Opinion / Columnist
President has the freedom of expression too
08 Sep 2016 at 11:14hrs | Views
Following President Mugabe's comments on the court order handed by the High Court Judge, Hlekani Mwayera on 26 August 2016 which interdicted the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) from interfering with, obstructing and stopping a demonstration organized by the National Electoral Reform Agenda (NERA), the private media and opposition elements reacted with vicious attacks.
The opposition political parties and the private media misconstrued the President's comment as an attempt by the executive to muzzle judiciary independence. Even the learned lawyer, Alex Magaisa missed the point here. He failed a simple task of drawing a line between a personal opinion and an executive interference. He is the man who failed to deploy the knowledge he acquired from the many legal books he chewed to Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's bid to land the number one job in the country. What more can one expect.
Being a president of Zimbabwe or any other nation does not take away that president's rights to express personal opinion. President Mugabe still has a constitutional right to freedom of expression and opinion. He is still a human being like anybody else.
The opposition elements and the private media exposed their disingenuousness in attacking the President for expressing his opinion on the way the judiciary handled the demo issue. These are the same people who have been making noise about the imagined violation of human rights in Zimbabwe. They must uphold the same democratic tenets that they generously prescribe to others.
In any case, the President's opinion is widely shared by the majority of Zimbabweans. It is an opinion that is shared by vendors who lost their wares to the hoodlums. It is shared by business whose goods were looted during the riotous demonstrations. The owners of properties which were destroyed and burnt are definitely in agreement with that opinion. Even the ordinary person who was impeded from doing their day to day business is certainly in same accord with the President.
Yours truly have differed with the President in many respects but is totally in agreement with him on this one. Zimbabwe cannot be allowed to degenerate into anarchy just for the sake of fulfilling some demonic interests.
For sure, citizens have a right to demonstrate and present petition in terms of section 59. However, during the course of exercising those rights, they must not trample on the rights of other citizens especially those who have nothing to do with their demonstrations. The section is not without a qualification. The demonstrations must be conducted peacefully and has not been the case with the recent demonstrations by opposition parties and their surrogates in the civic society organisation. Banning violent demonstrations is not ultra vires the constitution because the constitution only provides for a peaceful demonstration.
There is a handful of citizens who are demanding their constitutional right to demonstrate but that demonstration tramples on the rights of the majority of citizens. The Judiciary should be guided by the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The banning of violent demonstration is a moral act that brings the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain.
As much as the President remains a mortal being who should continue to enjoy rights that every other citizen enjoys, a judge also remain a human being capable of slipping up. Yes, he learnt the trade but that does not mean he or she cannot make judiciary oversights. Even an experienced medical doctor sometimes makes errors, even fatal ones.
It is undisputed that there is separation of powers in Zimbabwe but that does not make any of the arms of government immune to constructive criticism such as the one given by President Mugabe. We have seen Tom and Jerry criticizing the executive. Even some of the judges have at one time or another criticized the executive but nobody raised eyebrows and said it was judiciary interference.
The Zimbabwean judiciary arm is the most independent service in the continent. If it were not independent and if President Mugabe's comment was tantamount to interference, the High Court would have not have ruled against the police ban on Wednesday. As much as the president had wished for the ban order to prevail for sake of law and order in the country, the High Court ruled otherwise. This is a clear manifestation of separation of powers that is dearly upheld in Zimbabwe.
The opposition political parties and the private media misconstrued the President's comment as an attempt by the executive to muzzle judiciary independence. Even the learned lawyer, Alex Magaisa missed the point here. He failed a simple task of drawing a line between a personal opinion and an executive interference. He is the man who failed to deploy the knowledge he acquired from the many legal books he chewed to Mr Morgan Tsvangirai's bid to land the number one job in the country. What more can one expect.
Being a president of Zimbabwe or any other nation does not take away that president's rights to express personal opinion. President Mugabe still has a constitutional right to freedom of expression and opinion. He is still a human being like anybody else.
The opposition elements and the private media exposed their disingenuousness in attacking the President for expressing his opinion on the way the judiciary handled the demo issue. These are the same people who have been making noise about the imagined violation of human rights in Zimbabwe. They must uphold the same democratic tenets that they generously prescribe to others.
In any case, the President's opinion is widely shared by the majority of Zimbabweans. It is an opinion that is shared by vendors who lost their wares to the hoodlums. It is shared by business whose goods were looted during the riotous demonstrations. The owners of properties which were destroyed and burnt are definitely in agreement with that opinion. Even the ordinary person who was impeded from doing their day to day business is certainly in same accord with the President.
For sure, citizens have a right to demonstrate and present petition in terms of section 59. However, during the course of exercising those rights, they must not trample on the rights of other citizens especially those who have nothing to do with their demonstrations. The section is not without a qualification. The demonstrations must be conducted peacefully and has not been the case with the recent demonstrations by opposition parties and their surrogates in the civic society organisation. Banning violent demonstrations is not ultra vires the constitution because the constitution only provides for a peaceful demonstration.
There is a handful of citizens who are demanding their constitutional right to demonstrate but that demonstration tramples on the rights of the majority of citizens. The Judiciary should be guided by the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The banning of violent demonstration is a moral act that brings the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain.
As much as the President remains a mortal being who should continue to enjoy rights that every other citizen enjoys, a judge also remain a human being capable of slipping up. Yes, he learnt the trade but that does not mean he or she cannot make judiciary oversights. Even an experienced medical doctor sometimes makes errors, even fatal ones.
It is undisputed that there is separation of powers in Zimbabwe but that does not make any of the arms of government immune to constructive criticism such as the one given by President Mugabe. We have seen Tom and Jerry criticizing the executive. Even some of the judges have at one time or another criticized the executive but nobody raised eyebrows and said it was judiciary interference.
The Zimbabwean judiciary arm is the most independent service in the continent. If it were not independent and if President Mugabe's comment was tantamount to interference, the High Court would have not have ruled against the police ban on Wednesday. As much as the president had wished for the ban order to prevail for sake of law and order in the country, the High Court ruled otherwise. This is a clear manifestation of separation of powers that is dearly upheld in Zimbabwe.
Source - John Sigauke
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.
