News / National
Jonathan Moyo hits back at Thabani Mpofu
2 hrs ago |
432 Views
Former Cabinet minister Jonathan Moyo has launched a blistering response to Advocate Thabani Mpofu, dismissing as fabricated claims that he was "overheard" advising so-called "2030ist leaders" on how to suppress media coverage and opposition to Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3.
In a strongly worded post on X, Moyo said the narrative advanced by Mpofu was false and deliberately misleading. He maintained that the audio clip cited as evidence captured a private conversation between himself and two lawyers, not Zanu-PF politicians, Cabinet ministers or any individuals linked to the "2030ist" agenda.
Moyo further argued that the audio contained no discussion whatsoever about suppressing media coverage or quashing opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. He said he had already placed sufficient evidence in the public domain to disprove the allegations and warned that he was holding additional proof in reserve, which he would release at a time of his choosing.
He also criticised Mpofu for resorting to what he described as crude body-shaming, calling it vulgar and unbecoming of a senior member of the Bar who presents himself as a defender of constitutionalism and human rights.
On the allegation that he had confirmed a plan to manipulate public perception by leveraging someone with a credible public profile, Moyo said this was pure conjecture unsupported by the audio or any verifiable facts. He accused Mpofu of conflating opinion with fact and insisted that assertions alone do not constitute truth.
Escalating the dispute, Moyo accused Mpofu of having "masterminded" what he termed the archetype of constitutional mutilation during the events of November 2017. He referenced case HC 10820/17, alleging that applicants without locus standi were used in proceedings that resulted in a consent order reinterpreting Section 212 of the Constitution. According to Moyo, this interpretation effectively permitted the Zimbabwe Defence Forces to self-deploy, in violation of Sections 213 and 214, and sidestepped the mandatory constitutional amendment procedures set out in Section 328.
Moyo argued that the consent order was granted without a written judgment and amounted to rewriting the Constitution through the courts. He concluded by asserting that Mpofu was in no position to moralise about deception or constitutional violations, urging him to "chill and hold your peace."
The public exchange adds another layer to ongoing debates surrounding constitutional reform and Zimbabwe's political trajectory ahead of 2030.
In a strongly worded post on X, Moyo said the narrative advanced by Mpofu was false and deliberately misleading. He maintained that the audio clip cited as evidence captured a private conversation between himself and two lawyers, not Zanu-PF politicians, Cabinet ministers or any individuals linked to the "2030ist" agenda.
Moyo further argued that the audio contained no discussion whatsoever about suppressing media coverage or quashing opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. He said he had already placed sufficient evidence in the public domain to disprove the allegations and warned that he was holding additional proof in reserve, which he would release at a time of his choosing.
He also criticised Mpofu for resorting to what he described as crude body-shaming, calling it vulgar and unbecoming of a senior member of the Bar who presents himself as a defender of constitutionalism and human rights.
On the allegation that he had confirmed a plan to manipulate public perception by leveraging someone with a credible public profile, Moyo said this was pure conjecture unsupported by the audio or any verifiable facts. He accused Mpofu of conflating opinion with fact and insisted that assertions alone do not constitute truth.
Escalating the dispute, Moyo accused Mpofu of having "masterminded" what he termed the archetype of constitutional mutilation during the events of November 2017. He referenced case HC 10820/17, alleging that applicants without locus standi were used in proceedings that resulted in a consent order reinterpreting Section 212 of the Constitution. According to Moyo, this interpretation effectively permitted the Zimbabwe Defence Forces to self-deploy, in violation of Sections 213 and 214, and sidestepped the mandatory constitutional amendment procedures set out in Section 328.
Moyo argued that the consent order was granted without a written judgment and amounted to rewriting the Constitution through the courts. He concluded by asserting that Mpofu was in no position to moralise about deception or constitutional violations, urging him to "chill and hold your peace."
The public exchange adds another layer to ongoing debates surrounding constitutional reform and Zimbabwe's political trajectory ahead of 2030.
Source - Byo24News
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
