A judgment delivered in Bulawayo by Justice Nicholas Ndou, dismissed the application against COPAC, which alleged unlawful termination of quasi-employment contractual relationship, lodged by Qhubani Moyo, Mqondisi Moyo and Phathisani Nondo. The three are members of a civil society organisation known as Ibhetshu LikaZulu, a pressure group advocating for equitable development of all parts of Zimbabwe.
Sindiso Mazibisa, the lawyer representing the three activists told the media last Friday that the Court had dismissed the case with costs. COPAC said: The Constitution Select Committee (COPAC ) would like to advise the public that the application by Qhubani Moyo et al was dismissed with costs. COPAC would like to advise members of the public that the said litigants are not members of COPAC constitution outreach teams and may not carry out and work with this capacity.
COPAC was represented by Josphat Tshuma, of Web, Low and Barry. The three activists had argued that when COPAC commenced the process of setting up structures to facilitate the making of a new Zimbabwean constitution, it selected individuals across the country to be part of the outreach teams that would gather peoples views and input on the content of the new constitution.
(Applicants) were part of the people selected to be part of the outreach teams to under-go training for the outreach programme. Our names were published in a notice carried in the Chronicle newspaper of the 9th of January 2010, reads part of the threes founding affidavit. Applicants went to Harare where, we, together with other delegates from across the country, under-went training as members of outreach teams from the 10th to 14th of January 2010. At the training we were issued with accreditation cards bearing the respondents logo and with our faces and particulars and identifying us as members of the outreach teams.
The applicants added that at the end of the training they were all made to sign codes of conduct binding them as members of the outreach teams in a quasi-employment contract relationship with COPAC for the duration of the constitution-making process.
At all the material times after the said training and signing of codes of conduct, we have waited with legitimate expectation to be part of outreach teams that will be deployed to commence work of gathering peoples views and input on the content of a new constitution. We also had a legitimate expectation to be given a hearing before any changes in our aforesaid contractual relationship with the Respondent are made or before the relationship is terminated.
We also expect to be given reasons for any decision terminating the aforesaid contractual relationship, they said.
The three added they were shocked to read a notice in newspapers published by COPAC in which their names were missing.
We were not informed as to how and when the Respondent (COPAC) took the decision to eliminate our names from the list of outreach team members. Neither were we given any hearing prior to such a decision being taken. No reasons have been proffered for the elimination of our names from the list. They wanted the Court to declare the decision by COPAC to exclude them from the whole process declared null and void.
Post published in: Politics