Opinion / Columnist
From a Constitutional lawyer to a Twitter Advocate: Tales of a pariah lawyer
3 hrs ago |
208 Views
The recent so-called "legal opinion" issued by Advocate Thabani Mpofu regarding internal processes of the Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANu-PF) cannot go unchallenged.
His statement, while loud, is legally hollow - a mere flourish of rhetoric without substance. In attempting to interpret the ZANu-PF Constitution, Advocate Mpofu unfortunately betrays a glaring lack of familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the Party's governing framework.
It is, therefore, imperative to set the record straight, in firm but respectful terms.
1. On the Alleged Invalidity of the Politburo Changes
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"The letter from Chris Mutsvangwa purporting to announce changes to the ZANu-PF Politburo is invalid. It claims the decision to relieve Obert Mpofu of his office as ZANu-PF Secretary-General was taken under Article 9, sections 65 and 67."
Response:
This claim is a classic case of mala fides interpretation. The relevant provisions of the ZANu-PF Constitution clearly stipulate the President and First Secretary's authority over the Politburo. Article 9, Section 65 (2022 Constitution) explicitly states:
"The Politburo shall be appointed by the President and First Secretary under Section 67…"
Section 67 reinforces this by stating that:
"Immediately after the election of the President and First Secretary and Members of the Central Committee, the President and First Secretary of the Party shall… appoint from the newly elected Central Committee, two (2) Vice-Presidents and Second Secretaries, the National Chairman, the Heads of Departments of the Politburo, the Committee Members of the Politburo and the Deputies to the Heads of Departments."
This language is categorical and unambiguous. The authority vests in the President and First Secretary — not in any collective, committee, or ancillary structure. Thus, any personnel changes announced are lawfully anchored in the President's prerogative. To argue otherwise is to deliberately distort the plain meaning of the text.
2. On Article 9 as a General Provision
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"Article 9 concerns Politburo functions generally and does not confer authority for the First Secretary to reassign office-holders."
Response:
This assertion demonstrates either willful blindness or casual disregard of the Constitution's architecture. While Article 9 indeed outlines the functions of the Politburo, Section 65 therein is not such a functional clause - it is a structural clause explicitly tying the Politburo's composition to Presidential appointment powers. It must be read in pari materia with Section 67, which sets out the scope of such appointments.
Moreover, the Constitution is not silent on reassignment or removal: the fact that the Party Constitution states that, "If in the opinion of the President and First Secretary it is desirable to create additional Departments to the ones listed below, he shall at his discretion add such Departments and appoint Heads to the Departments and their Deputies to the Departments so created" logically imports the power of removal, for cessante ratione legis cessat et ipsa lex - the power to appoint carries with it the corollary power to disappoint as Professor Jonathan Moyo once put it. Advocate Mpofu's reading isolates the provision from its context, leading to a patently erroneous conclusion.
3. On the Mischaracterisation of Sections 65 and 67
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"Section 65 addresses the functions of the Secretary for Economic Development and Empowerment; section 67 addresses the functions of the Secretary for Healthcare of the Child and the Elderly. Neither provision authorizes the personnel change…"
Response:
This is perhaps the most egregious and embarrassing misrepresentation in Advocate Mpofu's so-called opinion. Sections 65 and 67 of the 2022 Party Constitution do not deal with subordinate departmental portfolios as he alleges. They deal directly with the composition and appointment of the Politburo.
Conflating the Party Constitution with some other imagined text, Advocate Mpofu demonstrates the perils of pontificating on Twitter without the elementary diligence of consulting the governing document. Such a blunder is not only misleading to the public but borders on intellectual dishonesty.
4. On Historical Consistency of Presidential Powers
Since its inception, ZANu-PF has consistently vested authority in its President and First Secretary to appoint the Politburo. Article 8, Section 37 of the 2005 Constitution conferred this power. Article 8, Section 39 of the 2014 Constitution reaffirmed it. The 2022 Constitution continues this tradition in Article 9, Sections 65 and 67. This continuity of practice and text is dispositive: the President's prerogative is not a novelty but a foundational principle of the Party's governance.
Conclusion
Advocate Mpofu's pronouncements amount to nothing more than what William Shakespeare eloquently classed as a "loud sound and fury, signifying nothing". His interpretation collapses under the weight of the very provisions he misreads or misrepresents. The ZANu-PF Constitution is unequivocal: the President and First Secretary has full discretionary power to appoint, disappoint, reassign, expand, and dissolve members of the Politburo.
In sum, the so-called "legal opinion" is neither legal nor an opinion in the strict sense — it is mere political posturing masquerading as constitutional interpretation. ZANu-PF internal processes are guided by constitutional fidelity, not Twitter advocacy. Entrusting legal strategy to the likes of Advocate Thabani Mpofu explains why CCC ended up in the graveyard for lack of constitutional grounding.
