A Trophy President? - Is it time to recall President Mugabe!

I offer no apology to the ant-wikipedia brigade for using Wikipedia. I know the anti-wikipedia brigade is itself most guilty of using Wikipedia as a ready reference source.

According to Wikipedia a 'trophy wife' is an expression used to describe a wife, usually young and attractive, who is regarded as a status symbol for the husband, who is often older and affluent. My Trophy President is therefore a derivative from 'trophy wife'.

A Trophy President is a president who long outlived his or her 'use-by-date' and is himself either using Office as a 'political grave' or is being kept in office by a narrow circle of handlers or both, through means dangerous and foul, for the purpose of either preventing his or her prosecution and the prosecution of his or her accomplices for serious crimes committed while in office or for the purposes of self-aggrandisement or primitive accumulation of wealth, or both. Put simply, a Trophy President is a president who is no longer himself or herself in control of the functions of that Office and affairs of State.

From this crude definition two differences between a trophy wife and a Trophy President are evident. First, whereas a trophy wife is used by an older man as a status symbol a Trophy President is his or her own abuser or is used by younger people for any of the un-noble reasons outlined in the above definition. The second difference is that where a trophy wife is young and attractive, a Trophy President is politically spent (old) and politically unattractive. To the extent a President fits the above definition of a trophy President is it possible to talk more accurately of a Contrabanded President, a president who should no longer be traded on the floor of the Political Exchange? You be the judge.

At 87, and ill, it is not just a question of whether or not President Mugabe is able to discharge the functions of the Office of the President but whether it is something that the rest of Zimbabwe should continue to allow to happen. The late president of Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba, at 84, and just before he was deposed by the now deposed Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in a palace coup in 1987, was apparently heard saying at Cabinet meetings: "My God what am I doing here?", in reference to his failure or inability to follow any proceedings during serious meetings of government business. Mugabe is allegedly 87 (for all we know he might even be older).

Not so long ago, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, revealed that in their separate and unrelated meetings with President Mugabe, Mugabe was sleeping for the greater part of those 'meetings'. 'Greater' may well be a euphemism for 'all the time.' I wonder what it was like sitting in front of a drooling, snoozing old man who should not have been there in the first place. Morgan Tsvangirai has also revealed that Mr Mugabe is no longer in control of the State but the so-called securocrats.

And that heavy body armour wearing down on the almost boneless frame of Mugabe partly explains why Mugabe is hardly 'here'. It has to take a physical toll on any old man. But it does not have to be Biti and Tsvangirai telling us about Mr Mugabe's unawake detours. The internet is awash with Mugabe, and, interestingly, his army of handlers, in tune singing zzzzzzzzzzz in international fora while other presidents and officials from other countries attend to their States interests.

Unless Mugabe wears this body armour to protect himself against his dangerous inner circle it is simply silly to imagine that any Zimbabwean would want to assassinate a doddering 90 year-old old man. If it came to it many would have wanted to see Mugabe face his day in court, whether walking or stretchered in like Hosni Mubarak.

The practical position is therefore that Zimbabwe has in office a president who is literally carted and delivered to the office like an office file, has an army of assistants, handlers, and personal attendants to fan him awake during the day, and needs a coterie of supports to keep him vertical at the best of times. Present-day Zimbabwe cannot be run on the basis of flushes of medically-induced sobriety from an otherwise sleeping president who should really be left to sleep and to do things at his own time, at his own pace. In other words, long retired or long forced to retire. This has long gone beyond unfairness to Mr Mugabe as a person and is now a matter that goes to the heart of the constitutionality of Mr Mugabe's position in office today.

Office of the President (OtP)
The OtP is a creation of the Constitution. The Office of the President is not a Zanu-PF or MDC matter. It is also not a matter for the GNU. The OtP is a constitutional matter.

The Constitution specifies the capacity (who can be president) of the President.

While the Constitution specifies who can be president it assumes rather than specifies the President's capability (ability) to become or to continue functioning as President. In other words, the Constitution does not say expressly that the president shall not be ill or mentally incapacitated while in office.

Therefore while capacity and capability (ability) are married at the point a President becomes a president it is clear that capacity and capability (ability) cannot always be so married throughout the life of a president while in office. Capacity and ability can be separated further down the line during the life of an incumbent for a variety of reasons which might necessitate the resignation or removal of the President from Office.

