Sengezo Tshabangu’s lawyer Advocate Lewis Uriri has said the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) is quiet and not party to the case of 14 CCC MPs and nine senators who argue that their recalls from parliament were unlawful because it is happy with the recalls. The MPs were recalled by Tshabangu, who asserts that he is the interim Secretary-General of the CCC. Speaking before the Harare High Court on Thursday reserved judgement in the matter, Uriri said:
The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. (Alec) Muchadehama told this court that the Speaker and the President of the Senate did not act lawfully, that they acted outside constitutional provisions. The effect of this allegation is that the constitution has excluded the jurisdiction of this court to hear this matter. Only the Constitutional Court has authority to hear this case.
If we assume they are right, it means that parliament has failed in a constitutional obligation. What they seek therefore is a finding that parliament has violated a constitutional provision. The Speaker is not concerned with inner issues of a political party but he is obligated to receive a letter. When he receives it he is allowed to act in the manner he did and this is what he did. He is the Speaker and so his conduct was correct.
Once the Speaker has acted in terms of section 129 of the constitution, there is a result and that result is that the seat is vacated and that seat can only be refilled either by a by-election or the Speaker’s decision is set aside. But absent the party concerned, they cannot resolve the dispute that has arisen. Why did they not cite CCC, because they make submissions which ought to be supported by CCC? CCC is quiet because it is happy with the recalls.
Amanda Sihle Ndlovu, who represents some of the MPs, responded to Uriri’s statement by saying that the lawmakers did not have a reason to involve the CCC in the case. Ndlovu explained that the CCC did not recall the lawmakers, but it was Tshabangu who acted on his own. She pointed out that Tshabangu’s request to include the party in the case was actually an admission that he was not acting on behalf of the party. Ndlovu emphasized that if Tshabangu truly acted for the party, he would have provided evidence to prove his claim, which he failed to do. But Uriri argued:
CCC has a duty to speak but it did not. It has not been cited. It has not sought a joinder. The applicants did not seek a joinder because they know CCC is happy.
Humpty Dumpty cannot be rescued. The matter ought to be struck off the roll or dismissed with costs it deserves.
The lawmakers argue that Sengezo Tshabangu, who triggered the recalls, did not have the authority to do so. The judge will deliver his judgment before November 7, when nomination courts are set to register candidates for by-elections scheduled for December 9.
The CCC lawmakers hope to have the by-elections cancelled if they win their case. The lawyers for the lawmakers argue that Tshabangu’s actions were fraudulent and of no legal consequence. They maintain that the lawmakers are still members of the CCC and that Tshabangu does not have the power to recall them.