Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1979 act also empowers the Queen in parliament by
Order in Council to make provision for or in connection with the government
of Zimbabwe “as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient”, especially in
consequence of any unconstitutional action taken. President Robert Mugabe’s
conduct is surely in the nature of “unconstitutional action”, which would
therefore legally justify invoking such powers.
Section 3 (3) (a) of the 1979 act also includes the “power to make laws for
the peace, order and good government of (Zimbabwe), including laws having
extra-territorial operation”, while section 3 (3) (c) permits the suspension
or modification of “the operation of any enactment or instrument in relation
to (Zimbabwe) or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with
(Zimbabwe)”.
Clearly, therefore, the UK government would be able to promulgate
legislation in exercise of its powers under the 1979 legislation, which
would have the effect (at least under English law) of restoring Zimbabwe to
the status of a British colony with its subjects entitled to the protection
of the crown and thereby legally permitting UK military intervention for the
purposes of restoring democracy, good governance and the rule of law.
The irony of such a proposition is of course that the UK government would be
highly unlikely to do any such thing given the appalling outcome of its
interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the UK’s obligations to the
people of Zimbabwe have much greater legitimacy and, if the legal argument I
have advanced is for any reason flawed, it is surely at least a lot stronger
than was the case of the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq.
W.J.C. Rhys-Burgess,
Partner,
Schuman Cassin LLP,
Nottingham NG1 1JU, UK