Senior Clerical Assistant (Administration) – Grade 5

Records Assistant

Assistant Registrar – Faculties (Gweru)

Security Guards (Gweru, Harare, Kwekwe & Zvishavane campuses)

Technical Sales Person/ Aluminium (Harare)

Regional Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL) Officer (Bulawayo)

Boiler Maker (Harare)

Marketing & Sales Officer (Harare)

Compliance Officer (Harare)

Safety, Health and Environment Officer (Harare)

Vehicle Sales Consultant - JAC (Harare)

Vehicle Sales Consultant – DONG FENG (Harare)

Billing Supervisor (Harare)

Sales Representative (Harare)

Auto Electrician: Artisan (Chipinge)

Sales Representatives (Harare)

Director Human Resource (Mutare)

Legal & Compliance Manager (Harare)

Processes Analyst (Harare)

Finance Manager Corporate (Harare)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) have filed an urgent appeal on behalf of the <a href="https://www.pindula.co.zw/LEAD/">Labour, Economists, and African Democrats (LEAD)</a> political party, seeking to declare the government’s efforts to modify the country’s constitution through the use of a Statutory Instrument unconstitutional.
The government issued Statutory Instrument (SI) 114 of 2023 just before the Nomination Court convened on June 21, 2023, to correct an amended Section 268 of the Zimbabwean Constitution. The amended section stipulated that ten women must be elected to provincial or metropolitan council positions under a proportional representation system, thus excluding men. SI 114 now allows both men and female candidates to be nominated for political party lists.
ZLHR filed the appeal on June 24, 2023, arguing that SI 114 of 2023 is unconstitutional. The opposition also pointed out that the ZANU PF-led government enacted SI 114 of 2023 to benefit its candidates as the ruling party had ignored the constitutional amendment and utilised the zebra system to nominate male and female candidates for the 10 provincial or metropolitan council seats. 
Following the publication of SI 114, ZEC published a press release on June 21, 2023, alerting political parties that they can proceed with nominating both female and male candidates for provincial or metropolitan council seats.
Political analysts have criticised the government’s and Parliament’s inability to take note of the constitutional amendment before signing it into law, demonstrating incompetence. Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) member and lawyer, David Coltart said the SI 144 demonstrated “gross ineptitude by the ZANU PF regime and was also <a href="https://www.davidcoltart.com/2023/06/zlhr-files-urgent-application-against-si-that-seeks-to-amend-constitution/">“thoroughly illegal.”</a> He said:
<blockquote>
One cannot just amend a Constitutional provision, which has been in place for almost two years, on the day before nomination day, or at any time. It’s utterly bizarre
The new constitutional provisions, Sections 268 and 269, bad as they are, state all the candidates must be women. A mere SI can’t change that.
No doubt ZEC will again ignore this brazen breach of the Constitution. But how incompetent is it for someone to wake up on the eve of an election to ‘correct’ an ‘error’ in the Constitution which was published almost two years ago? The bumbling is breathtaking.
</blockquote>
According to Tendai Biti, a Constitution cannot be amended by an SI, even if an error was made recording the amendments made in the National Assembly. He argued that the Senate debated and adopted that erroneous position, which the President signed into law. He said:
<blockquote>
Under such circumstances, only a constitutional amendment can undo the original position. Besides, a law affecting an election cannot be made once an election proclamation has been made. This is therefore a scandalous mongrel’s breakfast but one which not many mongrels will touch.
</blockquote>
Political analyst Iphithule Maphosa said the government and Parliament’s failure to revise the constitutional amendment – Section 268 – before signing it into law demonstrated incompetence. Maphosa added that they are now making changes when an election is imminent to suit the ruling party, which shows a lack of seriousness in carrying out oversight duties.
<h3><a href="https://www.pindula.co.zw/">More Pindula News</a></h3>

Pindula News

LEAD Ropes In Lawyers To Declare Govt's Constitutional Amendment Bid Illegal

The Parliament of Zimbabwe has announced that the Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs will hold public hearings on the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment No.2 Bill (H.B 23, 2019) from the 15th to the 19th of June 2020.
If the Bill is endorsed, it will allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa greater control over judicial appointments.
Some have criticised the resumption of hearings saying the timing is amiss as the country is grappling with the coronavirus pandemic.
Some observed that the outcome of the hearings will not capture the reality on the ground since venues are not central hence “a deliberate strategy to exclude the common man’s view.”
Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has suspended electoral activities citing the coronavirus pandemic.
See attached for more.
 
