Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Why do workers decide to picket and engage in strikes?
Are these not ways of expressing disapproval and objection to what they perceive as one form of injustice or another?
In fact, is that not the reason this route of settling disputes is protected as a right in most laws of democratic states?
Zimbabwe is actually one of these countries where ‘every person has the right to demonstrate and to present petitions’, as guaranteed in section 59 of our Constitution.
As such, demonstrations and protests, as long as they are conducted peacefully, can justifiably be regarded as a legal route in a dispute.
As a matter of fact, were peaceful demonstrations not an integral part of how Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa came to power in November 2017 – albeit largely through a military coup d’état?
Furthermore, these are a legitimate expression of a people’s disgruntlement and dissatisfaction with a particular entity.
In other words, there is more than one way, provided for under our law, for an aggrieved party to register their concerns and seek redress.
That is why it becomes rather disingenuous and deceitful for the Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa administration to crackdown on any proposed or suspected mass protests against what the people perceive as flawed and stolen elections.
It was very disappointing and curious listening to information minister Jenfan Muswere urging those who felt aggrieved by the results of the 23rd and 24th August harmonized elections not to resort to demonstrations but seek the legal route.
Indeed, section 93 of the Constitution and section 167 of the Electoral Act carry provisions for any dissatisfied contestants in an election to approach the courts within specified time frames.
For a presidential election, the time limit is seven days after the election results declaration date and fourteen days for parliamentary and council candidates.
These are the only platforms provided for under the law where binding resolution can be found – whether the declared winner is reaffirmed, or the election is nullified and a fresh one called for, or a ballot recount is ordered.
Be that as it may, as far as the recent elections are concerned, any such recourse has long since passed – since the results were announced on 27th August, nearly two months ago.
I really have no kind words for the losing presidential candidate, opposition CCC party’s Nelson Chamisa, as he had all the time in the world to lodge a petition with the relevant court of law (the Constitutional Court, in the case of a presidential election).
Yet, for reasons only known to himself and those around him – as they operate the party as a personal fiefdom – he chose not to do so.
Instead, he opted to place his faith in a compromised SADC (Southern African Development Community) – which has a long, unenviable, disgraceful history of standing together with fellow regional leaders, no matter what.
If Chamisa’s reasoning for not approaching the local courts was on the basis of their perceived bias towards the ruling establishment, then relying on SADC was just as misplaced and beyond comprehension.
Why would a body notorious for its ‘laager mentality’ – whereby governments led by former liberation movements jealously protect and rabidly stand with one another – be trusted with impartially and fairly resolving the Zimbabwe crisis?
In other words, trusting SADC is even more outrageous than trusting our own supposedly ‘captured’ judiciary.
This is regardless of the SADC Election Observer Mission (SEOM) producing a damning report on the Zimbabwe elections – which, together with various other EOMs, declared the plebiscite as falling far short of local laws as well as regional and international guidelines governing democratic elections.
Let us not lose cognizant of the fact that SEOM’s views are not always shared with the region’s heads of state.
These leaders will do anything and everything, including undermining SADC’s own organs, so as to defend and stand with their own.
Already as witnessed with the SEOM final report, these glaring flaws and irregularities in the Zimbabwe elections are now simply regarded as ‘recommendations’ for the future.
In addition, the aggrieved parties were advised to utilize and exhaust the domestic legal route.
Simply put, SADC has effectively washed its hands off Zimbabwe!
No surprises there!
The onus is now back with us as the disappointed and disgruntled citizenry – whose votes were unashamedly stolen in broad daylight – to do something about it.
Actually, that is what we should have done from day one after the election results’ announcement.
How on earth did we seriously expect a severely compromised body as SADC to fight their comrades in ZANU PF, on our behalf, whilst we merely sat back and relaxed?
Is that not madness?
Only had there been considerable pressure exerted on their comrades in the Mnangagwa regime would SADC have felt compelled to act in a reasonable manner.
As mentioned before, the most obvious legal route, approaching the courts, has already expired and is closed.
This matter is no longer just about Chamisa, but the people of Zimbabwe whose right to elect a leader of their choice – as provided for in section 67 of the Constitution – was arrogantly perverted by the ruling establishment.
In fact, we should now remove Chamisa and the opposition CCC from the equation – as we stand up for ourselves and our rights that were stolen from us.
This whole issue should be about the people of Zimbabwe more than it is about Chamisa and CCC.
I have said this before and will say it again, quite frankly, I wouldn’t care less whether Chamisa became the president of Zimbabwe or not.
What I am more concerned about is acting upon a government that has authored the unimaginable poverty and suffering of millions of Zimbabweans.
As citizens, the legal avenue has not been exhausted or closed.
The right to demonstrate and present petitions, in a peaceful way, is still very much there and has no statute of limitations.
We can still go on prolonged stay-aways as we shut down the country and economy in order to pressure the authorities to heed our demands for justice.
There is no way the blood-thirsty and trigger-happy regime – which brutally shot, in cold blood, unarmed protestors in 2018 and 2019 – can harm those who decide to stay in their homes and not go anywhere.
In the same vein, our law enforcement can not enforce the MOPA (Maintenance of Order and Peace Act) in the usual partisan manner – as there is no legal requirement for anyone to seek permission to stay in their own home.
There is absolutely no need for violence and violent confrontations.
Granted, we are an informal economy, where millions now eke out a living from so-called ‘hustling’ – whereby each dollar counts, in order to survive, and very few not afford to miss a day of work.
However, this is where we need to seriously evaluate our priorities as Zimbabweans.
Are we genuinely saying we are not prepared to make any sacrifices today for a better tomorrow?
If not, then we are not suffering as much as we claim!
Let us not allow the Mnangagwa administration – who are fully aware of the unscrupulous manner in which they retained power – to intimidate us into surrendering our rights.
The right to freely elect leaders of our choice was fought for in a grueling armed struggle, where thousands lost their lives.
We can not afford to forgo this right simply because there are those in office who choose to violate the law in order to remain in power.
The election story is far from over – but the ball is now squarely in the court of ordinary Zimbabweans themselves.
How aggrieved and disgruntled are we really?
If we are as angry as we want to portray on social media, then what is stopping us from acting?
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: http://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/