News / National
Madhuku appeals UZ interview failure
22 Mar 2018 at 06:08hrs | Views
UNIVERSITY of Zimbabwe (UZ) constitutional law lecturer and opposition politician, Lovemore Madhuku, has challenged the decision to deny him the post of dean of the faculty of law at the institution.
The National Constitutional Assembly leader last week wrote to UZ registrar Noah Mutongoreni, demanding reasons for his failure to be appointed, arguing the person who succeeded did not meet the requirements of the job as advertised.
"Thank you for your letter dated March 7, 2018, informing me that my above application was not successful. I have since become aware that Dr Innocent Maja's application was successful.
"I, hereby, advise that the decision communicated in your aforesaid letter adversely affects my interests and legitimate expectations. For the avoidance of doubt, my legitimate expectation when I applied and participated in the interview was to succeed if, on a reasonable consideration, (that) I met the requirements as stated in ordinance 44 and captured in the advertisement and no other candidate had a better claim," Madhuku said.
Madhuku argues that the Constitution confers on him the right to be furnished with reasons for his failure in terms of section 3(1) (c) of the Administrative Justice Act (Chapter 10:28) as read with section 68 of the Constitution in order for him to ascertain whether the UZ acted "lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner".
The letter goes on to list Madhuku's qualifications juxtaposed with the requirements of the job for which he applied.
"I meet the requirements stated in ordinance 44 and captured in the advertisement (that includes) earned doctorate. I obtained my PhD in March 1999 from the University of Cambridge, England. Eminent senior academic, this requirement is in section 3(2) of ordinance 44. I have been a full professor since 2011. Properly construed, only an associate or full professor meets this criterion," he said.
Madhuku then pokes holes into Maja's suitability for the job, arguing that while he had an earned doctorate degree, he falls short on the other requirements.
"Thus, a person without an earned doctorate could not qualify even if they had an excellent vision," the letter said, adding by virtue of the fact that Maja is not a professor, therefore, he cannot be described as an "eminent academic".
The National Constitutional Assembly leader last week wrote to UZ registrar Noah Mutongoreni, demanding reasons for his failure to be appointed, arguing the person who succeeded did not meet the requirements of the job as advertised.
"Thank you for your letter dated March 7, 2018, informing me that my above application was not successful. I have since become aware that Dr Innocent Maja's application was successful.
"I, hereby, advise that the decision communicated in your aforesaid letter adversely affects my interests and legitimate expectations. For the avoidance of doubt, my legitimate expectation when I applied and participated in the interview was to succeed if, on a reasonable consideration, (that) I met the requirements as stated in ordinance 44 and captured in the advertisement and no other candidate had a better claim," Madhuku said.
Madhuku argues that the Constitution confers on him the right to be furnished with reasons for his failure in terms of section 3(1) (c) of the Administrative Justice Act (Chapter 10:28) as read with section 68 of the Constitution in order for him to ascertain whether the UZ acted "lawfully, reasonably and in a fair manner".
The letter goes on to list Madhuku's qualifications juxtaposed with the requirements of the job for which he applied.
"I meet the requirements stated in ordinance 44 and captured in the advertisement (that includes) earned doctorate. I obtained my PhD in March 1999 from the University of Cambridge, England. Eminent senior academic, this requirement is in section 3(2) of ordinance 44. I have been a full professor since 2011. Properly construed, only an associate or full professor meets this criterion," he said.
Madhuku then pokes holes into Maja's suitability for the job, arguing that while he had an earned doctorate degree, he falls short on the other requirements.
"Thus, a person without an earned doctorate could not qualify even if they had an excellent vision," the letter said, adding by virtue of the fact that Maja is not a professor, therefore, he cannot be described as an "eminent academic".
Source - newsday
