Opinion / Columnist
Tsvangirai a national security threat
10 Jun 2013 at 11:46hrs | Views
IF there is anyone inclined to believe that Morgan Tsvangirai is fit to be elected to the office of the President of Zimbabwe in the forthcoming plebiscite, that belief must have gone up in smoke last week following Tsvangirai's criminal reaction to the Constitutional Court decision that elections should be held by July 31 and his seditious claim that Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa while pushing for so-called media and security sector reforms aimed at undermining Zimbabwe's sovereignty and constitutionalism.
It should go without saying that the most basic requirement and fundamental fitness for anybody seeking the highest office of the land is the unqualified and unapologetic affirmation and defence of Zimbabwe's Constitution, sovereignty and territorial integrity at all times and in all situations.
Nobody should even try to be president of this country without respecting the fact that its hard won independence and sovereignty came at the heroic and selfless price paid by the fallen sons and daughters of the revolution during the Second Chimurenga.
Yet Morgan, "Boycott - Open Zip - Open Mouth - Shut Mind", Tsvangirai has distinguished himself by coming out in flying colours in repudiation and rejection of Zimbabwe's sovereignty.
Speaking at an NGO meeting in Bulawayo last Friday, Tsvangirai said that "contrary to certain opinions I have seen in the media about sovereignty, we surrendered part of our sovereignty when we allowed South Africa to be facilitator".
Zimbabweans at home and the Diaspora have been shocked by this patently criminal claim not only because it is coming from a Tsvangirai who is the country's Prime Minister and has taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of Zimbabwe and to defend the country's national and security interests but also because Tsvangirai wants Zimbabweans to elevate him to the highest office of the land at the forthcoming polls which are now definitely due by July 31 as per the recent Constitutional Court judgment to that effect.
In any other constitutional democracy, Tsvangirai's claim that Zimbabwe has "surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa" would invariably invite the attention and legal scrutiny of law enforcement authorities in view of the fact that the scandalous claim has obvious national security implications.
Tsvangirai must tell Zimbabweans where and when their country sold its soul out and surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa and in terms of what national or international law. This is a very serious matter which must not be allowed to disappear into the thin air of electoral politics.
Tsvangirai has some explanation to do and he must be held to account without fear or favour in terms of the Constitution and laws of the land.
In the meantime, it is quite clear that Tsvangirai's criminal claim that Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa explains his criminal reaction to the Constitutional Court judgment that the next harmonised general elections should be held by July 31.
When the judgement was made on May 31, Tsvangirai rushed into issuing a pathetic Press statement on the same day claiming that "... today's ruling by the Supreme Court (sic.) setting an election date is evidence that the court has overstepped its mandate".
It is now clear that Tsvangirai is of the seditious view that the constitutional mandate to interpret the law on when elections in Zimbabwe should be held is not with the Constitutional Court but is with South Africa to which Zimbabwe "has surrendered part of its sovereignty".
This is because Tsvangirai, his MDC T and their media mouthpieces have come out clearly declaring that the timing or date of the next elections should be decided by Sadc through South Africa as the Sadc facilitator of the regional body's mediation in Zimbabwe.
To this end Tsvangirai or rather his regime-change sponsors who have imposed illegal and evil economic sanctions against Zimbabwe manipulatively used a hurriedly choreographed photo opportunity with publicity-desperate leaders from Dumiso Dabengwa's Zapu, Simba Makoni's MKD, Welshman Ncube's MDC and Zanu Ndonga to issue a
Press statement on Wednesday June 5 whose essence was to follow Tsvangirai's denigration and rejection of Zimbabwe's sovereignty and Constitution.
Paragraph 6 of the Press statement declared that, "the leaders (of the five political parties) expressed reservations about the practicality of the 31st deadline set by the court and resolved that they will communicate their position to Sadc. The parties, therefore, look forward to the extra ordinary Sadc summit to affirm previous Sadc resolutions and the agreed roadmap to elections".
In a nutshell Tsvangirai sought to use the desperation of the four other parties to put South Africa to which he says Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty -- under the cover of Sadc -- above Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court.
Put differently, Tsvangirai treacherously believes that the date of Zimbabwe's election must be decided by South Africa in the name of Sadc. This is why Tsvangirai is desperate for a Sadc summit which he seditiously thinks will use Zimbabwe's sovereignty which was allegedly surrendered to South Africa to reverse the Constitutional Court decision that elections should be held by July 31.
That is how hopelessly mad Tsvangirai is. Even Moise Tshombe who must be turning with envy in his grave was not like this. Tsvangirai is one of a kind in the Hall of Fame of sellouts.
It is no wonder that following his June 5 Press statement which sought to put South Africa through Sadc above the Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court, Tsvangirai claimed in Bulawayo the next day that, "President Mugabe says he is going to comply with the (Constitutional) court ruling but it is not practical if the outcome is not going to be contested . . . we might consider boycotting in the absence of media and security sector reforms. We can only have a free and fair credible election by end of October not within six weeks".
There are three telling pointers from this which highlight Tsvangirai's seditious disposition. In the first place, Tsvangirai exposes his charade about the rule of law and the fact that he does not believe in it at all by illegally demanding that President Mugabe must not comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.
Disrespecting and not complying with court decision is the antithesis of the rule of law. It remains to be seen which if any Sadc leader will side with Tsvangirai on this fundamental issue.
Tsvangirai's unlawful demand that President Mugabe must not comply with the order of the Constitutional Court created by the new Constitution exposes the fake claim that he or his MDC T had anything to do with the progressive clauses of Zimbabwe's new fundamental law.
In the second place, Tsvangirai pontificates that his MDC T will consider boycotting the forthcoming elections "in the absence of media and security sector reforms" and yet also says "we can only have a free and fair credible election by end of October not within six weeks" without saying what will bring his so-called reforms in October and not in six weeks. Indeed, Tsvangirai does not say why what has not been done in four years will be done in four months.
Again, Tsvangirai's real intention is too obvious for anyone to see. He is treacherously hoping that South Africa -- to which he says Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty -- will declare that elections in Zimbabwe must be in October and that the rest of Sadc and Zimbabwe itself will just go along with that nonsense despite a very clear and binding decision by the country's Constitutional Court that elections must be held by July 31.
Even more sinister, Tsvangirai hopes that by October the economic situation in Zimbabwe will have deteriorated against the background of the biting effects of the drought with the consequence of creating a manifesto for his MDC T which only thrives when Zimbabwe is going through hardships.
The fact that Zimbabwe's Constitution requires holding elections after the expiry of the full term of office for the President, Parliament and local authorities on June 29 is not an issue for Tsvangirai because he does not believe in the rule of law but believes that Zimbabwe should be arbitrarily ruled by South Africa through Sadc.
In the third place, Tsvangirai's threat that his MDC T might "consider boycotting (the forthcoming elections) in the absence of media and security sector reforms" is hollow not only because his threat is an admission of failure after spending four years in government indulging in sexual escapades for his own pleasure without attending to public policy through the failed Council of Ministers which he chairs but also because the fact is that media and so-called security sector reforms have been addressed in the new
Constitution whose contents Tsvangirai apparently does not know.
As regards the public media, section 61(4) (a) of the new Constitution provides that "All State-owned media of communication must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications".
The only State-owned media of communication in Zimbabwe are ZBC and New Ziana none of which receive state funding. The new Constitution is clear that these media "must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications".
Tsvangirai's threatened reforms are, therefore, clearly unconstitutional in terms of the new Constitution more so give the fact that section 61(3)(b) of the new Constitution stipulates that "Broadcasting and other electronic media of communication have freedom of establishment, subject only to State licensing procedures that are independent of control by government or by political or commercial interest".
There is nothing that the government, political or commercial interests can now do to reform the media in the way demanded by Tsvangirai without offending against the new Constitution. In other words, the Sadc mediated media reforms are plainly now unconstitutional.
On the so-called security sector reforms which are not mentioned anywhere in the GPA, section 212 of new Constitution is clear that "the functions of the Defence Forces is to protect Zimbabwe, its people, its national security and interests and its territorial integrity".
