1. I have been reading the judgment by Senior Magistrate R. Mukanga at Bulawayo in the matter involving New York Times journalist Jeffrey Moyo. I’m horrified by the mutilation of the Constitution. Let me explain the horror show step by step.
2. Moyo argued for release because he was detained for more than 48 hours before he was brought to court. Section 50(3) states that if this happens the person “must be released immediately” unless a competent court has earlier extended it. There was no such earlier extension.
3. The Magistrate accepted that Moyo was over-detained. The state did not dispute it. But, incredibly, the Magistrate had a strange interpretation of section 50(3). He said it does not entitle an over-detained person to immediate release, the opposite of what the provision says.
4. Section 50(3) is mandatory: the person “must be released immediately”. For some strange reason Magistrate Mukanga thought the over-detained person has no right to be released because he has another remedy, which is compensation. This is not just absurd but illegal.
5. It’s hard to imagine that these absurd interpretations are down to incompetence alone. There’s a whiff of malice in the misreading & misapplication of the law. It’s unreasonable & in bad faith, which is why such judicial officers must be sued in their personal capacity
6. Once a magistrate finds that an arrested person has been over-detained & there’s been no lawful earlier extension, the only thing to do is to order their release. There are no ifs or buts. To allow what the magistrate says simply gives police the licence to over-detain people.
7. This miscarriage of justice is the reason why Last Maingehama & Tunga Madzokere spent a decade in jail: incompetent & malicious police & judicial officers mutilating the law. That’s why the @clczimbabwe wants to embark on constitutional education even among judicial officers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This is Hon. Gwaunza’s response to the request by Beatrice Mtetwa for investigations into the conduct of the @JSCZim Secretary which led to a judge recusing himself from the contempt case against Hon. Malaba. How can he be involved in a matter in which he has so much interest?
2. Malaba should be nowhere near this case. He is the man at the centre of this crisis, but he has the audacity to “instruct” the JSC to carry out investigations! As a judge, he should know better than to be involved because it taints the entire process.
3. Also, as Mtetwa requested, this investigation must be INDEPENDENT. The JSC is not in a position to carry out an independent investigation in this matter. After all, the man under investigation is its top executive. The JSC should outsource this to an independent investigator.
1. One general rule that I have learnt purely by experience as a Zimbabwean is that there is a positive correlation between more decrees to control the foreign currency (forex) market and the expansion of the parallel (black) market.
2. In other words, the more the government tries to command & control the formal market by decree, the more the informal/parallel market grows. This is partly because economic actors seek to avoid the debilitating & punitive impact of the formal market decrees.
3. It also grows because formal market controls create opportunities for arbitrage. This happens because the formal market, access of which is restricted to a few, offers cheap forex which can be sold at higher rates either directly on the parallel market or as goods for sale.
1. The letter announcing the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court is odd & vague so that it is not possible to determine the law under which they are being appointed. It says the President has “approved” the appointments “at the instance” of the Acting Chief Justice.
2. The letter is coming from the Judicial Service Commission. The “approval” bit is perplexing. It’s either the President appoints or he doesn’t. Whether before or after Amendment No. 2, he is the appointing authority. If they are acting judges, his approval is irrelevant.
3. True the judges take their oath before the Chief Justice but it is unclear whether they are being appointed under the old procedure when they were interviewed last September or as amended by Amendment No. 2. But does it make any difference to the contentious cases? None.
1. Regarding the constitutional matter, I fear people are missing the forest for the trees. I have said that we have a constitutional crisis & it emanates from both amendments. It is that a Real Madrid or Barca player cannot choose the referee for El Classico. Let me explain.
2. All the judges of the superior courts are parties to the proceedings. They cannot properly sit as referees in a matter in which they are involved & they have an interest. In short, they are all conflicted. This is the forest. All the other technicalities converge here.
3. Now, some may argue that a special panel can be chosen to do it. Fine. But someone has to choose that panel. That cannot be done by players in the game because they have an interest. The JSC unnecessarily dragged itself into the matter when it could have stayed neutral.
1. 34 years ago, Zimbabwe’s first democratic Constitution was drastically amended via the infamous Amendment No. 7. It introduced the Executive Presidency dumping the Westminster model. I was in Grade 7, barely aware of what was happening. Zvaitonzi Long Live President RG Mugabe!
2. It was only when I was in law school 7 years later that I began to fully appreciate what it meant. Back then, debates were in newspapers & magazines like Moto & Parade often weeks or months after the event. It took a while to build constitutional consciousness.
3. Today, we have multiple spaces where debate is taking place, people getting views from different voices as events happen. This is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is healthy for society to be exposed to multiple views; to be part of the discourse. It should be celebrated.
1. I have immersed myself in studying the US Civil Rights Movement in the 50s & 60s. The legal strategy is part of the fight for rights & democratic space. It is not the only one but it is important. Knocking down the edifice of dictatorship is not a one day event but a process.
2. I remember one of the doyens of that struggle saying every struggle requires moments of victory, no matter how small. They provide a glimpse of hope; that it’s possible. We knew the regime would fight back & it is. Still, we pursue; focused & tenacious. Nothing lasts forever.
3. They want you to believe it’s all meaningless; to not have hope and to be fatalistic. This case has them at sixes and sevens as evidenced by the tantrums & vitriol. You don’t dwell on what has happened but focus on what may happen & be prepared for it.