<img alt="Image" class="css-9pa8cd" decoding="async" draggable="true" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaAHjtAXsAIT3zC?format=jpg&amp;name=medium"/><img alt="Image" class="css-9pa8cd" decoding="async" draggable="true" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaAHkqeXsAITt6c?format=jpg&amp;name=medium"/>

Dates And Venues For Public Hearings On The Constitutional Amendment Bill

President Emmerson Mnangagwa has said that citizens will never be equal but at least there can be equal opportunities for all.
Speaking to members of the Political Actors Dialogue (POLAD) forum at his Kwekwe farm this Sunday, Mnangagwa said:
<blockquote>We can never all of us be equal. What can be done is to have opportunities put at our disposal, have loans and have everyone access the loans.
We can have, and we should have policies to empower our people…we must create windows where our youths access loans to empower themselves.</blockquote>
He added that Zimbabweans must do away with the dependency syndrome saying that everyone should work for transformation to happen.
Others would, however, equate his remarks to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” a proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
More: <a href="https://www.newzimbabwe.com/ed-stop-mourning-about-zanu-pf-collapsing-the-economy-lets-learn-from-our-past-foolishness/">New Zimbabwe</a>

"We Can Never All Of Us Be Equal," President Mnangagwa

<h3>Introduction</h3>
Many people arrested in connection with last month’s disturbances have been charged with criminal nuisance;  many have signed admissions of guilt and have been released after paying deposit fines.
What is criminal nuisance and how does it affect the right to demonstrate guaranteed by section 59 of the Constitution?
<h3>Definition of Criminal Nuisance</h3>
The term “criminal nuisance” covers a multitude of sins.  According to section 46 of the Criminal Law Code, anyone who does anything set out in the Third Schedule to the Code is guilty of criminal nuisance and liable to a fine of up to $200 or to a prison sentence of up to six months.
The Third Schedule lists a total of 29 separate acts which can amount to criminal nuisance.  They range from mischievously ringing doorbells to skinning animals in public.  Among this miscellany the following acts could conceivably form the subject of a charge against a person who participated in the recent disturbances:
<blockquote>(c)  without the permission of the appropriate authority, makes a fire … in a public place [This would cover burning tyres in a street];
(f)   encumbers or obstructs the free passage along any street, road, thoroughfare, sidewalk or pavement;
(m) shouts or screams in a public place to the annoyance of the public;
(v)  … does any act which is likely to create a nuisance or obstruction.</blockquote>
If a person does any of these things in a public place or a street he or she will be guilty of criminal nuisance.  Does it make any difference if the person is taking part is a demonstration? 
It should do, because of sections 58 and 59 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate.
<h3>Freedom of Assembly and Demonstration</h3>
The sections 58 and 59 of the Constitution are worded in broad terms:
“Every person has the right to freedom of assembly and association …” [section 58(1) of the Constitution]
Every person has the right to demonstrate and to present petitions, but these rights must be exercised peacefully.” [section 59]
These rights, together with the allied right to freedom of expression, are the bedrock on which democracy is based.  Unless people can assemble together to demonstrate for or against particular causes, rulers will be unresponsive to their people’s concerns.  Ordinary citizens must be able to bring their concerns to the attention of their rulers – presidents, ministers and legislators – at times of their own choosing, not just at political rallies staged by the rulers themselves.  Demonstrations serve this purpose and another one too:  bringing issues to the notice of the wider general public, serving as catalysts for public debate.  Without the right to demonstrate, democracy is stultified.
<h3>Interpretation of sections 58 &amp; 59 of the Constitution</h3>
Because freedom of association and freedom to demonstrate are so important to democracy, sections 58 and 59 of the Constitution must be interpreted broadly to give them the widest possible scope.  This is laid down by section 46 of the Constitution itself, which states that “full effect” must be given to the rights and freedoms laid down in the Declaration of Rights [of which sections 58 and 59 form a part] in order to promote “the values and principles that underlie a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom”.  While laws may limit the freedoms, the limitations must be “fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society …” [section 86 of the Constitution].
Put more briefly, as our Supreme Court did, the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution must be interpreted broadly, and limits on them must be interpreted strictly and narrowly – and certainly not so as to nullify the rights and freedoms.
<h3 align="center" style="text-align: left;">Peaceful</h3>
It should be noted that section 59 of the Constitution contains its own limitation:  the section protects peaceful demonstrations, not violent ones.  Peacefulness, however, is a relative term.  All large demonstrations carry an incipient threat of violence simply because a crowd of people have gathered together to express their united support for or opposition to a particular cause.  Demonstrations in a street may block traffic or prevent pedestrians from walking on a pavement, but that in itself does not amount to violence even if there is an implied threat that the demonstrators will forcibly resist any attempt on the part of traffic or pedestrians to force their way through the demonstration.  Chanting or shouting by demonstrators, also, cannot be regarded as violence even if bystanders object to what is being chanted or shouted.  The Constitution protects the right to demonstrate for unpopular as well as popular causes.
In short, disturbance cannot be equated with violence.  Demonstrations that create a disturbance are protected by the Constitution;  after all, creating a disturbance is often the object of a demonstration.  Demonstrators want the authorities and the public to sit up and take notice of their demands.
A further point is that, according to a judgment of the Constitutional Court in South Africa, if some demonstrators resort to violence while the majority remain peaceful their demonstration is still protected by the Constitution:  individuals do not lose their right to demonstrate peacefully simply because of sporadic violence committed by others.
<h3>Public Nuisance and Freedom of Association and Demonstration</h3>
From these principles the following propositions can be drawn:
<ul>
<li>It is generally wrong for participants in a non-violent demonstration to be arrested and charged with public nuisance, if what they are charged with doing was a legitimate exercise of their constitutional right to demonstrate.</li>
<li>What amounts to a legitimate exercise of the right to demonstrate depends on the circumstances, but blocking a road or pavement and shouting slogans are usual and legitimate elements of public demonstrations, so demonstrators who do so should not be charged with public nuisance.  Burning tyres to block at road, on the other hand, is going too far.</li>
<li>If a minority of demonstrators turn violent the non-violent majority should not be prevented from continuing to demonstrate, if the law enforcement authorities can separate the violent ones from the rest.</li>
<li>Violent demonstrators, if they are caught [and the proliferation of cameras is making it easier to single out those who are violent], can and should be charged with public violence, but the fact that some demonstrators turn violent does not mean that all the rest are guilty of public violence.</li>
</ul>
Note: If demonstrators engage in looting then they are guilty of theft, and malicious damage if they break into shops or houses.  Those are serious criminal offences and are not covered in any way by the Constitutional right to demonstrate.
<h3 align="center" style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h3>
To give effect to these propositions requires tact and restraint on the part of the law enforcement authorities, and moderation on the part of demonstrators.  Everyone needs to remember that demonstrations are part of the democratic process, but they must be peaceful.
Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this mailing list please email <a href="mailto:veritas@mango.zw">billwatch@mango.zw</a> 
If you wish to contact Veritas please email <a href="mailto:veritas@mango.zw">veritas@mango.zw</a> 
If you are requesting legislation please email <a href="mailto:veritas@mango.zw">veritas@mango.zw</a> or look for it on <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.veritaszim.net&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1550581382667000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE2Bsb_oKKfB84xAiIqX-9VmloLOg" href="http://www.veritaszim.net/">www.veritaszim.net</a>

