EDITORIAL COMMENT: Time ZANU-PF Used Its Two Thirds Majority
August 27, 2016
Zimbabwe Herald
Zanu-PF and the Government it informs, who are the targets of this regime change campaign, may need to harness the more than two thirds majority they enjoy in Parliament to plug loopholes that are liable to exploitation by regime change lobbyists.
IN his writings, French philosopher Montesquieu outlines a constitutional government with three arms of State, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary with clear separation of powers to provide for oversight. Edmund Burke, contributing to debate in the House of Commons in 1787, identified the media as the fourth estate, the fourth arm of state, which plays a watchdog role over the other three on behalf of the citizen.
Our Constitution provides for and guarantees the independence of these arms of state and it is in this spirit that we exercise our watchdog role over the judgment that was issued by the High Court yesterday.
A judgment that raised more questions than answers as it endangered the lives of innocent people, their property and children to whom we all owe protection.
It’s a judgment that appeared to have been delivered in a cloister, divorced from the milieu of a society that only three days earlier witnessed shocking scenes of violence manifest in the burning of vehicles, looting of shops and harassment of innocent people going about their business by hoodlums masquerading as peaceful protesters.
In our view, the bench should have considered the following points and thrown out the application.
Firstly the issue of precedent. The application for a petition march was a clear attempt to escalate the violence that had been witnessed 72 hours earlier, particularly in light of the statement of intent from the MDC-T youth assembly that the so-called #MyZimbabwe Campaign, under which Wednesday’s demonstration was held, was aimed at trying to depose the Government.
It should have been instructive that the same forces that were behind Wednesday’s mayhem, when they numbered about 200, were asking for an even bigger demonstration of an estimated 150 000 people. The question then should have been, if they caused such mayhem when they were a mere 200 what more when they were 150 000?
Secondly, Government was hosting a VVIP in the form of Sierra Leone vice president Victor Bockarie Foh, who had come to officially open the 106th edition of the Harare Agricultural Show. His freedom of movement and safety should have been of concern to the bench.
The High Court judgment issued Friday, in our opinion raised more questions than answers as it endangered the lives of innocent people, their property and children to whom we all owe protection.
The national interest should have been paramount here as there is no other value that can surpass it.
Thirdly, linked to the VVIP was the ongoing Harare Agricultural Show which apart from being a business expo is also largely a family event in terms of patronage. That the proposed gathering point for the potentially riotous demonstrators was just a stone’s throw away from a place teeming with children should also have been an issue for the bench.
Fourthly and quite suspiciously so, even before the judgment was delivered, demonstrators were already waiting at the assembly point. Not only that, the opposition tabloids led with screaming headlines that the demonstration was proceeding as planned raising the question of the extent to which the thinking of the bench was in the public domain on the eve of the judgement.
Last, but not least, the gamut of Zimbabwe’s electronic media, the broadcasting stations, ZBC, Star FM and ZiFM were broadcasting from the showgrounds and their stands are not guarded by soldiers.
We can only imagine the mayhem that would have ensued in the country if some excitable hoodlums had stormed the stations to falsely proclaim that they had unseated the Government? It is a ghastly scenario to contemplate.
Be that as it may, while the bench may have acted on a strict interpretation of the law, we reiterate that the law is not administered in cloisters. The foregoing points should have been considered as section 59 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to demonstrate, has a caveat to peaceful protest.
This then brings us to the new Constitution itself that came about as a compromise document, written and adopted during the inclusive Government. Is it an effective tool to govern with?
Zanu-PF and the Government it informs, who are the targets of this clearly orchestrated regime change campaign, may need to harness the more than two thirds majority they enjoy in the legislature to plug loopholes that are liable to exploitation by regime change lobbyists. If the law cannot protect the people, it cannot be considered just and should be changed.
Zimbabwe Herald
Zanu-PF and the Government it informs, who are the targets of this regime change campaign, may need to harness the more than two thirds majority they enjoy in Parliament to plug loopholes that are liable to exploitation by regime change lobbyists.
IN his writings, French philosopher Montesquieu outlines a constitutional government with three arms of State, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary with clear separation of powers to provide for oversight. Edmund Burke, contributing to debate in the House of Commons in 1787, identified the media as the fourth estate, the fourth arm of state, which plays a watchdog role over the other three on behalf of the citizen.
Our Constitution provides for and guarantees the independence of these arms of state and it is in this spirit that we exercise our watchdog role over the judgment that was issued by the High Court yesterday.
A judgment that raised more questions than answers as it endangered the lives of innocent people, their property and children to whom we all owe protection.
It’s a judgment that appeared to have been delivered in a cloister, divorced from the milieu of a society that only three days earlier witnessed shocking scenes of violence manifest in the burning of vehicles, looting of shops and harassment of innocent people going about their business by hoodlums masquerading as peaceful protesters.
In our view, the bench should have considered the following points and thrown out the application.
Firstly the issue of precedent. The application for a petition march was a clear attempt to escalate the violence that had been witnessed 72 hours earlier, particularly in light of the statement of intent from the MDC-T youth assembly that the so-called #MyZimbabwe Campaign, under which Wednesday’s demonstration was held, was aimed at trying to depose the Government.
It should have been instructive that the same forces that were behind Wednesday’s mayhem, when they numbered about 200, were asking for an even bigger demonstration of an estimated 150 000 people. The question then should have been, if they caused such mayhem when they were a mere 200 what more when they were 150 000?
Secondly, Government was hosting a VVIP in the form of Sierra Leone vice president Victor Bockarie Foh, who had come to officially open the 106th edition of the Harare Agricultural Show. His freedom of movement and safety should have been of concern to the bench.
The High Court judgment issued Friday, in our opinion raised more questions than answers as it endangered the lives of innocent people, their property and children to whom we all owe protection.
The national interest should have been paramount here as there is no other value that can surpass it.
Thirdly, linked to the VVIP was the ongoing Harare Agricultural Show which apart from being a business expo is also largely a family event in terms of patronage. That the proposed gathering point for the potentially riotous demonstrators was just a stone’s throw away from a place teeming with children should also have been an issue for the bench.
Fourthly and quite suspiciously so, even before the judgment was delivered, demonstrators were already waiting at the assembly point. Not only that, the opposition tabloids led with screaming headlines that the demonstration was proceeding as planned raising the question of the extent to which the thinking of the bench was in the public domain on the eve of the judgement.
Last, but not least, the gamut of Zimbabwe’s electronic media, the broadcasting stations, ZBC, Star FM and ZiFM were broadcasting from the showgrounds and their stands are not guarded by soldiers.
We can only imagine the mayhem that would have ensued in the country if some excitable hoodlums had stormed the stations to falsely proclaim that they had unseated the Government? It is a ghastly scenario to contemplate.
Be that as it may, while the bench may have acted on a strict interpretation of the law, we reiterate that the law is not administered in cloisters. The foregoing points should have been considered as section 59 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to demonstrate, has a caveat to peaceful protest.
This then brings us to the new Constitution itself that came about as a compromise document, written and adopted during the inclusive Government. Is it an effective tool to govern with?
Zanu-PF and the Government it informs, who are the targets of this clearly orchestrated regime change campaign, may need to harness the more than two thirds majority they enjoy in the legislature to plug loopholes that are liable to exploitation by regime change lobbyists. If the law cannot protect the people, it cannot be considered just and should be changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment