News / Local
Nomination fees divide Zimbabwe Parliament
16 Jun 2023 at 02:57hrs | Views
PARLIAMENT has been torn apart after its Legal Committee issued a non-adverse report, effectively endorsing the exorbitant nomination fees set by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission for candidates wishing to participate in the August 23 presidential, parliamentary and council polls.
Zanu-PF Members of Parliament sided with the Legal Committee, while the opposition composed mainly of Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) legislators reacted angrily to the committee's conclusion.
The nomination court sits at various centres across the country next Wednesday.
Opposition CCC legislators yesterday reacted angrily to the report released two days ago saying its release violated parliamentary procedure and favoured Zanu-PF.
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) recently ordered Parliament to review the fees gazetted in Statutory Instrument (SI) 144 of 2022, which drastically increased the nomination fees for candidates seeking to run for public office in the August 23 elections.
The ConCourt bench, led by Deputy Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza, ruled that Parliament had breached the Constitution by not considering whether the SI was in contravention of the supreme law or not before passing it and ordered Parliament to have reviewed the SI by today.
The ruling came after leader of the Nationalists Alliance Party, Devine Mhambi Hove, filed an application at the court arguing that Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to consider whether or not the SI was in contravention of the Constitution.
However, the Parliamentary Legal Committee issued a non-adverse report on the SI, thereby endorsing the nomination fees for presidential and parliamentary candidates at US$20 000 and US$1 000, respectively.
Mutare Central legislator Innocent Gonese (CCC) yesterday argued that Parliament tabled the report before it was adopted, hence it was unprocedural.
"This is a travesty, both on procedural and substantive grounds. The Constitutional Court referred the matter back to Parliament and this is a fundamental and critical issue and circumstances required the whole House to be involved.
"The Parliamentary Legal Committee, by a majority decision of three to two, issued a non-adverse report, but this was not tabled and debated in Parliament," he said.
"There has been a practice in terms of which non-adverse reports are not debated, but the Constitution provides for the tabling of reports and it was wrong for the presiding officers to be pedantic and refer to processes which are not in sync with democratic practices."
Gonese further argued that legislators and all Zimbabweans needed to know the reasons which informed the Parliamentary Legal Committee's majority decision.
He added that the committee was dominated by Zanu-PF MPs, who decided that the SI was constitutional.
"The court on its part shied away from making a definitive determination that the exorbitant fees violate the political rights of the citizens and referring the matter back to Parliament was a process of avoidance," Gonese said.
Binga legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda (CCC) concurred with Gonese, arguing that five MPs could not bind the whole House.
"The five members were simply delegated a duty to scrutinise. After scrutinising that statutory instrument, this House is empowered to demand that that non-adverse report be presented here," he said.
"Why? Because the public is watching, they want to know why this committee concluded that the fees that were gazetted are alright.
"This is the only way the public can get access to that. Remember this House is enjoined to be as transparent as possible in conducting its business."
Sibanda accused the committee members of smuggling the report through Parliament.
"Nobody in this House, nobody outside knows the reason, the justification behind the finding of that committee. As a result, it is in the public interest, and as we demand, we hereby do as a House that let the report be tabled," he said.
Sibanda said once that report was tabled, Parliament would know if members agree with the committee's findings.
Zanu-PF chief whip Pupurai Togarepi, however, defended the non-adverse report saying it fulfilled the parliamentary process of analysing SIs.
"Zanu-PF, like other political parties, is represented in the Parliamentary Legal Committee, which is responsible for the analysis of legal issues in Parliament. It, therefore, follows that Parliament is bound by the non-adverse report and we support it," he said.
Zimbabwe's path to the August 23 harmonised elections is fraught with controversy, heightening fears of yet another disputed poll.
The opposition MDC has already tried to stop the polls through the courts, but without success.
Zanu-PF Members of Parliament sided with the Legal Committee, while the opposition composed mainly of Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) legislators reacted angrily to the committee's conclusion.
The nomination court sits at various centres across the country next Wednesday.
Opposition CCC legislators yesterday reacted angrily to the report released two days ago saying its release violated parliamentary procedure and favoured Zanu-PF.
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) recently ordered Parliament to review the fees gazetted in Statutory Instrument (SI) 144 of 2022, which drastically increased the nomination fees for candidates seeking to run for public office in the August 23 elections.
The ConCourt bench, led by Deputy Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza, ruled that Parliament had breached the Constitution by not considering whether the SI was in contravention of the supreme law or not before passing it and ordered Parliament to have reviewed the SI by today.
The ruling came after leader of the Nationalists Alliance Party, Devine Mhambi Hove, filed an application at the court arguing that Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to consider whether or not the SI was in contravention of the Constitution.
However, the Parliamentary Legal Committee issued a non-adverse report on the SI, thereby endorsing the nomination fees for presidential and parliamentary candidates at US$20 000 and US$1 000, respectively.
Mutare Central legislator Innocent Gonese (CCC) yesterday argued that Parliament tabled the report before it was adopted, hence it was unprocedural.
"This is a travesty, both on procedural and substantive grounds. The Constitutional Court referred the matter back to Parliament and this is a fundamental and critical issue and circumstances required the whole House to be involved.
"The Parliamentary Legal Committee, by a majority decision of three to two, issued a non-adverse report, but this was not tabled and debated in Parliament," he said.
"There has been a practice in terms of which non-adverse reports are not debated, but the Constitution provides for the tabling of reports and it was wrong for the presiding officers to be pedantic and refer to processes which are not in sync with democratic practices."
Gonese further argued that legislators and all Zimbabweans needed to know the reasons which informed the Parliamentary Legal Committee's majority decision.
"The court on its part shied away from making a definitive determination that the exorbitant fees violate the political rights of the citizens and referring the matter back to Parliament was a process of avoidance," Gonese said.
Binga legislator Prince Dubeko Sibanda (CCC) concurred with Gonese, arguing that five MPs could not bind the whole House.
"The five members were simply delegated a duty to scrutinise. After scrutinising that statutory instrument, this House is empowered to demand that that non-adverse report be presented here," he said.
"Why? Because the public is watching, they want to know why this committee concluded that the fees that were gazetted are alright.
"This is the only way the public can get access to that. Remember this House is enjoined to be as transparent as possible in conducting its business."
Sibanda accused the committee members of smuggling the report through Parliament.
"Nobody in this House, nobody outside knows the reason, the justification behind the finding of that committee. As a result, it is in the public interest, and as we demand, we hereby do as a House that let the report be tabled," he said.
Sibanda said once that report was tabled, Parliament would know if members agree with the committee's findings.
Zanu-PF chief whip Pupurai Togarepi, however, defended the non-adverse report saying it fulfilled the parliamentary process of analysing SIs.
"Zanu-PF, like other political parties, is represented in the Parliamentary Legal Committee, which is responsible for the analysis of legal issues in Parliament. It, therefore, follows that Parliament is bound by the non-adverse report and we support it," he said.
Zimbabwe's path to the August 23 harmonised elections is fraught with controversy, heightening fears of yet another disputed poll.
The opposition MDC has already tried to stop the polls through the courts, but without success.
Source - Newsday