FULL TEXT: #VeritasExplains Criminal Nuisance & The Right To Protest

MDC Alliance proportional representation legislator Concillia Chinanzvavana has taken President Emmerson Mnangagwa to the Masvingo High Court, seeking to force him to extend the tenure of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC) to 10 years as prescribed by the Constitution.
Mnangagwa is the third respondent in the application, while Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi is the first respondent. Vice-President Kembo Mohadi, who oversees the NPRC, is the second respondent, while the NPRC is the fourth respondent. Attorney-General Prince Machaya is the fifth respondent in the application. The case came before Justice Joseph Mafusire yesterday, who reserved judgment. He said he would deliver judgment in a motion court and would advise the parties of his ruling.
Through her lawyer, Tendai Biti, Chinanzvavana argued the NPRC’s 10-year tenure was shortened by five years due to delays in coming up with an Act of Parliament to put it into effect so that it would start operations. She argues NPRC was supposed to be operational on August 18, 2013 when former President Robert Mugabe took oath of office, meaning it could have ended on August 19, 2023, to make it 10 years. But due to delays in enacting the law to operationalise the NPRC, the commission only came into effect on January 5, 2018. As a result, the NPRC will just exist for five years, and not 10, she told the court. She asked the court to declare that there was a constitutional breach in the delay in operationalising the NPRC. Chinanzvavana also wants the commission’s lifespan to be prolonged to January 5, 2028.
More: <a href="https://www.newsday.co.zw/2019/02/ed-sued-over-nprc-lifespan/">NewsDay</a>

Mnangagwa Taken To Court Over National Peace And Reconciliation Commission Lifespan

Parliamentary, legal and civil rights watchdog Veritas has said that the ruling Zanu-PF party may find it hard to amend the Constitution as it does not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Zanu-PF has 180 seats out of 270 in the National Assembly which is exactly two thirds. However, in the Senate, Zanu-PF has 35 seats out of 80, although the traditional chiefs have 18 seats. In a bulletin, Veritas writes

<blockquote>
Distribution of Senate Seats
Total 80 seats
[60 party-list seats + 18 seats for Senator Chiefs, + 2 seats for
Senators Representing Disabled Persons]
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Party
</td>
<td>
Total
</td>
<td>
Party-list seats 
[60]
</td>
<td>
Other seats 
[20]
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
MDC Alliance
</td>
<td>
24
</td>
<td>
24
</td>
<td>
—
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
MDC-T
</td>
<td>
1
</td>
<td>
1
</td>
<td>
—
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
ZANU PF
</td>
<td>
35
</td>
<td>
35
</td>
<td>
—
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Senator Chiefs
</td>
<td>
18
</td>
<td>
—
</td>
<td>
18
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Disabled reps
</td>
<td>
2
</td>
<td>
—
</td>
<td>
2
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

</td>
<td>

</td>
<td>

</td>
<td>

</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Total
</td>
<td>
80
</td>
<td>
60
</td>
<td>
20
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
 
