Opinion / Columnist
Chamisa joins the constitutional onslaught quietly
31 May 2021 at 03:42hrs | Views
Zimbabwe has been in the limelight again when a constitutional matter was hijacked by the opposition politicians and made an apolitical matter. The most puzzling and missing card is the very loud silence of Nelson CHAMISA the MDC A president.
Yes CHAMISA seems silent but he is in the team which has planned this case and he is the scheming guru together with the whole team of the opposition lawyers. As always the case, the world was sold fake facts and started making comments which suggested that the whole issue was political. The surprising thing was that the Americans through their embassy in Zimbabwe started complaining about the second amendment before even the parliament had voted over the issue of amendment.
It is perfectly in order that Zimbabwe votes through parliament to amend the constitution. It is constitutional and lawful that the constitution be amended.
The United States of America has about the 33 constitutional amendments approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification since 1789. For proposals to amend the United States Constitution introduced in but not approved by the U.S. Congress. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. Approximately 11,770 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of January 3, 2019). Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress. Since 1999, about 20 proposed amendments have received a vote by either the full House or Senate.
So it becomes totally surprising that America complains when Zimbabwe proposes changes to their own constitution. The sovereignty of a country flows from its ability to be controlled by its constitution. So matters of constitutional amendments must be left to individual country to decide.
As far as Zimbabwe is concerned all the amendments to the constitution were in order and were not proposed by a particular political party but by the parliament. The comments of the American government through their embassy was interference and exposed America's hypocrisy.
In contrast, the constitution of the U.S. state of Alabama has been amended 948 times since its adoption in 1901.
So amending a constitution is a national duty and it is done so that the laws are aligned and the laws become workable in the best interest of the people.
When Zimbabwe amended its constitution the opposition found an opportunity to vilify the nation and push in their agenda for regime change. The constitutional war which was instigated by the Zimbabwean Human Rights Organisation was full of the MDC signature all over.
The opposition created a grudge against all the judges of the constitutional court after they lost an election court in 1918. So they had to wedge a war against the upper courts. In their war they got help from the Americans who gave financial support. There is evidence that the Zimbabwe Human Rights and Dr Kika paid their legal staff with funds from som American donors. Their legal team was led by Mr Biti who is Vice President of the MDC who has personal vendetta with the Chief Justice they instructed Advocate Thabani Mpofu who is an Activist. I will not comment about the judges.
The legal issue was turned to politics. The judgement which was handed down against the Chief Justice was treated like an election success. It was defined as a victory for the opposition. The opposition through their activists changed their mode of attack and now are using the law to attack the government. The truth being told this case has been made a political case by the opposition. The government has maintained their position. They have treated the case as purely legal.
Another problem the opposition through their legal activists have made the case against the person of Luke Malaba. This should have been a case against those who appointed and Extended Malaba's age limit. The social media was abuzz with personal insults directed at Malaba's person.
We have reached a low point in our legal and political history when a faceless opposition source" issues threats to the judiciary about its constitutional role, suggesting that judges take sides. A comment like this, in these politically charged times, threatens the core principles which underpin government under the rule of law. If the opposition attacks the judiciary and cite each and every judge in proceedings the government springs up to defend those targeted by the opposition
The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental pillars of our democracy. This calls for both parties to respect the rule of law. It is not proper for the opposition to attack judiciary when they find it adventurous to do so.
The country must beware of unprecedented levels of political interference over the work of courts in Zimbabwe. The opposition must be reminded about "boundaries".
Judicial independence, is the ability of courts and judges to perform their duties free of influence or control by other actors, whether governmental or private. The term is also used in a normative sense to refer to the kind of independence that courts and judges ought to possess. So the interference by the opposition is interference' they should not think that interference is when government does something. Whatever pressure put on judiciary by anyone amounts to a breach.
That ambiguity in the meaning of the term judicial independence has compounded already existing controversies and confusions regarding its proper definition.
As a practical matter, the type of judicial independence that is widely considered both the most important and the most difficult to achieve is independence from other governmental actors. On the one hand, that type of judicial independence is highly valued among those who impute to courts a special responsibility for ensuring that individuals and minorities do not suffer illegal or unjust treatment at the hands of the government or a tyrannous majority. On the other hand, that type is considered especially difficult to achieve because the other branches of government ordinarily possess the power to disobey or thwart the enforcement of judicial decisions. the judiciary is thought to be the "least dangerous" branch, having "no influence over either the sword or the purse," and is therefore least capable of defending itself against the other branches. But the current situation has shown that the judiciary could be used by those who are thought to be the weaker ones.
