News / National
Mudenda shields President from MPs scrutiny
02 Jul 2024 at 01:49hrs | Views
Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda faced criticism after preventing opposition CCC lawmaker Gladys Hlatywayo from raising a point of national interest regarding President Emmerson Mnangagwa's controversial remarks about Zambia during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Mnangagwa's comments described Zambia and Malawi as American client states, escalating tensions with Lusaka and highlighting diplomatic sensitivities ahead of Zimbabwe assuming the Sadc chairmanship in August. Despite constitutional provisions granting citizens the right to raise such issues, Mudenda intervened, asserting that matters of foreign affairs are the purview of the executive, not Parliament, drawing ire from critics who argue this undermines parliamentary oversight.
Criticism against Mudenda intensified as academics and observers accused him of diminishing Parliament's role and turning it into a political tool aligned with the ruling ZANU-PF's interests. Critics argue that Parliament, through its portfolio committees and constitutional mandate, should scrutinize and hold the executive accountable, especially in matters of foreign policy and diplomatic relations.
Mudenda's actions in blocking Hlatywayo's inquiry exemplify a broader trend where parliamentary oversight is curtailed, particularly amid ongoing political maneuvers that have seen the opposition CCC factionalized and influenced by ZANU-PF alliances.
Despite Zimbabwe's constitutional democracy framework, which emphasizes the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, concerns persist about the erosion of parliamentary independence and its ability to fulfill its oversight role effectively.
Critics argue that Mudenda's actions reflect a broader trend of executive dominance, hindering democratic accountability and transparency in Zimbabwean governance.
The episode underscores ongoing challenges within Zimbabwe's political landscape, where constitutional principles clash with practical limitations on parliamentary authority and independence.
Mnangagwa's comments described Zambia and Malawi as American client states, escalating tensions with Lusaka and highlighting diplomatic sensitivities ahead of Zimbabwe assuming the Sadc chairmanship in August. Despite constitutional provisions granting citizens the right to raise such issues, Mudenda intervened, asserting that matters of foreign affairs are the purview of the executive, not Parliament, drawing ire from critics who argue this undermines parliamentary oversight.
Criticism against Mudenda intensified as academics and observers accused him of diminishing Parliament's role and turning it into a political tool aligned with the ruling ZANU-PF's interests. Critics argue that Parliament, through its portfolio committees and constitutional mandate, should scrutinize and hold the executive accountable, especially in matters of foreign policy and diplomatic relations.
Mudenda's actions in blocking Hlatywayo's inquiry exemplify a broader trend where parliamentary oversight is curtailed, particularly amid ongoing political maneuvers that have seen the opposition CCC factionalized and influenced by ZANU-PF alliances.
Despite Zimbabwe's constitutional democracy framework, which emphasizes the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, concerns persist about the erosion of parliamentary independence and its ability to fulfill its oversight role effectively.
Critics argue that Mudenda's actions reflect a broader trend of executive dominance, hindering democratic accountability and transparency in Zimbabwean governance.
The episode underscores ongoing challenges within Zimbabwe's political landscape, where constitutional principles clash with practical limitations on parliamentary authority and independence.
Source - newshawks