Notes:
<ol>
<li>No 2/3 majority for ZANU-PF  ZANU PF’s total of 35 seats is well short of the two-thirds majority [54 votes – Constitution, section 344(3)] needed to pass a constitutional amendment.  Even if all 18 Senator chiefs were to vote with the ZANU PF 35 [totalling 53], it would still need one more Senator to make up the 54 votes needed.</li>
<li>Women senators  There are 35 women Senators. 35 out of a total Senate membership of 80 is 43.75%, nearer the Constitution’s 50% mark than the National Assembly’s 31.5%.  </li>
<li>Party-list seats  [See next paragraph]</li>
<li>Senator Chiefs  [See later paragraph]</li>
<li>Disabled reps [Senators representing persons with disabilities]  [These two Senators, one of whom must be a woman, were elected by a special Electoral College [see later paragraph].</li>
</ol>
Allocation of Party-list Seats
The allocation of all these seats was done at ZEC’s provincial command centres by provincial elections officers [Electoral Act, section 45I and Eighth Schedule].  In each province, the party-list seats for the province had to be based on the votes received by the participating political parties in that province as reflected on the constituency return forms for every constituency in the province.
After receipt of all the constituency returns [on form V.23B] for the province, the provincial elections officer was obliged to notify candidates, their election agents and observers when the returns would be verified and collated – to enable them to exercise their right to be present.  At the appointed time, the constituency returns had to be first verified and then collated to arrive at the total number of votes recorded in the province for constituency candidates of the participating parties.  The party-list seats [6, for the Senate, 6 for the National Assembly women’s quota and 10 for the provincial council] then had to be allocated among the participating parties in accordance with the formulae set out in the Eighth Schedule to the Electoral Act.
A provincial return then had to be prepared, copies provided  to those present at the verification and collation exercise and a copy prominently displayed outside the provincial command centre for the public to inspect and record its contents.  Finally, a certified copy of the provincial return had to be transmitted to the ZEC National Command Centre.
Senator Chiefs
The 18 Senate seats for Senator Chiefs were filled by a three-stage process as laid out in Part XX of the Electoral Act, each stage being presided over by a ZEC official:
<ul>
<li>election of the Council of Chiefs by the provincial assemblies of chiefs [11th July]</li>
<li>election of the President and Deputy President of the Council of Chiefs by the members of the Council of Chiefs [18th July].  The President of the Council and his Deputy are ex officioSenators.  Chiefs Charumbira and Mtshane were re-elected as President and Deputy President, respectively.</li>
<li>election of the other 16 Senator Chiefs by the provincial assemblies of chiefs [1st August].  Each on the eight non-metropolitan provinces elected two chiefs; there are no Senator Chiefs representing the metropolitan provinces of Bulawayo and Harare.</li>
</ul>
Senators Representing Persons with Disabilities
The Seventh Schedule to the Electoral Act sets out the procedure for the formation under ZEC’s supervision of an Electoral College with the sole function of electing two disabled persons, one of whom must be a woman, as Senators to represent the interests of disabled persons in the Senate.  The Electoral College consists of disabled persons who are registered voters and otherwise qualified to be Senators [over 40 years of age, Zimbabwe citizens, etc.]  They are nominated for Electoral College membership by organisations assisting disabled persons, institutions providing services to disabled persons and registered trusts whose mandate is to assist persons with disabilities.  Half of the members must be women.  The Senators elected need not be from members of the Electoral College.  The Electoral College met on 3rd August and elected two Senators to represent persons with disabilities.</blockquote>

Zanu-PF MAy Be Unable To Amend The Constitution As It Does Not Have Two-Thirds Majority In Senate

Buhera South legislator and Zanu-PF politician Joseph Chinotimba has said that he is going to introduce a motion in Parliament which will increase the age limits for presidential candidates. Chinamasa denied that he was doing this to prevent MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa, who turned 40 this year, from running for the next 15 year. Zanu-PF has a supermajority of more than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, as a result, it can amend the Constitution which came into effect in 2013. Speaking to the Daily News, Chinotimba said,
<blockquote>I want the presidential age limit to change from 40 years to 55 or 60 years. I am going to introduce this motion in Parliament. This is because some of the presidential candidates are very young; they are not yet mature to lead this nation. We want people who know the history of this country, people who are responsible for their actions. I am not going to do this for Chamisa but I think it’s very important for our country.</blockquote>
More: Daily News

Presidential Age Limit Should Be increased From 40 To 55 To Stop 'Immature' Candidates - Chinotimba

