Zimbabwe opposition takes Mugabe head-on

OPPOSITION parties under the banner of the National Electoral Reform Agenda (Nera) have launched a court battle against Statutory Instrument 101a of 2016, which banned protests in Harare for two weeks.

The legal instrument, which expires on September 16, put paid to yesterday's planned mega demo, but Nera, a grouping of 18 opposition political parties coming together to fight for electoral reforms ahead of the 2018 general elections, yesterday made an urgent High Court chamber application challenging the ban.

Nera head of legal affairs, Douglas Mwonzora said the opposition parties are represented by People's Democratic Party leader, Tendai Biti.

Although constitutional lawyer, Lovemore Madhuku said it was within government's power to ban the protests, Mwonzora argued the statutory instrument violated the Constitution because protesting was a basic human right, that falls under the Bill of Rights and any piece of legislation taking away the rights was ultra vires (beyond the legal power or authority of) the charter.

"The power to issue a statutory instrument rests in a government minister, not an officer of the police. How can an officer commanding a district make law? This not constitutional," Mwonzora said.

The statutory instrument was issued by the officer commanding Harare central district, Chief Superintendent Newbert Saunyama, who had earlier on blocked, for the second consecutive time, Nera's request to hold a demonstration.

Mwonzora, the MDC-T secretary-general, said they had decided to challenge the ban because the reason they wanted to protest was to file a petition with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

The ban on protesting in Harare means Nera cannot petition the electoral body.

MDC-T spokesperson, Obert Gutu said the government was now desperate, as its "end is nigh".

He said the ban was synonymous to a subtle state of emergency and showed that government was panicking, with the ever increasing voices of dissent.

"Protesting is a human right and should not be violated. The ban shows that the regime is running scared of the people," Gutu said.

Transform Zimbabwe leader Jacob Ngarivhume said: "The ban is because the demonstrations are gathering momentum everyday. They are getting stronger and stronger. The Nera demo sent the most shock waves. They are scared, hence, the reaction."

But political analyst, Alexander Rusero said there were two sides to consider concerning the statutory instrument.

"Morally, it may sound correct for the government to impose a ban, given that its mandate is to ensure law and order and ensure the security of the entire citizenry, as well as their property. So if you follow up the recent protests, they, to some extent, were hijacked by thugs, seizing the opportunity to loot, steal and damage property," he said.

"However, there was need by the police to exhibit brilliance and professionalism in trying to separate peaceful protesters from hooligans and thieves rather than impose a blanket ban. A few malcontents, who hijacked the protests, are the ones who should be brought to book.

"In between a period of elections, peaceful protests are the only language citizens may use to relay grievances to the government and banning them is not only politically misguided, but exposes the government.

"Whereas violence and destruction of property may not be condoned, a government that infringes on fundamental human rights enshrined in a Constitution it purports to adhere to signals confusion, cluelessness and incompetence on comprehension of the rule of the law."