This is the overriding and very broad function of the Defence Forces that have been targeted by Tsvangirai's calls for security sector reform. Nobody should doubt in their mind that Tsvangirai's seditious claim that "Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa" renders his call to reform the security sector a national security threat in terms of section 212 of the new Constitution.
The rest is history.
-----------------------
Professor Jonathan Moyo is a political scientist, Zanu-PF Politburo member and legislator for Tsholotsho North constituency.
It should go without saying that the most basic requirement and fundamental fitness for anybody seeking the highest office of the land is the unqualified and unapologetic affirmation and defence of Zimbabwe's Constitution, sovereignty and territorial integrity at all times and in all situations.
Nobody should even try to be president of this country without respecting the fact that its hard won independence and sovereignty came at the heroic and selfless price paid by the fallen sons and daughters of the revolution during the Second Chimurenga.
Yet Morgan, "Boycott - Open Zip - Open Mouth - Shut Mind", Tsvangirai has distinguished himself by coming out in flying colours in repudiation and rejection of Zimbabwe's sovereignty.
Speaking at an NGO meeting in Bulawayo last Friday, Tsvangirai said that "contrary to certain opinions I have seen in the media about sovereignty, we surrendered part of our sovereignty when we allowed South Africa to be facilitator".
Zimbabweans at home and the Diaspora have been shocked by this patently criminal claim not only because it is coming from a Tsvangirai who is the country's Prime Minister and has taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of Zimbabwe and to defend the country's national and security interests but also because Tsvangirai wants Zimbabweans to elevate him to the highest office of the land at the forthcoming polls which are now definitely due by July 31 as per the recent Constitutional Court judgment to that effect.
In any other constitutional democracy, Tsvangirai's claim that Zimbabwe has "surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa" would invariably invite the attention and legal scrutiny of law enforcement authorities in view of the fact that the scandalous claim has obvious national security implications.
Tsvangirai must tell Zimbabweans where and when their country sold its soul out and surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa and in terms of what national or international law. This is a very serious matter which must not be allowed to disappear into the thin air of electoral politics.
Tsvangirai has some explanation to do and he must be held to account without fear or favour in terms of the Constitution and laws of the land.
In the meantime, it is quite clear that Tsvangirai's criminal claim that Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa explains his criminal reaction to the Constitutional Court judgment that the next harmonised general elections should be held by July 31.
When the judgement was made on May 31, Tsvangirai rushed into issuing a pathetic Press statement on the same day claiming that "... today's ruling by the Supreme Court (sic.) setting an election date is evidence that the court has overstepped its mandate".
It is now clear that Tsvangirai is of the seditious view that the constitutional mandate to interpret the law on when elections in Zimbabwe should be held is not with the Constitutional Court but is with South Africa to which Zimbabwe "has surrendered part of its sovereignty".
This is because Tsvangirai, his MDC T and their media mouthpieces have come out clearly declaring that the timing or date of the next elections should be decided by Sadc through South Africa as the Sadc facilitator of the regional body's mediation in Zimbabwe.
To this end Tsvangirai or rather his regime-change sponsors who have imposed illegal and evil economic sanctions against Zimbabwe manipulatively used a hurriedly choreographed photo opportunity with publicity-desperate leaders from Dumiso Dabengwa's Zapu, Simba Makoni's MKD, Welshman Ncube's MDC and Zanu Ndonga to issue a
Press statement on Wednesday June 5 whose essence was to follow Tsvangirai's denigration and rejection of Zimbabwe's sovereignty and Constitution.
Paragraph 6 of the Press statement declared that, "the leaders (of the five political parties) expressed reservations about the practicality of the 31st deadline set by the court and resolved that they will communicate their position to Sadc. The parties, therefore, look forward to the extra ordinary Sadc summit to affirm previous Sadc resolutions and the agreed roadmap to elections".
In a nutshell Tsvangirai sought to use the desperation of the four other parties to put South Africa to which he says Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty -- under the cover of Sadc -- above Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court.
Put differently, Tsvangirai treacherously believes that the date of Zimbabwe's election must be decided by South Africa in the name of Sadc. This is why Tsvangirai is desperate for a Sadc summit which he seditiously thinks will use Zimbabwe's sovereignty which was allegedly surrendered to South Africa to reverse the Constitutional Court decision that elections should be held by July 31.