There has been speculation that President Robert Mugabe can dissolve Parliament before it successfully impeaches him. However, Mugabe cannot just wake up and dissolve Parliament. There are conditions for him to successfully dissolve Parliament.
Section 143 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe on the Duration and dissolution of Parliament sets out the conditions and procedure for dissolution of Parliament. Mugabe can dissolve Parliament if:
<ul>
<li>2/3 of Parliament and Senate sitting separately passes a resolution to dissolve,</li>
<li>Parliament has unreasonably refused to pass an Appropriation Bill referred to in section 305</li>
<li>Parliament passes a vote of no confidence in the Government in terms of Section 109 of the Constitution</li>
</ul>
Read section 143 below:
<blockquote>1. Parliament is elected for a five-year term which runs from the date on which the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office in terms of section 94(1)(a), and Parliament stands dissolved at midnight on the day before the first polling day in the next general election called in terms of section 144.
2. The President must by proclamation dissolve Parliament if the Senate and the National Assembly, sitting separately, by the votes of at least two-thirds of the total membership of each House, have passed resolutions to dissolve.
3. The President may by proclamation dissolve Parliament if the National Assembly has unreasonably refused to pass an Appropriation Bill referred to in section 305.
4. A decision to dissolve Parliament in terms of subsection (3) may, on the application of any Member of Parliament, be set aside on review by the Constitutional Court.
5. An application for the review of a decision to dissolve Parliament must be filed with the Constitutional Court within seven days after the decision was published, and–
a. the Constitutional Court must determine the application within fourteen days after it was filed; and
b. pending the Constitutional Court’s determination of the application, the decision to dissolve Parliament is suspended.</blockquote>

Mugabe cannot just dissolve Parliament, Here is what the Constitution says

So, if you could stop the rise of a dictator would you? We are sure most of us would. Whether you believe that Robert Mugabe is a dictator or not, it is not really a secret that the majority of Zimbabweans want to see him leave office. The hastily organised march that took place on Saturday the 18th of November showed that Zimbabweans are unified on this one thing if no other.
Some people have cautioned us not to get too excited without thinking about who will succeed Mugabe. As Zimbabweans, we deserve a different presidency than that of Robert Mugabe. However, the truth is, we cannot rely on individuals to deliver the presidency we deserve. People can change. Robert Mugabe changed. The presidency we want will only be delivered when we choose to rely on our laws and processes instead of individuals.
Whoever the next president will be or MP or Senator or Judge or Councilor, we want them to know what our expectations are for anyone who holds public office.
Please join us and other Zimbabweans to make our voice heard by the next president of Zimbabwe, <a href="https://www.change.org/p/the-parliament-of-zimbabwe-we-the-people-of-zimbabwe-do-not-want-the-another-mugabe-here-are-our-expectations" rel="noopener" target="_blank">sign this petition</a>. 
We will deliver this petition to the Speaker of Parliament, the President of the Senate, the Chief Justice and the leaders of Zimbabwean Political Parties.
<div class="change-embed-petition" data-petition-id="12783137"></div>
<script src="https://static.change.org/product/embeds/v1/change-embeds.js" type="text/javascript"></script>

What Can YOU Do Before the Next President Assumes Office?

