Chinamsa tries to get AG off the hook

Chinamasa has written to the Speaker of House of Assembly, Lovemore Moyo, objecting to the probe motion, moved by MDC-T MP, Tongai Matutu.

Parliament on July 30 adopted Matutus motion for the appointment of an independent Select Committee to investigate the conduct of the AG in all politically-motivated prosecutions, in view of the number of arrests and convictions of MDC-T MPs.

So far, five MDC-T legislators have been convicted but appealed, while nine are awaiting trial. This excludes MDC MPs such as Tendai Biti, Tichaona Mudzingwa, Pearson Mungofa and Eric Matinenga, all of whom were arrested and eventually acquitted.

Matutu said in his motion in Parliament:

“This House unreservedly condemns the unwarranted convictions and continuous selective application of the law; calls for the immediate withdrawal, reversal and quashing of all convictions or pending prosecutions and calls for the appointment of an independent Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate the prosecutions and conduct of the Attorney General in all politically motivated prosecutions.”

Chinamasa objects

But in his objection letter to the Speaker, Chinamasa took exception to the AG probe saying such a Select Committee would be “unconstitutional” as under the Constitution the AG exercises his functions free from direction or control by any other authority, and that only the President can order an investigation into the AGs conduct of his office.

However legal experts rubbished Chinamasa’s arguments saying Section 76(7) of the Constitution states that in the exercise of his prosecutorial functions the AG “shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority” but the motion does not in terms seek to direct or control the exercise of the AGs functions.

“It is true that section 110 of the Constitution allows the President to order an investigation of the AGs conduct if the object is to consider whether or not he should be removed from office but as the motion does not seek the AGs removal from office, there is no obvious conflict with the Presidents powers under this section,” said legal expert, Val Ingham-Thorpe.

Chinamasa also complained that the AG had not been given an opportunity to respond to the motion. But notice of the motion was given on July 23 and it was debated on July 28 and 29, with Zanu (PF) taking part in the debate.

“These constitutional objections were not raised, nor was there any move for rejection of the motion,” added Thorpe.

The AGs office has pointedly abused the appeal process by manipulating provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act which invalidates bail rulings, thereby keeping an accused person, especially MDC legislators, activists and human rights activists, in remand prison.

The Act has been taken for a constitutional test in the Supreme Court, with rights lawyers arguing that Section 121 of the CPEA goes against the Zimbabwe Constitution in particular Section 18 and puts the AG above all other litigants when he should be treated as any other litigant.

Tomana, who the MDC formations said was arbitrarily appointed by President Robert Mugabe without first consulting the other principals in the coalition government, has stoked the fires by openly declaring support for Zanu (PF).

The MDC formations have subsequently referred Tomanas arbitrary appointment to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) chairperson and South African President, Jacob Zuma, as part of a catalogue of outstanding issues under the Global Political Agreement signed in September last year.

Committee to speed up constitution drafting