In the first instance earlier this year, Mugabe brazenly declared that no court must entertain the challenge by Didymus Mutasa and Rugare Gumbo, allies of Joice Mujuru – who he fired from the position of vice president last year.
Last week, while addressing party supporters in the Midlands, Mugabe repeated his intimidatory remarks, insisting that the courts had no jurisdiction over a party matter. Does this mean that the MDC squabbles should also not be handled by the courts? Last year the Speaker of Parliament (a Zanu (PF) politburo member) refused to sack breakaway members of the MDC-T and advised the party to resolve its differences with the Renewal Team in court).
Mugabe has, of course, misapplied himself by claiming that the courts should not involve themselves in internal party disciplinary matters. Constitutionally and in keeping with our statutes, party members do indeed have a right to approach the courts for legal redress when they feel their rights have been violated. The courts have and are currently handling matters relating to party processes and developments. One such case involves leadership issues involving MDC’s Welshman Ncube and Arthur Mutambara, who both claimed to be the legitimate leaders of that party.
In any case, it would be ridiculous for a head of state to argue that courts must not be involved when there are party disputes. For argument’s sake, let’s say a person employed with the Zanu (PF) secretariat is un-procedurally fired from work. Does that then mean that the aggrieved person must just sit and watch or go back to the same institution that ill-treated him or her – when there is a labour law that provides the opportunity for him or her to go to court?
But more worrying is the likely effect of Mugabe’s statement regarding the jurisdiction of the courts on the judiciary itself. In a government like his, where appointments are made on a partisan basis and where one is most likely to be persecuted for apparently defying the all-powerful president, magistrates and judges are bound to shun the Mutasa case.
They will know full well that applying professionalism in this case would lead to their victimisation. As a result, the litigants are unlikely to receive the justice they deserve. Even the prosecutor general and the attorney general are likely to approach the case with poisoned attitudes. They were appointed by Mugabe and they know very well that positions depend on his whim.
The President must be condemned in the strongest terms for indirectly interfering with the judiciary. In some democracies, he would be lynched for making the utterances he made regarding the courts and their perceived jurisdiction.
Post published in: Editor: Wilf Mbanga