Chamisa's lawyer dissects Zanu-PF's Resolution No. 1

Legal expert and Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who previously represented Nelson Chamisa, has described Zanu-PF's Resolution No. 1, passed at last year's annual conference, as a blatant attempt to unlawfully extend President Emmerson Mnangagwa's term beyond the five-year period fixed by the party congress in 2022. Mpofu, writing in an opinion piece, called the resolution "a vulgar piece of unmitigated buffoonery" and argued that it directly conflicts with both the party's own constitutive instruments and the national constitution.

According to Mpofu, Zanu-PF's congress, which convenes every five years, is the party's supreme decision-making body. Section 23 or 27 of the party constitution, depending on the version, confers on congress the authority to elect the party president, who automatically becomes the sole candidate for the State President in the subsequent elections. In 2022, Mnangagwa was duly elected as Zanu-PF's candidate for the 2023 elections, and his incumbency is legally anchored to that congress resolution. Any attempt to extend his term beyond 2028, Mpofu argues, falls outside the legal framework of the party's constitution.

"The party constitution is tailored so that congress precedes a general election for the purpose of selecting a presidential candidate," Mpofu writes. "As a contractual and constitutional instrument, the party constitution cannot validly contain provisions that conflict with the national constitution. Any attempt to declare a candidate beyond the 2028 elections from an organ inferior to congress is therefore unlawful."

The opinion piece emphasizes that Zanu-PF's national conference, which meets annually, does not possess the power to elect the party's presidential candidate. Its mandate is limited to receiving central committee reports, reviewing programme implementation, and declaring the congress-elected president as the party's candidate. Resolution No. 1, which purports to extend Mnangagwa's tenure and subvert the decision of congress, thus falls outside the authority of the conference.

Mpofu argues that concerned Zanu-PF members have both the legal and political avenues to prevent the party from debating or implementing such unlawful measures. "The question of the possible extension of Mnangagwa's position cannot be debated by the national conference. It is an act ultra vires," he writes.

The legal expert concludes by calling on party members to uphold the rule of law within Zanu-PF and the nation. "Zanu-PF must abide by its own rules and by the national constitution. This festival of absurdities and illegality must be stopped. The men within Zanu-PF, if there be any, should confront these breaches and insist on adherence to both the party constitution and the constitution of the land."

Mpofu's analysis comes amid reports that factions within Zanu-PF are pushing for Mnangagwa's term to be extended, despite the president publicly stating that he does not seek an extension when his tenure expires in 2028. The legal opinion reinforces concerns that the party risks breaching its own framework and the nation's laws if it proceeds with such moves.