee Stage, you report progress to the House and only if the amendments are referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee and that is the only point of departure.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the processes in relation to those stages of the Bills are the same and I therefore want to submit that the procedures outlined, Standing Order Number 152 (3) are equally applicable to a Constitutional Bill and therefore it means that if there is any anomaly like any other Bill, it can be recommitted, it can be referred back so that connections can be made. I thank you.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Speaker. Your motion does not stand because the issue you raised, though important should have been raised at the appropriate time, at committee stage. There was no due notice during the Committee Stage and therefore and therefore, now we are on the Third Reading and we cannot proceed as suggested – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]- No, I have ruled – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order, we proceed. Section 328 (5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that, “A Constitutional Bill must be passed, at its last reading in the National Assembly and in the Senate, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of each House.”
In order to comply with the provision of Section 328 (5), it is necessary that the number of the affirmative votes cast by members be recorded. I therefore direct that the bells be now rung after which the votes of – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Hon. Members will be counted – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
[Bells rung].
[House divided].
Continued next page
(224 VIEWS)
Page 6 of 13« First«...45678...»Last »
Page 7 of 13
in |
*HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Hon. Speaker, we are grateful that you have managed to divide the House which is not a problem in itself but realising that this is a Constitutional Amendment Bill. It is a Bill – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
THE HON. SPEAKER: Yes, carry on.
==============================
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Thank you Hon. Speaker. I kindly ask that I be protected. I cannot think clearly when there is noise. I thought you were going to bring the House to order Hon. Speaker.
Hon. Speaker, I have indicated that in terms of our Constitution, Section 139, our Standing Rules and Orders are supposed to define how privileges – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Hon. Speaker, I think it is a bit unfair. Members are being allowed to heckle. I have not been able to say what I need to say. So, allow me to be protected Hon. Speaker.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order. Can we hear Hon. Chamisa.
====================================================
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Thank you Hon. Speaker. I said in terms of Section 139 of the Constitution, it is supposed to be very clear in terms of how our privileges are exercised. You are aware that we went to the liberation struggle to fight for the right to vote and not the right to win – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – For that reason, the right to vote is an important right.
What I am submitting Hon. Speaker is that let us allow the secrecy of the vote by Members of Parliament – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – so that we have a secret ballot. There are Members who are intimidated from the other side. They have been complaining to us Hon. Speaker Sir. Voter intimidation cannot be allowed in Parliament. We know that they are being harassed into voting in a particular way. Let us allow the secret ballot and I can assure you that we do not have assisted voters, no secret manipulation. Let us have each and every member voting for themselves, then we will be able to have the vote being done properly.
Hon. Speaker Sir, you are also aware that this is not a frivolous request. In South Africa, the Constitutional Court had to be seized with this matter and it made a ruling that let Parliament define what is in advancement of the interests of individual members. As individual members, we feel that let us vote without fear or favour; without intimidation and let us make arrangements for a secret ballot for this vote because it is an important Bill being a constitutional Bill. Hon. Speaker Sir, I so request.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order. I hear you Hon. Chamisa and in your request you referred to the South African Constitutional Court which decided that the final arbiter is the Speaker. So in this case, I say no secret ballot.
HON. TOFFA: Point of order Mr. Speaker Sir.
THE HON. SPEAKER: I am not accepting an point of order.
HON. TOFFA: There is no gender parity; no women have spoken ever since we started debating Mr. Speaker Sir.
Continued next page
(225 VIEWS)
Page 7 of 13« First«...56789...»Last »
Page 8 of 13
in |
THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Toffa, can you take your seat? – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order! Sit down. Order, the tellers have been counting and we want to hear the numbers. – [AN HON. MEMBER: The correct numbers not just the numbers.]- I will send you outside now and can you be orderly. What number do we have from the Eyes?
HON. MUKWANGWARIWA: We have 187.
THE HON. SPEAKER: And this side?
HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker, I think that procedurally – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]-
THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order!
HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a submission. I believe that the best way procedurally, is not about which side has got more numbers…
THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you make your statement please!