The article below was produced by Veritas Zimbabwe on 16 November 2017. You can read more and other reports on <a href="http://www.veritaszim.net">their official website</a>. Since the article was authored, a number of developments have taken place:
<ul>
<li>
<h2 class="post-title entry-title"><a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/11/16/sadc-meeting-zim-situation-inconclusive-recommends-urgent-extra-ordinary-summit/" rel="bookmark" title="SADC meeting on Zim situation inconclusive, recommends urgent Extra Ordinary Summit">SADC meeting on Zim situation inconclusive, recommends urgent Extra Ordinary Summit</a></h2>
</li>
<li>
<h2 class="post-title entry-title"><a href="https://news.pindula.co.zw/2017/11/16/breaking-mugabe-agrees-step-negotiations-military/" rel="bookmark" title="Breaking: Mugabe Agrees To Step Down After Negotiations With The Military">Breaking: Mugabe Agrees To Step Down After Negotiations With The Military</a></h2>
</li>
</ul>
<h2 style="font-weight: 400;">Introduction</h2>
Yesterday Zimbabweans woke to find that the Defence Forces had taken control of the country, avowedly to purge the ruling party of criminals who had fostered division and misgovernment.  The military spokesman disavowed any idea that they were taking over the government:  what they were doing, he said, was to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation which, if not addressed, <a href="http://www.veritaszim.net/node/2255">might result in violent conflict</a>.  The statement by the Commander of the Defence Forces which preceded the takeover emphasised the role of the Defence Forces in upholding the Constitution, suggesting that the military wants to <a href="http://www.veritaszim.net/node/2256">abide by it so far as possible</a>.
At the time of writing there was no firm indication of what the military commanders intended to do, and in this Constitution Watch we shall set out the constitutional options available to them.
<h2>1. Replacing President Mugabe with a New President</h2>
If the military decide that the best way forward for the country is to replace Mr Mugabe with a new President, the steps open to them are as follows:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Persuade Mr Mugabe to appoint a new Vice-President, assuming the military commanders do not want a new government headed by the current Vice-President.  Mr Mugabe would do this in terms of paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Persuade Mr Mugabe to resign – perhaps easier said than done.  The President resigns by written notice to the Speaker of Parliament under section 96 of the Constitution, and the Speaker must give public notice of the resignation within 24 hours.  Upon his resignation the Vice-President will take over as Acting President under paragraph 14(4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution until the ruling party endorses him or nominates someone else as substantive President, which it will have to do within 90 days under paragraph 14(5).</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Persuade Mr Mugabe, before resigning, to dismiss his current Cabinet and appoint new Ministers.  This sounds odd – why should a President who is going to step down appoint a new Cabinet? – but it is necessary because under section 100 of the Constitution an Acting President [which the Vice-President will become when Mr Mugabe goes] needs the approval of a majority of existing Ministers before he or she can dismiss Ministers or appoint new ones.  So because of this constitutional quirk Mr Mugabe will have to appoint at least some of his successor’s Ministers.</li>
</ul>
<h2>2. Allowing President Mugabe to Continue in Office</h2>
This is a less plausible option.  The military spokesman stated that their intention was to return Zimbabwe to a dispensation which allows for investment, development and prosperity, and a government headed by Mr Mugabe is unlikely to achieve any of that.  Nevertheless, if the military wants to keep Mr Mugabe in office, though with a clearly nominated successor and with new Vice-Presidents and Ministers, they would need to persuade Mr Mugabe to take the following steps:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">To dismiss the current Vice-President, Mr Mphoko, assuming the military do not want the possibility of a future government headed by him.  The President can dismiss Vice-Presidents at any time because they hold office at the President’s pleasure[paragraph 14(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution].</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">To appoint a new Vice-President;  the President can appoint up to two of them under paragraph 14(2) of the Sixth Schedule.  He could also, of course, revoke such an appointment whenever he wished, and might well be inclined to do so if the appointment was made under duress.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">To nominate the new Vice-President, or one of them if there are two, as his successor in the event of his death or retirement.  This nomination would not be legally binding but would have great political significance.  It could, however, be revoked by the President whenever he felt he could do so with impunity.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">To appoint new Ministers under section 104 of the Constitution.  Ministers can be removed from office at any time under section 108, so replacing all or some of his existing Ministers will not pose any constitutional problem.</li>
</ul>
It must be noted that the President is head of State and Government [section 89 of the Constitution] and that when exercising many of his functions he is not bound to act on the advice of his Ministers [section 110(2) and (6)].  Hence even if the military gets Mr Mugabe to agree to exercise only limited powers, or do only what the Cabinet advises him to do, it will be no more than a gentlemen’s agreement.
<h2>3 Transitional Government or Government of National Unity</h2>
This is an option put forward by several groups.  It is not really an alternative to the two options set out above, because a transitional or unity government could be headed by Mr Mugabe or by his successor as acting President or President.  If a transitional or unity government is to represent all shades of opinion and interests, many of its members will have to be drawn from outside Parliament.
<h2 style="font-weight: 400;">Vice-Presidents</h2>
A new President would face no restrictions in appointing Vice-Presidents, but an Acting President would need to get the agreement of a majority of his Cabinet for the appointment of a Vice-President [section 100(2) of the Constitution].
<h2 style="font-weight: 400;">Ministers</h2>
Under section 104 of the Constitution, Ministers must be Members of Parliament but the President or an acting President is allowed to appoint up to five of them, chosen for their professional skills and competence, from outside Parliament.  If more than five such Ministers are to be appointed there are two options:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Members of Parliament may be persuaded to vacate their seats to allow prospective Ministers to be elected in their stead.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">Section 104 of the Constitution could be amended to increase the number of non-parliamentary Ministers who can be appointed.  This would need a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the National Assembly.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="font-weight: 400;">Postponement of Elections</h2>
Whatever the composition of the next Government, it is quite possible that the general election scheduled for next year will be postponed.  The current political turmoil means that the ruling party will be unable to contest an election soon, and opposition parties and coalitions are in almost perpetual disarray.  Voter registration is not going smoothly and a delimitation of wards and constituencies has not even been attempted.  The Electoral Act remains unaligned to the Constitution.  For all these reasons there is likely to be substantial support for postponing the election.
This will need an amendment to the Constitution, because under section 158 general elections must be held every five years;  the deadline for next year’s election is August.  As stated above a Constitutional amendment will have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the National Assembly, but if all parties agree on the postponement such a majority may not be too difficult to secure.
<h2 style="font-weight: 400;">Observance of Detained Persons’ Constitutional Rights</h2>
As we pointed out at the beginning of this Constitution Watch, the military have emphasised their respect for the Constitution.  This respect must extend to the whole Constitution, including those provisions that protect the rights of arrested or detained persons.  The military authorities must therefore ensure that Ministers and party members who have been detained are accorded their rights under section 50 of the Constitution, in particular that they are:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">treated humanely and with respect for their inherent dignity;</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">permitted access to their lawyers and medical practitioners;</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;">brought before a court within 48 hours after they were detained.</li>
</ul>

