NOW that Constitutional Amendment Number 3 has left the station, approved by cabinet last week and dutifully gazetted this week, “the Party” has activated its ever-reliable auxiliary wing: “the People”.
Their assignment? To rise spontaneously, energetically and in perfect synchrony to defend the bounteous harvest of 21 proposed changes to the supreme law of the land.
Meticulous as ever in its core business — retaining power at all costs — “the Party” does not leave these things to chance. Every scenario was stress-tested long before the ink dried.
Weak links were identified. Loopholes sealed. Scripts rehearsed. “The People” were placed on standby, ready to materialise wherever constitutional patriotism might be required at short notice.
From among these same “People” will emerge the inevitable lawsuits — bold challenges to the legality of the process, especially its procedure. All very organic, of course. Entirely citizen-driven. The system would not be a system if it did not anticipate dissent and pre-package its management.
Next comes the consultation stage — that colourful national theatre where “the People” will truly earn their stripes. Just like in previous constitutional pageants, they will arrive in full force, voices amplified and passions pre-installed.
Keep Reading
- Is military's involvement in politics compatible with democracy?
- AFM church leader in court for fraud
- Tension ahead of central committee elections
- Knives out for Chinamasa
They will insist that a two-year term extension is a modest appetiser, why not 10? Why not 12? (And who is Owner to deny the appetite of “the People”?)
They will argue, with admirable conviction, that a referendum is unnecessary. After all, why consult the nation when “the People” already know what the nation wants?
By the time the statutory 90 days lapse, the amendments will glide to parliament as a ceremonial formality. The system, as we know, prides itself on efficiency.
This week, Cde Lovemore Madhuku entered the arena, flanked by a few rented war veterans, to challenge the constitutionality of the entire enterprise. One imagines “the Party’s” constitutional bench dusting off a judgment carefully-drafted sometime around 2024, just in case.
But systems are flexible. They can even afford theatrics. The court might, in a dazzling display of independence, rule in his favour and order a referendum.
That is where the Party’s famed infrastructure, seasoned across terrains and climates, takes over. A resounding “YES” would emerge, polished and presentable, lending the entire affair a comforting veneer of legitimacy.
Owner would then proceed to enjoy his extended stay, with the option of being “voted” back by his own MPs, assisted, where necessary, by a rentable opposition.
Long-range planning has even produced the likes of Sengezo Tshabangu, the self-declared custodian of parliamentary order, now threatening recalls against any MP tempted to derail the 2030 express.
Careless Patrick Chinamasa once remarked that it was “almost impossible” to amend the constitution. For uttering that heresy aloud, he found himself abruptly relieved of certain legal responsibilities. A reminder to others that impossibility is a matter of attitude.
We are told there is Cde Yasser Arafat on the bench, adept at making sense of nonsense (remember the coup that was not a coup?) and ensuring that cadres in robes understand “the Party” line.
“The People” are many. So many, in fact, that even Madhuku himself could qualify as one of them. After all, there are rewards in appearing to resist, if resistance ultimately delivers a preordained destination.
And those 200-plus 4ED affiliates? Hardly decorative. Should the courts theatrically discover fatal flaws in the process, “the Party” is already 10 steps ahead. Either way, it will secure its prize, much like the indomitable Mbambo Ndyire in the 1961 epic novel Pfumo Reropa by Patrick Chakaipa, relentless, patient and victorious.
Stalingrad strategy at work?
Lawyers representing embattled “prophet” Walter Magaya have written to the prosecutor-general demanding the recusal of Harare’s chief director of prosecutions, Tendayi Shonhayi, alleging conflict of interest.
Their argument? She attends the United Family International Church (UFIC), supposedly a rival to Magaya’s Prophetic Healing and Deliverance Ministries (PHD).
One learns something new every day. Until now, Muckraker believed churches belonged to God. Apparently, some are private projects with identifiable beneficial owners. Prosecuting the owner, it seems, risks prosecuting the enterprise.
From the averments being made in this case, it is quite obvious that PHD is someone’s private project, hence the genuine fears that by prosecuting the beneficial owner, one is automatically also prosecuting the project.
It looks like the agenda is no longer about winning souls for Christ, but customers, as exposed by the laughable claims. The claim is that Shonhayi seeks to destroy Magaya’s project for the benefit of UFIC, associated with “prophet” Emmanuel Makandiwa.
Suppose it emerges that Cde Loice Matanda-Moyo, the PG herself, also happens to be a member of another of “rival” church to Magaya’s project, the lawyers might also have to write to the National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe demanding her recusal too.
Since statistics suggest around 90% of Zimbabweans identify as Christian, the pool of “neutral” prosecutors may soon shrink to alarming levels.
If that logic holds, then any judicial officer, the magistrate included, attending a church other than PHD — be it Salvation Army, Mwazha, Anglican, Mugodhi, Zion, Nguwo Tsvuku, Roman Catholic, Johanne Marange or any of the countless denominations — must automatically be a rival and therefore conflicted.
Magaya also filed an application seeking to overturn court rulings granting his alleged victims privacy, demanding that they testify against him in an open court in full view of his thuggish followers.
We can anticipate him to file a few other applications just to stall the process. If these technicalities are to be allowed, that may actually make it impossible for the cases to proceed, a checkmate in the game of chess or the legal equivalent of the Stalingrad defence. Delay. Exhaust. Overwhelm.
One wonders whether, had bail been denied as in the case of Cde “Dr” Walter Mzembi, the strategy would be quite so energetic. When one is “inside,” time acquires a different urgency.
We hope the lawyers are not just trying to delay the obvious. We prayerfully hope so!
Selective needs of ‘the People’
“It is absolutely constitutional to amend your constitution at any given time because it must respond to the expectations of the people,” declared Local Government minister Daniel Garwe, the enthusiastic ED-2030 courier, at a ruling party meeting in Chivhu.
Garwe speaks from experience. He successfully amended himself into Zanu PF Mashonaland East provincial chairperson, all in response to “the needs of the People”.
Yet others in the Party curate history more selectively. This week George Charamba cast aspersions on the patriotic and professional integrity of the late broadcaster John Masuku for beginning his career at the Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation and his later roles at some progressive broadcasting projects, conveniently overlooking the fact that many have, at one time or another, responded to “the expectations of the people” when circumstances demanded.
George himself once adjusted to new expectations during that delicate episode we are told was not a coup. Apparently, constitutional flexibility is virtuous, but only when exercised by the correct hands.