"There needs to be sensitivity displayed by all branches of the constitution - so that is the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as to the proper sphere of the others. The judges are believed to understand where the boundaries lie, but all parliamentarians should have an instinctive understanding of where those boundaries lie.
The opposition must as well understand the boundaries between their respective roles and the need to respect the independence of the judiciary.
Those people who are not in the three arms of government but play significant roles do interfere with the judiciary and always get away with it. Most lawyers have confused the human rights fight with opposition politics. They believe that anything against the government is a human rights fight.
There needs to be sensitivity displayed by all branches of the constitution - so that is the legislature, the executive the judiciary and those not on the three like the opposition as to the proper sphere of the others.
Legal professionals previously criticised the government's response to High Court ruling on the extension of Malaba's age limit, which was judged to be unlawful, and forcing a wave of tongue lashing of the judiciary by many.
However lawyers who represented Dr Kika were behaving like political activists. They made comment which suggested that their law suit was a mandate from the people. Such comments invited a backlash on the lawyers. The vitality and independence of the legal profession is an essential hallmark of a society governed by the rule of law," A general attack on the legal profession, undermines the rule of law but it is the lawyers themselves who invite criticism by their naked comments.
Today judicial independence has such broad and powerful normative appeal that even states that do not honour it in practice are wont to profess a commitment to it. Most of the world's current written constitutions contain some form of explicit protection for the independence of the judiciary, and the proportion of constitutional documents that contain such protections has been increasing over time.
Despite the perceived independence the current constitutional court case has shown is that the real people who compromise the justice system are the ones who pull up a victim card.
They can be best described as hypocrites.
The activists and the opposition have tried to create a constitutional crisis. They have lined up their usual suspects to assist them in vilifying the government. For the first time it has become very clear that of the arms of government the Judiciary is a very lethal one which hides behind its supposedly unbiased nature.
The lawyers who sat down to strategise the plan to topple the government are senior officers in the the opposition.
The excitement and exuberance which envelopes the political atmosphere showed that the opposition was at work full time.
This case has shifted from being a purely legal case to being a political one. The opposition would use political terms in celebrating the judgement but would cry foul if the government tries to match them.
It is very wrong to use the Judiciary to try and legalise a clear uprising against the government. The opposition and their lawyers are doomed and thus they wanted and are still trying to portray Zimbabwe as a vindictive country which does not follow the rule of law.
As the case is still before the courts I will not go into detail but to fold at this stage. Zimbabwe will see this trick wrapped in a Judiciary gown crumble before Justice.
Vazet2000@yahoo.co.uk
Yes CHAMISA seems silent but he is in the team which has planned this case and he is the scheming guru together with the whole team of the opposition lawyers. As always the case, the world was sold fake facts and started making comments which suggested that the whole issue was political. The surprising thing was that the Americans through their embassy in Zimbabwe started complaining about the second amendment before even the parliament had voted over the issue of amendment.
It is perfectly in order that Zimbabwe votes through parliament to amend the constitution. It is constitutional and lawful that the constitution be amended.
The United States of America has about the 33 constitutional amendments approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification since 1789. For proposals to amend the United States Constitution introduced in but not approved by the U.S. Congress. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. Approximately 11,770 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of January 3, 2019). Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress. Since 1999, about 20 proposed amendments have received a vote by either the full House or Senate.
So it becomes totally surprising that America complains when Zimbabwe proposes changes to their own constitution. The sovereignty of a country flows from its ability to be controlled by its constitution. So matters of constitutional amendments must be left to individual country to decide.
As far as Zimbabwe is concerned all the amendments to the constitution were in order and were not proposed by a particular political party but by the parliament. The comments of the American government through their embassy was interference and exposed America's hypocrisy.
In contrast, the constitution of the U.S. state of Alabama has been amended 948 times since its adoption in 1901.
So amending a constitution is a national duty and it is done so that the laws are aligned and the laws become workable in the best interest of the people.
When Zimbabwe amended its constitution the opposition found an opportunity to vilify the nation and push in their agenda for regime change. The constitutional war which was instigated by the Zimbabwean Human Rights Organisation was full of the MDC signature all over.
The opposition created a grudge against all the judges of the constitutional court after they lost an election court in 1918. So they had to wedge a war against the upper courts. In their war they got help from the Americans who gave financial support. There is evidence that the Zimbabwe Human Rights and Dr Kika paid their legal staff with funds from som American donors. Their legal team was led by Mr Biti who is Vice President of the MDC who has personal vendetta with the Chief Justice they instructed Advocate Thabani Mpofu who is an Activist. I will not comment about the judges.
