Zimbabwe’s political landscape is teetering on the edge of chaos, fueled by a series of constitutional violations and a blatant disregard for the rule of law, starkly evident in the actions of President Emmerson Mnangagwa and Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda. This article uncovers the disconcerting pattern of these unconstitutional acts and their impact on the democratic framework of the nation.
Since his ascension to power in a controversial manner in 2017, which many viewed as a military coup, President Mnangagwa has consistently shown little regard for constitutional mandates. His tenure is marred by a litany of constitutional breaches, including the unconstitutional appointment of Zimbabwe Defence Forces commander General Phillip Valerio Sibanda, a decision that was later reversed under duress. This incident is emblematic of Mnangagwa’s governance style, which often flouts legal and constitutional limits, raising serious concerns about the integrity of Zimbabwe’s legal system.
Adding to this troubling scenario, Mnangagwa’s inauguration following contentious general elections, the appointment of illegitimate provincial ministers, and failure to appoint a State Security or Intelligence minister, all underscore a governance style that often sidesteps constitutional norms.
The recent fiasco involving the unconstitutional management of elections by the Football Association of Zimbabwe (FAZ) and Justice Loice Matanda Moyo’s conflict of interest further illustrate the growing list of constitutional violations under Mnangagwa’s administration. The Sibanda debacle reinforces Mnangagwa’s reputation as a leader who frequently operates outside the bounds of constitutional legality.
Parallel to this, Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda is embroiled in a controversy that underscores the systemic disregard for legal processes in Zimbabwe. Mudenda’s sanctioning of the removal of 18 main opposition CCC MPs and senators, in defiance of a High Court order, blatantly ignores judicial authority and showcases a partisan approach in parliamentary affairs. This defiance, in a country that respects the rule of law, should have led to serious contempt of court charges.
These events signify a deeper crisis in Zimbabwe’s political system – a blatant disrespect for constitutional norms and judicial authority. The actions of both Mnangagwa and Mudenda not only weaken the foundations of democracy but also set a dangerous precedent for future governance. They underscore an urgent need for accountability and adherence to the rule of law in Zimbabwe, critical for preserving the nation’s democratic institutions.
On another note, if Herald, the Zanu PF apologist paper, were personified, it would be a deeply troubled entity, overly reliant on appeasing the fragile ego of Mnangagwa, referred to as “Scarfmore”. The Herald’s abrupt shift from praising engagement with international entities to attacking teachers exemplifies the government’s indifference to the plight of educators suffering from inflation and poor welfare.
Zanu PF’s hypocritical stance on sovereignty becomes evident in its criticism of the UK government’s benign relationship with Zimbabwe’s struggling teachers. The party’s condemnation of supposed British interference stands in stark contrast to its own egregious actions, including a campaign in Scotland to whitewash its troubling history.
Moreover, Zanu PF’s paranoia and insecurity are mirrored in its attitude towards the evolving role of teachers, whom it now views as threats to its shaky hold on power. This reflects a broader insecurity within the party, particularly in the context of potentially recovering plundered wealth by the criminal cartels that masquerade as the government. In this chaotic environment, NGOs and embassies, once accused of promoting regime change, are now overshadowed by the government’s focus on teachers, highlighting the regime’s deep-rooted fears and impending collapse under its own corrupt practices.