It is no wonder that following his June 5 Press statement which sought to put South Africa through Sadc above the Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court, Tsvangirai claimed in Bulawayo the next day that, "President Mugabe says he is going to comply with the (Constitutional) court ruling but it is not practical if the outcome is not going to be contested . . . we might consider boycotting in the absence of media and security sector reforms. We can only have a free and fair credible election by end of October not within six weeks".
There are three telling pointers from this which highlight Tsvangirai's seditious disposition. In the first place, Tsvangirai exposes his charade about the rule of law and the fact that he does not believe in it at all by illegally demanding that President Mugabe must not comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.
Disrespecting and not complying with court decision is the antithesis of the rule of law. It remains to be seen which if any Sadc leader will side with Tsvangirai on this fundamental issue.
Tsvangirai's unlawful demand that President Mugabe must not comply with the order of the Constitutional Court created by the new Constitution exposes the fake claim that he or his MDC T had anything to do with the progressive clauses of Zimbabwe's new fundamental law.
In the second place, Tsvangirai pontificates that his MDC T will consider boycotting the forthcoming elections "in the absence of media and security sector reforms" and yet also says "we can only have a free and fair credible election by end of October not within six weeks" without saying what will bring his so-called reforms in October and not in six weeks. Indeed, Tsvangirai does not say why what has not been done in four years will be done in four months.
Again, Tsvangirai's real intention is too obvious for anyone to see. He is treacherously hoping that South Africa -- to which he says Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty -- will declare that elections in Zimbabwe must be in October and that the rest of Sadc and Zimbabwe itself will just go along with that nonsense despite a very clear and binding decision by the country's Constitutional Court that elections must be held by July 31.
Even more sinister, Tsvangirai hopes that by October the economic situation in Zimbabwe will have deteriorated against the background of the biting effects of the drought with the consequence of creating a manifesto for his MDC T which only thrives when Zimbabwe is going through hardships.
The fact that Zimbabwe's Constitution requires holding elections after the expiry of the full term of office for the President, Parliament and local authorities on June 29 is not an issue for Tsvangirai because he does not believe in the rule of law but believes that Zimbabwe should be arbitrarily ruled by South Africa through Sadc.
In the third place, Tsvangirai's threat that his MDC T might "consider boycotting (the forthcoming elections) in the absence of media and security sector reforms" is hollow not only because his threat is an admission of failure after spending four years in government indulging in sexual escapades for his own pleasure without attending to public policy through the failed Council of Ministers which he chairs but also because the fact is that media and so-called security sector reforms have been addressed in the new
Constitution whose contents Tsvangirai apparently does not know.
As regards the public media, section 61(4) (a) of the new Constitution provides that "All State-owned media of communication must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications".
The only State-owned media of communication in Zimbabwe are ZBC and New Ziana none of which receive state funding. The new Constitution is clear that these media "must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications".
Tsvangirai's threatened reforms are, therefore, clearly unconstitutional in terms of the new Constitution more so give the fact that section 61(3)(b) of the new Constitution stipulates that "Broadcasting and other electronic media of communication have freedom of establishment, subject only to State licensing procedures that are independent of control by government or by political or commercial interest".
There is nothing that the government, political or commercial interests can now do to reform the media in the way demanded by Tsvangirai without offending against the new Constitution. In other words, the Sadc mediated media reforms are plainly now unconstitutional.
On the so-called security sector reforms which are not mentioned anywhere in the GPA, section 212 of new Constitution is clear that "the functions of the Defence Forces is to protect Zimbabwe, its people, its national security and interests and its territorial integrity".
This is the overriding and very broad function of the Defence Forces that have been targeted by Tsvangirai's calls for security sector reform. Nobody should doubt in their mind that Tsvangirai's seditious claim that "Zimbabwe has surrendered part of its sovereignty to South Africa" renders his call to reform the security sector a national security threat in terms of section 212 of the new Constitution.
The rest is history.
-----------------------
Professor Jonathan Moyo is a political scientist, Zanu-PF Politburo member and legislator for Tsholotsho North constituency.
Source - zimpapers
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