The legal issue was turned to politics. The judgement which was handed down against the Chief Justice was treated like an election success. It was defined as a victory for the opposition. The opposition through their activists changed their mode of attack and now are using the law to attack the government. The truth being told this case has been made a political case by the opposition. The government has maintained their position. They have treated the case as purely legal.
Another problem the opposition through their legal activists have made the case against the person of Luke Malaba. This should have been a case against those who appointed and Extended Malaba's age limit. The social media was abuzz with personal insults directed at Malaba's person.
We have reached a low point in our legal and political history when a faceless opposition source" issues threats to the judiciary about its constitutional role, suggesting that judges take sides. A comment like this, in these politically charged times, threatens the core principles which underpin government under the rule of law. If the opposition attacks the judiciary and cite each and every judge in proceedings the government springs up to defend those targeted by the opposition
The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental pillars of our democracy. This calls for both parties to respect the rule of law. It is not proper for the opposition to attack judiciary when they find it adventurous to do so.
The country must beware of unprecedented levels of political interference over the work of courts in Zimbabwe. The opposition must be reminded about "boundaries".
Judicial independence, is the ability of courts and judges to perform their duties free of influence or control by other actors, whether governmental or private. The term is also used in a normative sense to refer to the kind of independence that courts and judges ought to possess. So the interference by the opposition is interference' they should not think that interference is when government does something. Whatever pressure put on judiciary by anyone amounts to a breach.
That ambiguity in the meaning of the term judicial independence has compounded already existing controversies and confusions regarding its proper definition.
As a practical matter, the type of judicial independence that is widely considered both the most important and the most difficult to achieve is independence from other governmental actors. On the one hand, that type of judicial independence is highly valued among those who impute to courts a special responsibility for ensuring that individuals and minorities do not suffer illegal or unjust treatment at the hands of the government or a tyrannous majority. On the other hand, that type is considered especially difficult to achieve because the other branches of government ordinarily possess the power to disobey or thwart the enforcement of judicial decisions. the judiciary is thought to be the "least dangerous" branch, having "no influence over either the sword or the purse," and is therefore least capable of defending itself against the other branches. But the current situation has shown that the judiciary could be used by those who are thought to be the weaker ones.
"There needs to be sensitivity displayed by all branches of the constitution - so that is the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as to the proper sphere of the others. The judges are believed to understand where the boundaries lie, but all parliamentarians should have an instinctive understanding of where those boundaries lie.
The opposition must as well understand the boundaries between their respective roles and the need to respect the independence of the judiciary.
Those people who are not in the three arms of government but play significant roles do interfere with the judiciary and always get away with it. Most lawyers have confused the human rights fight with opposition politics. They believe that anything against the government is a human rights fight.
There needs to be sensitivity displayed by all branches of the constitution - so that is the legislature, the executive the judiciary and those not on the three like the opposition as to the proper sphere of the others.
Legal professionals previously criticised the government's response to High Court ruling on the extension of Malaba's age limit, which was judged to be unlawful, and forcing a wave of tongue lashing of the judiciary by many.
However lawyers who represented Dr Kika were behaving like political activists. They made comment which suggested that their law suit was a mandate from the people. Such comments invited a backlash on the lawyers. The vitality and independence of the legal profession is an essential hallmark of a society governed by the rule of law," A general attack on the legal profession, undermines the rule of law but it is the lawyers themselves who invite criticism by their naked comments.
Today judicial independence has such broad and powerful normative appeal that even states that do not honour it in practice are wont to profess a commitment to it. Most of the world's current written constitutions contain some form of explicit protection for the independence of the judiciary, and the proportion of constitutional documents that contain such protections has been increasing over time.
Despite the perceived independence the current constitutional court case has shown is that the real people who compromise the justice system are the ones who pull up a victim card.
They can be best described as hypocrites.
The activists and the opposition have tried to create a constitutional crisis. They have lined up their usual suspects to assist them in vilifying the government. For the first time it has become very clear that of the arms of government the Judiciary is a very lethal one which hides behind its supposedly unbiased nature.
The lawyers who sat down to strategise the plan to topple the government are senior officers in the the opposition.
The excitement and exuberance which envelopes the political atmosphere showed that the opposition was at work full time.
This case has shifted from being a purely legal case to being a political one. The opposition would use political terms in celebrating the judgement but would cry foul if the government tries to match them.
It is very wrong to use the Judiciary to try and legalise a clear uprising against the government. The opposition and their lawyers are doomed and thus they wanted and are still trying to portray Zimbabwe as a vindictive country which does not follow the rule of law.
As the case is still before the courts I will not go into detail but to fold at this stage. Zimbabwe will see this trick wrapped in a Judiciary gown crumble before Justice.
Vazet2000@yahoo.co.uk
Source - Dr Masimba Mavaza
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