When can a President be removed from Office?
First, it must be said that the President does not need to be removed from Office. The President can resign by tendering his resignation with the Speaker. Mr Mugabe should have long done that. In the event he has not. Neither he nor his handlers should now complain that he is being humiliated when the chorus for his recall gets louder and louder, as it will.

Where the President does not resign, he or she can be removed from Office on basically two broad grounds. The first ground is based on what the President has done (or not done). In terms of the Constitution this is where the President has acted in wilful violation of the Constitution and where the President is guilty of gross misconduct.

The second ground is where the President becomes incapable of performing the functions of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity. It is this ground which will be particularly relevant in the case of Mr Mugabe, assuming other old age issues like dementia will not have become issues by the time the matter is full stream. It is important to note that this ground of incapacity is in the alternative, not cumulative. This means that it is only necessary to show that the President is either physically incapacitated or mentally incapacitated, not necessarily both.

It is patently obvious to the public that at nearly 90 and ill, President Mugabe is now physically challenged to perform the functions of his Office. It is for lawyers to decide what 'physical incapacity' means but what is clear is that President Mugabe does not need to drop dead or to be knocked unconscious while in the office to be so called. He has already fallen unconscious while at home. However, this is while in Office.  At the Livingstone Summit Mr Mugabe was carted by a golf car from one place to another when other presidents walked.

In other words it is pretty obvious that the law would not require actual physical muscle or brain inactivity, so to speak, before a president can be said to be physically incapacitated. If, as widely alleged, President Mugabe is being 'switched on and off' by medication or if there are 'assistants' who are for all intents and purposes holding him up 24-7 or supports on the ready to collect him up before he goes down, then physical incapacity is satisfied. There is no court of law which would require such a threshold to be reached before President Mugabe can be said to be physically incapacitated.

Procedure for removing the President
Where the President does not resign, he can be removed by Parliament. At least one-third of the members of the House of Assembly must recommend the removal of the President. Once such a recommendation is made, the Speaker must, in consultation with the President of the Senate, appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Assembly to prepare a report. If the Joint Committee recommends it, the President shall be so removed from Office. In this case, the ground will be physical incapacity, unless as suggested above, dementia will have also set in.

Once the President is removed from Office an Acting President (where there is one) or a minister appointed by Cabinet (where there is no Vice President), can take over for a period of three months (90 days) before new elections can be held.

This is the law, but what of the politics?
There are basically three important political points. The first point is whether there is anyone in present-day Zimbabwe who is 'brave' enough to move a motion to remove President Mugabe. The second point is whether such a motion would be able to garner the one-third minimum threshold required to trigger the appointment of a Joint Committee. The third is whether Edna Madzongwe, the President of the Senate who should be consulted, and a Zanu-PF apparatchik, can be persuaded to support such a motion.

Legally, however, it would seem that once one-third of the members of the General Assembly have made such a recommendation the involvement of both the Speaker and President is procedural and neither of the two have powers, individually or jointly, to stop or block such a recommendation. With regard to whether anyone is brave enough to move such a motion comfort can be had in the fact that 'canvassing' for the one-third members is something that can be done discretely without attracting attention to anyone in particular.    Also, in terms of the threshold, only 50 of the 150 MPs have to be persuaded. This is not an onerous figure to reach. If the election and re-election of Speaker, Lovemore Moyo, be any measure, this recall process is achievable.

The good thing about this ground for removing the President from Office is that it would not be political. It would be something objectively necessary and unavoidable. It will be foolish for Zanu-PF to seek to politicize it if it came to it.

Abuse of office and abuse of power
Abuse of office and abuse of power take specific forms in specific contexts. Here, abuse of office is used to mean continuing to occupy public office when unable to fully discharge the functions of that office while publicly holding out as able to. Abuse of power is using one's position of power abusively, however this may manifest itself in particular contexts.

It is clearly an abuse of office to use the Office of the President (OtP) as a political grave or to harbour what essentially are fugitives from justice. It is also abuse of power to continue to use the Office of the President as a weapon to silence legitimate debate on the functions of that Office and the suitability of the incumbent as a fit and proper person for that Office. The OtP must be occupied by a person who at all times is a fit and proper person to occupy that Office. At the moment, increasingly and unfailingly so, this is clearly not the case with President Mugabe.

It is also an abuse of office if an unelected 'shadow' president is in office, whether that 'shadow' president is an individual or a group of individuals of whatever description or name. They remain un-elected for that Office. They are illegal and have no legitimacy whatsoever. 