His statement, while loud, is legally hollow - a mere flourish of rhetoric without substance. In attempting to interpret the ZANu-PF Constitution, Advocate Mpofu unfortunately betrays a glaring lack of familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the Party's governing framework.
It is, therefore, imperative to set the record straight, in firm but respectful terms.
1. On the Alleged Invalidity of the Politburo Changes
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"The letter from Chris Mutsvangwa purporting to announce changes to the ZANu-PF Politburo is invalid. It claims the decision to relieve Obert Mpofu of his office as ZANu-PF Secretary-General was taken under Article 9, sections 65 and 67."
Response:
This claim is a classic case of mala fides interpretation. The relevant provisions of the ZANu-PF Constitution clearly stipulate the President and First Secretary's authority over the Politburo. Article 9, Section 65 (2022 Constitution) explicitly states:
"The Politburo shall be appointed by the President and First Secretary under Section 67…"
Section 67 reinforces this by stating that:
"Immediately after the election of the President and First Secretary and Members of the Central Committee, the President and First Secretary of the Party shall… appoint from the newly elected Central Committee, two (2) Vice-Presidents and Second Secretaries, the National Chairman, the Heads of Departments of the Politburo, the Committee Members of the Politburo and the Deputies to the Heads of Departments."
This language is categorical and unambiguous. The authority vests in the President and First Secretary — not in any collective, committee, or ancillary structure. Thus, any personnel changes announced are lawfully anchored in the President's prerogative. To argue otherwise is to deliberately distort the plain meaning of the text.
2. On Article 9 as a General Provision
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"Article 9 concerns Politburo functions generally and does not confer authority for the First Secretary to reassign office-holders."
Response:
This assertion demonstrates either willful blindness or casual disregard of the Constitution's architecture. While Article 9 indeed outlines the functions of the Politburo, Section 65 therein is not such a functional clause - it is a structural clause explicitly tying the Politburo's composition to Presidential appointment powers. It must be read in pari materia with Section 67, which sets out the scope of such appointments.
Moreover, the Constitution is not silent on reassignment or removal: the fact that the Party Constitution states that, "If in the opinion of the President and First Secretary it is desirable to create additional Departments to the ones listed below, he shall at his discretion add such Departments and appoint Heads to the Departments and their Deputies to the Departments so created" logically imports the power of removal, for cessante ratione legis cessat et ipsa lex - the power to appoint carries with it the corollary power to disappoint as Professor Jonathan Moyo once put it. Advocate Mpofu's reading isolates the provision from its context, leading to a patently erroneous conclusion.
3. On the Mischaracterisation of Sections 65 and 67
Advocate Mpofu's Claim:
"Section 65 addresses the functions of the Secretary for Economic Development and Empowerment; section 67 addresses the functions of the Secretary for Healthcare of the Child and the Elderly. Neither provision authorizes the personnel change…"
Response:
This is perhaps the most egregious and embarrassing misrepresentation in Advocate Mpofu's so-called opinion. Sections 65 and 67 of the 2022 Party Constitution do not deal with subordinate departmental portfolios as he alleges. They deal directly with the composition and appointment of the Politburo.
Conflating the Party Constitution with some other imagined text, Advocate Mpofu demonstrates the perils of pontificating on Twitter without the elementary diligence of consulting the governing document. Such a blunder is not only misleading to the public but borders on intellectual dishonesty.
4. On Historical Consistency of Presidential Powers
Since its inception, ZANu-PF has consistently vested authority in its President and First Secretary to appoint the Politburo. Article 8, Section 37 of the 2005 Constitution conferred this power. Article 8, Section 39 of the 2014 Constitution reaffirmed it. The 2022 Constitution continues this tradition in Article 9, Sections 65 and 67. This continuity of practice and text is dispositive: the President's prerogative is not a novelty but a foundational principle of the Party's governance.
Conclusion
Advocate Mpofu's pronouncements amount to nothing more than what William Shakespeare eloquently classed as a "loud sound and fury, signifying nothing". His interpretation collapses under the weight of the very provisions he misreads or misrepresents. The ZANu-PF Constitution is unequivocal: the President and First Secretary has full discretionary power to appoint, disappoint, reassign, expand, and dissolve members of the Politburo.
In sum, the so-called "legal opinion" is neither legal nor an opinion in the strict sense — it is mere political posturing masquerading as constitutional interpretation. ZANu-PF internal processes are guided by constitutional fidelity, not Twitter advocacy. Entrusting legal strategy to the likes of Advocate Thabani Mpofu explains why CCC ended up in the graveyard for lack of constitutional grounding.
Source - Patrick Chinamasa
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.
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
.png)