Where to Now in Zimbabwe? Here Are The Options (Veritas)

The Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the Removal of President or Vice-President from office through a resolution by one half of the total membership of Members of Parliament. Section 97 of the Constitution says:

<blockquote>1. The Senate and the National Assembly, by a joint resolution passed by at least one-half of their total membership, may resolve that the question whether or not the President or a Vice-President should be removed from office for–
a. serious misconduct;
b. failure to obey, uphold or defend this Constitution;
c. wilful violation of this Constitution; or
d. inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity; 
should be investigated in terms of this section.
2. Upon the passing of a resolution in terms of subsection (1), the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders must appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the National Assembly consisting of nine members reflecting the political composition of Parliament, to investigate the removal from office of the 
President or Vice-President, as the case may be.
3. If–
a. the joint committee appointed in terms of subsection (2) recommends the removal from office of the President or Vice-President; and
b. the Senate and the National Assembly, by a joint resolution passed by at least two-thirds of their total membership, resolve that the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, should be removed from office; the President or Vice-President thereupon ceases to hold office. </blockquote>

Here's what Zimbabwe's Constitution says on the Removal of a President from power

The Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the Removal of President or Vice-President from office through a resolution by one half of the total membership of Members of Parliament. Section 97 of the Constitution says:
<blockquote>1. The Senate and the National Assembly, by a joint resolution passed by at least one-half of their total membership, may resolve that the question whether or not the President or a Vice-President should be removed from office for–
a. serious misconduct;
b. failure to obey, uphold or defend this Constitution;
c. wilful violation of this Constitution; or
d. inability to perform the functions of the office because of physical or mental incapacity; 
should be investigated in terms of this section.
2. Upon the passing of a resolution in terms of subsection (1), the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders must appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the National Assembly consisting of nine members reflecting the political composition of Parliament, to investigate the removal from office of the
President or Vice-President, as the case may be.
3. If–
a. the joint committee appointed in terms of subsection (2) recommends the removal from office of the President or Vice-President; and
b. the Senate and the National Assembly, by a joint resolution passed by at least two-thirds of their total membership, resolve that the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, should be removed from office; the President or Vice-President thereupon ceases to hold office. </blockquote>

<a href="http://www.zbc.co.zw/2017/10/28/chiefs-endorse-dr-mugabes-presidential-candidature/">ZBC News reported</a> that traditional chiefs have endorsed President Robert Mugabe as the Zanu PF presidential candidate for the 2018 harmonised elections. This is illegal and a violation of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
The announcement of the endorsement was made by Chiefs Council President, Chief Fortune Charumbira during the official opening of the 2017 edition of the National Annual Conference of chiefs held in Bulawayo on Saturday. Said Charumbira:
<blockquote>As chiefs, we agreed during the 2014 congress that Cde Mugabe is our candidate for the 2018 elections. We are all united and he is still our candidate. We have been supporting him and we can confirm that winning is guaranteed.</blockquote>
Chapter 15 Section 281(2) of the Constitution stipulates the code of conduct for chiefs. Section 281(2) states that:
<blockquote>2. Traditional leaders must not–
a. be members of any political party or in any way participate in partisan 
politics;
b. act in a partisan manner;
c. further the interests of any political party or cause; or
d. violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of any person.</blockquote>
By endorsing Mugabe’s Zanu-PF candidature, Chiefs have participated in partisan politics. This raises questions on the issue of a level playing field in next year’s elections considering that they have openly supported Mugabe as a candidate and assured him that winning is guaranteed.

Chiefs' endorsement of Mugabe’s candidature is illegal

Political analyst, Ibbo Mandza, has said that the MDC parties were naive to trust Zanu-PF in the constitutional making process as the ruling party negotiated in bad faith. This follows the passing of Constitutional Amendment Number 1 Bill on Tuesday. The bill seeks to give the President the power to appoint the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Judge President, unlike the current situation where the candidates are publicly interviewed.
Said Mandaza:
<blockquote>The new Constitution was more of an agreement between political parties than a genuine constitution-making exercise.
Zanu PF negotiated in bad faith and the opposition MDCs were naïve in their approach of trusting the regime.
MDC-T has to be answerable to the people of Zimbabwe for the support they gave to the process.</blockquote>
More: <a href="https://www.newsday.co.zw/2017/07/29/zanu-pf-negotiated-bad-faith/">NewsDay</a>

MDC was naive to trust Zanu-PF during constitution making process: Ibbo Mandaza

Vice President and Minister of Justice Emmerson Mnangagwa has tried to justify the constitutional amendment to grant the president unlimited power in the selection of senior judges by claiming that United States president Donald Trump also chose his own Chief Justice. However, this is not true, as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is John Roberts who was nominated by President  George W Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate in 2005. The move to amend the constitution has been criticized with some quarters describing it as a mutilation of the Constitution.
Speaking in Chiredzi on Thursday, Mnangagwa said:
<blockquote>We cannot have a situation where teachers sit down and say amongst ourselves let us choose the headmaster
…On top of having the right qualifications, integrity and probity, the Chief Justice must be appointed by the President, who is also the Head of State. Even (US President Mr Donald) Trump chose his own Chief Justice. That is the practice the world over, so we are saying the President must choose and that is what we are working on.</blockquote>
More: <a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/nothing-sinister-about-president-choosing-cj/">Herald</a>