Is Parliament sleeping on the job?
There seems no doubt that Parliament can be accused of dereliction of duty. However, this is a Parliament suffering from fear inertia after years of being intimidated by Mugabe and his cronies. Remember this is the Parliament Margaret Dongo once described as Mugabe's 'wives' resulting in the late Solomon Mujuru almost beating her up in Parliament.

But things are changing. Things have changed. If for nothing else, the noise that MDC-T bunch produces is a useful disorienting nuisance for Zanu-PF. The sober, measured and reasoned positions of MDC-N are a useful source of good political guidance. There can therefore be a pincer strategy that can be put in motion to get things done by Parliament. More importantly, the voting pattern has changed somewhat from the days when Zanu-PF was the ruling party with an overall majority.

This present Parliament can therefore still come of age. It must be hoped that this Parliament will see this time as an opportunity to grow into and prove itself beyond its own and everybody's expectations.

Parliamentary Select Committee on Managed Transition
The issue of succession for the President of present-day Zimbabwe is now a constitutional matter. Parliament has a constitutional duty to act to create a mechanism for a managed transition. That is not a role for Zanu-PF or MDC formations but Parliament.

Further, it is unconconstitutional and irresponsible to pretend that the issue of transition is a matter to be decided by two dangerous party factions, the so-called Mujuru faction and the so-called Mnangagwa faction. Mr Mugabe may belong to Zanu but the presidency of present-day Zimbabwe is not a Zanu issue. In any event the Zanu way is the dangerous way. 

The alleged assassination of Solomon Mujuru two weeks ago, itself allegedly related to the succession issue, has already put the country on a blood-letting trajectory none of us should be part of. The so-called Mujuru and Mnangagwa factions can slag it out in relation to the presidency of Zanu-PF and not in the present polity of Zimbabwe. Parliament needs to wake up and act now. Indications are that more individuals seen as in pole position to take over from Mr Mugabe may fall on the succession sword as this issue hots up.

There is a constitutional way and there are constitutional mechanisms to resolve this issue through Parliament and Parliament must take proactive steps to activate that process publicly and openly.

Parliament must establish a Parliamentary Select Committee on Managed Transition immediately.

Stand-by Transition Stabilization Force
It is a blessing in disguise that this situation arises during a period of 'no-party' rule (GNU) and while SADC is still involved in the political matters of present-day Zimbabwe. The present Parliament must take advantage of the political cover afforded by this international scrutiny to address this issue the constitutional way and not allow Zanu and Zanuists to do so the Zanu way.

The Parliamentary Select Committee on Managed Transition must work with SADC, (the AU), and the UN to put in place measures for a Stand-by Transition Stabilization Force, a force ready to be deployed immediately should the so-called factions threaten to turn Zimbabwe into a blood-bath for their own selfish ends. Early warning indicators suggest Zimbabwe may well be under such a spell already.

The reason for the Parliamentary Select Committee on Managed Transition is to take matters of 'national' interest and concern away from the conspiratorial tradition of Zanu and place them in the public domain through the only proper mechanism to do so: Parliament. Zanu long privatized and personalized public processes. It was time these public processes were re-taken by the public and we can all put a permanent stop to Zanu's tradition of political assassinations and conspiracy.

What should the Parliamentary Select Committee on Managed Transition do?

Should it not be imperative for such a Parliamentary Select Committee, if appointed, to now recall Mr Mugabe? Should Mugabe not be recalled in any event?

There are many who will shout themselves horse saying that Zimbabwe, unlike the ANC, does not have a power of recall. Recall is not a legal term of art. It is only a reference to a political process to precipitate or achieve an outcome. It will be proper for Parliament, through the Parliamentary Select Committee, to use this power of recall in order to trigger off the constitutional procedure of removing Mr Mugabe from Office.

Conclusion
Mugabe is not a God and was never going to be God. He is a mortal. He will die one day soon.

While many wish him to be removed from office while he is still alive there are many in his own party Zanu-PF who are watching him 24-7, not because they necessarily love him, but because they want to be the first ones to know when he breathes his last. The reason: so that they will be the first faction to unconstitutionally usurp all the presidential powers to unleash violence on the other faction and all other persons associated with the 'losing' faction.

A Parliamentary recall of Mr Mugabe will stop this deadly probability right in its tracks.

Unless we act now, and unless Parliament acts proactively and pre-emptively in terms of the Constitution, we may all be about to get another dangerous, bloodletting Zaliban regime which will terrorize us all for many many years to come. Indications are that this Zaliban regime has already struck with Solomon Mujuru's death two ago.
#000000">#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">