THE High Court yesterday nullified Nelson Chamisa’s MDC
presidency and ordered the party to organise an extra-ordinary congress to
choose a new leader within a month, but the youthful opposition politician
vowed to go ahead with his party’s planned elective congress later this month
while appealing the court ruling.
The verdict by Justice Edith Mushore follows an application
by MDC secretary for Gokwe Sesame district, Elias Mashavira, who petitioned the
High Court last year seeking nullification of Chamisa and his deputy Elias Mudzuri’s appointment into the
party’s presidium.
The duo was handpicked and appointed as co-vice-presidents
by the now late MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
But in her ruling delivered in the motion court, Justice
Mushore said: “The appointments of the second and third respondents (Chamisa
and Mudzuri) as deputy presidents of the MDC party were unconstitutional and,
therefore, null and void. The appointment of second respondent (Chamisa) as
acting president, and president of the MDC party were unconstitutional and,
therefore, null and void.
“All appointments and/or reassignments and all actions of
the second respondent in his purported capacity as deputy/acting or incumbent
president were unconstitutional and,
therefore, null and void.”
Justice Mushore also ordered the MDC party to hold an
extra-ordinary congress within a month.
In July 2016, Tsvangirai handpicked Chamisa and Mudzuri as
his deputies and when he passed on in February 2018, the party’s national
executive committee and the national council annointed Chamisa and Mudzuri as
president and deputy, respectively.
But Mashavira challenged the move, citing violation of the
party’s constitution.
Justice Mushore said it was self-evident that, according to
the MDC’s constitution, party presidents and their deputies were only elected
at congress and not appointed.
“Second and third respondents’ (Chamisa and Mudzuri) claim
to be deputy presidents is based upon the late president (Tsvangirai) picking
them to be deputy presidents. They were not elected into those positions at a
congress,” the judge said.
“The applicant (Mashavira) claims that the legitimate
deputy president in the party, who still carries the title of deputy president,
is the fourth respondent (Thokozani Khupe), by virtue of her democratic
election at congress in 2014. That claim is aligned to the provision in article
6.4.4.1 of the party’s constitution. It is that simple.”
Justice Mushore further noted that after Tsvangirai’s
death, the acting president, as per article 9.2 of the constitution, should
have assumed the presidential duties and called for an extra-ordinary congress
in no later than a year from the death or resignation of the former president.
“Plainly speaking, therefore, … the duty to call (for) the
extra-ordinary congress for such an election would have been that of the fourth
respondent (Khupe). The constitution is specific about this requirement …,” she
said.
In his application, through his lawyers Mutungura and
Partners, Mashavira had cited the MDC, Chamisa, Mudzuri, Khupe, MDC
secretary-general Douglas Mwonzora and chairperson Morgen Komichi as
respondents.
Mashavira also challenged the decision of the party’s
national executive committee and the national council to elect Chamisa as party
president outside congress.
He said, as a delegate representing Gokwe Sesame district,
he was supposed to have been invited to an MDC congress organised by Khupe in
Bulawayo last year.
“The fifth respondent (Mwonzora), as the secretary-general,
did not invite delegates, neither did he take minutes of the alleged congress.
My province, district, ward and branch were not invited to that congress and,
as such, in terms of the MDC party constitution, no congress has been held to
fill the vacancy left by the passing on of the president of the MDC party,
Morgan Richard Tsvangirai. In any event, what was supposed to be held is an
extra-ordinary congress, not an ordinary congress,” he said.
“Upon the death of Tsvangirai, provisions of the party’s
constitution regarding the president’s succession automatically kicked in.
However a dispute erupted between Khupe, Chamisa and Mudzuri.”
In a statement yesterday, MDC spokesperson Jacob Mafume,
however, said the party was going ahead with its elective congress set for May
24-26 in Gweru, regardless of the High Court ruling.
“We have just been advised of the High Court of Zimbabwe
judgment issued by Justice Edith Mushore today. We fundamentally disagree with
the judgment. The choice of leaders of any political party, the world over is
the sole preserve of the members of that party,” he said.
“It can never be a judicial process. Equally, the actions,
activities and programmes of a political party, being a voluntary organisation
whose existence is protected by the Constitution, is the sole preserve of the
members of that party.”
The MDC said it would appeal the High Court judgment,
noting in their statement that the courts had become an extension of “Zanu PF
hegemonic rule”.
“In just a few weeks’ time, the MDC will complete the
process of democratically electing its leadership at a congress convened in
terms of its constitution. Strangely, Justice Mushore’s judgment contradicts
and totally ignores an earlier judgment of the High Court, which ruled on the
case of Murimoga versus the MDC,” Mafume said.
In 2017, the High Court dismissed an application by Patson
Murimoga challenging the appointment of Chamisa and Mudzuri as vice-presidents.
“We are fully aware of the machinations and strategies
being deployed by the Mnangagwa administration to destabilise and destroy the
people’s project. We reiterate that (President) Emmerson Mnangagwa is
illegitimate and no amount of diversionary tactics will change this fact,”
Mafume added.
He said “for the avoidance of doubt”, preparations for the
MDC congress were at an advanced stage and 6 800 delegates would attend.
“That process is irreversible. We shall hold a historic and
joyous congress under the theme Defining a New Course for Zimbabwe,” Mafume
said.
An MDC appeal against the High Court ruling has the effect
of suspending the judgment, meaning the congress can proceed without any legal
hindrances. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment