The detailed analysis to help educate Zimbabweans, was launched this week ahead of the 2nd All-Stakeholders' Conference and a possible constitutional referendum. The preamble points out that Copac does not mention atrocities such as Gukurahundi and operation Murambasvina, raising fears that such incidents might occur again.
The lawyers advise that the President should not have authority to call for elections, as this allows for arbitrariness. Instead, the date of an election which is constant and predictable should be included as a constitutional provision.
Allowing the President to unilaterally declare war and also a state of emergency is not a good practice further reads the analysis. This allows too much discretion and arbitrariness. Approval or non-approval by parliament after the fact will not be helpful.
They believe such powers should be exercised by Cabinet or the legislature.
The analysis reveals the unjust on citizenship as it ensures people whose parents migrated from SADC countries retain citizenship by birth.
However there is an arbitrary discrimination between those Zimbabweans whose parents migrated from SADC and those who migrated from other regions which this is problematic.
Dual citizenship issue has still not been resolved and gives excessive powers to parliament to prohibit, making parliament more powerful than the constitution in this aspect which is problematic.
ZLHR feels that there is too much executive control and interference because the Citizenship and Immigration Board is appointed solely by President.
According to the analysis, rights protected are much broader, including protection of vulnerable groups. However there is no protection of rights of lawyers and judicial officers carrying out their professional duties, even though they have been targeted and had their rights violated in the past.
Provisions relating to agricultural land are in open defiance of SADC Tribunal ruling on discriminatory nature of land reform program and contradict Chapter 16 of same Constitution. Also deny aggrieved persons the right to challenge this through the courts which is contrary to jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
They applaud the appointment of ministers on basis of professional skills and competence. However, they argue that more safeguards are needed as to how decision on appointment is made to prevent this being used for patronage purposes. The same can also be said for other ministers, as all should be appointed for their skills and competence in a clearly defined way.
"It is disappointing to note that all office-bearers within the public service, judiciary, and office of the Attorney General will retain their office without some form of audit to assess their work output, efficiency and profession under the new Constitution. This will not assist in strengthening public confidence in the public administration and state institutions," reads the analysis.
Post published in: News