HON. GONESE: I am saying that the position in terms of the constitutional provisions is that the affirmative votes, it does not matter how many votes we have this side. It has to be 180+. So, we have got to verify that first. From our side, those we counted, we came up with about 173. We might have made an error and this is why we need a physical count. We need to have a physical count and confirm the names with the people who are here because we do not know each other.
We have to verify firstly how many people are there because when we counted Mr. Speaker, we came up with a figure which is about 173 which is well short of that number. We may have made an error and we need to verify because this is just to fulfill the constitutional position. We have to comply with our Constitution because some people were seated haphazardly and it was not very easy to verify.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Please state your case?
HON. GONESE: We need to count physically as to how many members there are.
THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your number?
HON. GONESE: It is 173 and that is the number that we have.
THE HON. SPEAKER: From the Nos, what number do you have?
Continued next page
(226 VIEWS)
Page 8 of 13« First«...678910...»Last »
Page 9 of 13
in |
HON. GONESE: The numbers on this side Mr. Speaker are not relevant. We need to verify affirmative votes, handizvo here? The affirmative are the ones which count. Even if there were two people on this side, it does not really matter, what matters are the affirmative votes. That is what matters. So, for me Mr. Speaker, we need to verify that number because even if there were two people or zero people, it would not matter, because what matters is whether there is one third or two thirds which is 180+. So, my view is that we have to confirm the affirmative votes. Are they 180+? If they are not 180+, then that is not correct.
THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your number this side?
HON. GONESE: The number we had for this side is 173.
THE HON. SPEAKER: And what is your number?
http://www.insiderzim.com/how-mugabe-was-given-powers-to-appoint-key-judges-with-mdc-kicking-and-screaming/
================================================================================
SOUTHERN NEWS: Joc running Zim elections: Dabengwa
==============================================
Jeffrey Muvundusi • 26 July 2017 3:25PM • 1 comment
BULAWAYO - The continued involvement of the Joint Operations Command (Joc) in the running of the country’s elections is likely to work against the fight for free, fair and credible polls, Zapu president, Dumiso Dabengwa, warned this week.
The former Zipra intelligence supremo is adamant that Joc has been in charge of the country’s elections since 2008 when Zanu PF lost its majority in Parliament for the first time since independence in 1980.
In that election, MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, won the first round of the presidential poll but could not be declared the winner after his votes fell short of the required threshold.
That election had to be decided through a run-off that saw Tsvangirai pulling out of the race after his supporters and officials became targets of widespread violence.
Over 200 MDC supporters and officials were killed in cold blood.
==================================================
Dabengwa told Southern News this week that the securocrats should have no role in the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec) and that an independent administrative body must run the elections.
“It (Joc) should be dismantled. This country is run by a Joc system where the security makes decisions and makes sure its decisions are implemented,” Dabengwa said.
“The staffing in Zec comprises people who are and have been in security, people who take orders to do those
(vote) manipulations.
==================================================================================
“We also recommend that their influence and participation in elections should be done away with such that we have proper elections that are run by an independent administration,” he added.
Joc is the supreme organ for the coordination of State security in Zimbabwe.
============================================================
It was established by the Rhodesian Security Forces to supervise its counter-insurgency campaign in the Rhodesian Bush War as well as external incursions into neighbouring countries such as Zambia and Mozambique.
It retained its role in the post-independence Zimbabwe.
It comprises heads of the intelligence, police and army.
]==========================================
Dabengwa’s statement comes after he recently called for the postponement of the 2018 elections, saying events on the ground indicated that Zec was not yet ready to conduct a credible election.
Dabengwa also cited the involvement of Joc as one of the reasons why the elections should be postponed.
“It is obvious that Joc is in control of the country. Nothing can be done without reference to that security system that was created since 2008.
=======================================================================================
“After the results of the 2008 election were cleared, it was Joc which said they were not to be announced over a period of time until they were able to manipulate everything and come up with a result that would keep Zanu PF government in power,” he said.
“They (Joc) are physically there. They are deployed each time there are elections. Army commissars go around to influence voting in each constituency.
“Besides that, it is the army, police and other security personnel that actually administer the process of voting.”
===================================================================================