Mnangagwa lies that Trump chose own CJ to justify constitutional amendment to give President more power

Speaking after a constitutional lecture at Ntabazinduna Prisons Training School, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Mrs Virginia Mabhiza said that Government is prioritising the alignment of electoral and human rights laws to the Constitution ahead of next year’s elections.
Said Mabhiza:
<blockquote>The criteria we are using is to look at those laws that infringe on the enjoyment of human rights especially the bill of rights. If ever there is anything that is violating any right we pay attention. We also pay attention to issues to do with elections which are critical and so far we have done a lot of aligning. I am very grateful on the latest constitutional judgement which is taking a position on some of the issues we were being tasked to align.</blockquote>
More: <a href="http://www.chronicle.co.zw/priority-being-given-to-aligning-electoral-human-rights-laws/">Chronicle</a>

Govt committed to aligning electoral and human rights laws ahead of elections

Vice President and Justice Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa refuted allegations by MDC-T lawmakers Mr Innocent Gonese (Mutare Central) and Mr Prince Sibanda (Binga North) that Constitutional Amendment Bill (No. 1) is motivated by personal benefit. Mnangagwa said that the amendment is being done according to the people’s wishes.
Said Mnangagwa:
<blockquote>It is my firm belief and conviction that those who entertain such notions are not only mischievous and self-destructive, to say the least, but dangerous, not only to our constitutional democracy, but to themselves. It must be clear to them that I, as the minister to whom the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs portfolio was assigned, have the unfettered mandate to propose amendments according to the people’s wishes, the law, and procedures available for the peace, order and good governance of the motherland.</blockquote>
He also said that there was no prescribed timeline for the Constitution to be amended and gave an example of South Africa which he said amended its constitution barely seven months after its adoption in August 1997.
More: <a href="http://www.herald.co.zw/ed-defends-constitutional-bill/">Herald</a>

Mnangagwa says amending constitution is not meant to benefit him or Zanu-PF

Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede has revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs will be seeking to abolish Dual Citizenship despite the fact that it is provided for in the Constitution. Making a presentation on the Constitution and dual citizenship to the Zanu-PF parliamentary caucus Mudede said that the Ministry was going to seek an amendment to the constitution as dual citizenship posed a number of security challenges to the country such as tax evasion, evasion from justice, involvement in cases of human trafficking, international terrorism
Said Mudede:
<blockquote>As the Ministry of Home Affairs, we have decided that we are not going for realignment (of the Citizenship Act to the Constitution), but for amendment</blockquote>
More: <a href="http://www.chronicle.co.zw/govt-rejects-dual-citizenship/">Chronicle</a>

We will amend the Constitution to abolish Dual Citizenship: Mudede

Minister of Home Affairs Dr <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Ignatius_Chombo">Ignatius Chombo</a> is proposing to amend citizenship clauses in the <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Constitution_of_Zimbabwe">Constitution</a> as part of legislation reforms.
Responding to a written question by Zanu-PF MP for Kadoma Central, Fani Phiri, who wanted to know procedures being taken by Government on the status of people considered to be “aliens”, Chombo said,
<blockquote>The Ministry has made submissions to Government for amendments of certain provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe regarding the Citizenship Law. As such, we therefore await the said amendments to the Constitution.</blockquote>
The Minister did not give more details on the proposals. If the constitutional amendment is adopted, this would be the first time the country would have revised parts of its constitution that came into force in 2013.
More: <a href="http://www.chronicle.co.zw/minister-proposes-changes-in-citizenship-clause/">Chronicle</a>

Chombo proposes amendments to citizenship clauses in the 2013 Constitution

Deputy Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, Professor <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Paul_Mavima">Paul Mavima</a> revealed that Government will from next year start teaching the <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Constitution_of_Zimbabwe">Constitution of Zimbabwe</a> to primary and secondary school pupils, as a way of making citizens appreciate the country’s supreme law as required by Chapter 1 section (b) of the new Constitution.
Speaking in <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Parliament_of_Zimbabwe">Parliament</a> recently, Mavima said they are going to introduce constitutional studies to schools early next year and that the program will also include Early Child Development (ECD) pupils. He added that apart from the constitutional lessons, government is also looking at teaching school pupils about other national symbols and the national anthem, building from the <a href="http://www.pindula.co.zw/Zimbabwe_National_Pledge">National Pledge.</a>
More: <a href="https://openparly.co.zw/2016/11/03/government-to-start-teaching-the-zimbabwe-constitution-to-primary-secondary-school-pupils/">Open Parly Zimbabwe</a>

Tendai Biti Latest News

Latest Jobs