President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been taken to court by the Mangwende clan which is challenging the appointment of one Taaziwa Morgan Gatsi as substantive Chief Mangwende, early this month,
BY CHARLES LAITON
In an urgent chamber application filed on Monday this week, Musafare Sydney Mangwende, Ngoni Mangwende and Rutendo Muchemwa, cited the President of Zimbabwe (Mnangagwa) in his official capacity, Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, July Moyo, and district administrator (DA) for Murewa as respondents.
In his founding affidavit, Musafare said he was seeking an order barring the installation of Gatsi pending the resolution of the chieftainship wrangle in court.
“This is an application seeking to interdict the installation of the fourth respondent (Gatsi) as the substantive Chief Mangwende by the first respondent (Mnangagwa). It further seeks the preservation of the status quo pending the determination of the review filed under HC2728/18,” Musafare
“The matter is urgent because the applicants (Musafare, Ngoni and Muchemwa) became aware of the appointment of the fourth respondent on March 17, 2018 at a meeting summoned by the DA. On March 23, 2018 a review application was filed challenging the appointment.”
According to Musafare, the Gukwe-Mungate sub-house which he belongs to stands as the direct successor to the Mangwende chieftainship.
Musafare said on March 6, this year, Mnangagwa appointed Gatsi as the substantive Chief Mangwende in terms of section 283 (a) of the Constitution and section 3 (1) of the Traditional Leaders Act but the appointment letter was not brought to their attention.
“The perturbing contents of the letter are to the following effect: the appointment is with retrospective effect that is from February 3, 2018. The letter provides no right to challenge the appointment contrary to the constitutional provisions,” Musafare said.
“The irregularities arising from the appointment are further glaring in that the said Gatsi is not a descendant of a sub-house that stands directly in line of the appointment. No legal provision in the form of section 283 (a) (10) provides for the course taken.
“First to third respondents have failed to give due consideration to the prevailing customary principles of succession applicable to the Mangwende chieftainship or the provisions of sections 283 (c) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution.”
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.