News / National
Prof Madhuku urges parties to approach court over Bill
26 Mar 2013 at 06:04hrs | Views
Disagreements on how to deal with a private member's Bill introduced by Mutare House of Assembly Member Mr Innocent Gonese to amend the Public Order and Security Act can only be resolved by a court of law, a constitutional expert has said.
University of Zimbabwe chairperson for Public Law, Professor Lovemore Madhuku said there was a need for parties to approach the High Court for a declaratory order.
This followed varied interpretation on how to deal with a decision by Senate as it rejected a motion by Mr Gonese to restore the Bill on the Order Paper for debate.
Mr Gonese, Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust executive director, Mr John Makamure and Veritas had argued that a disagreement had arisen between the Houses warranting the transmission of the Bill to the President for his assent.
Clerk of Parliament Mr Austin Zvoma differed with that view, saying no disagreement had arisen between the two Houses as envisaged by the Constitution.
Mr Zvoma argued that Senate had not rejected a Bill that had been passed by the House of Assembly but had merely refused to accept a motion and to restore it after it was superseded by the prorogation of a Parliamentary session.
Prof Madhuku said both arguments appeared plausible. "Both interpretations have some sense, they are reasonable. In that case you would need the court to make a declaratory order.
The Constitution does not necessarily talk of a disagreement but rejection of a Bill by Senate. You would then need a competent court to decide what constitutes a rejection and what its net effect is," said Prof Madhuku.
"It is a case that has never been decided before for there to be a precedent."
Mr Gonese appeared to be taking a cautious approach saying, "We expect the Clerk to advise the Presidential officers and a determination would then be made, it is from that premise that we will take the matter. My opinion or reading of the law is not relevant at the moment."
University of Zimbabwe chairperson for Public Law, Professor Lovemore Madhuku said there was a need for parties to approach the High Court for a declaratory order.
This followed varied interpretation on how to deal with a decision by Senate as it rejected a motion by Mr Gonese to restore the Bill on the Order Paper for debate.
Mr Gonese, Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust executive director, Mr John Makamure and Veritas had argued that a disagreement had arisen between the Houses warranting the transmission of the Bill to the President for his assent.
Clerk of Parliament Mr Austin Zvoma differed with that view, saying no disagreement had arisen between the two Houses as envisaged by the Constitution.
Mr Zvoma argued that Senate had not rejected a Bill that had been passed by the House of Assembly but had merely refused to accept a motion and to restore it after it was superseded by the prorogation of a Parliamentary session.
Prof Madhuku said both arguments appeared plausible. "Both interpretations have some sense, they are reasonable. In that case you would need the court to make a declaratory order.
The Constitution does not necessarily talk of a disagreement but rejection of a Bill by Senate. You would then need a competent court to decide what constitutes a rejection and what its net effect is," said Prof Madhuku.
"It is a case that has never been decided before for there to be a precedent."
Mr Gonese appeared to be taking a cautious approach saying, "We expect the Clerk to advise the Presidential officers and a determination would then be made, it is from that premise that we will take the matter. My opinion or reading of the law is not relevant at the moment."
Source - TH
