Concourt reserves ruling in judge’s case

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment in a matter in which MDC-T MPs are challenging the legality of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.1) Act, which gives the President sole powers to appoint the Chief Justice, his deputy and the Judge president.

MDC-T chief whip Innocent Gonese and Harare West MP Jessie Majome argued that when the process was done, the National Assembly and Senate were not fully constituted.

Chief Justice Luke Malaba, sitting with eight other judges of the Apex Court, heard arguments from lawyers representing the parties before indefinitely postponing the judgment.

“Judgment will be reserved in this matter,” said Chief Justice Malaba.

Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who was being instructed by Mr Tendai Biti of Tendai Biti Law, represented the legislators.

Advocates Lewis Uriri, Wilbert Mandinde and Takawira Nzombe, all from the Temple Bar Inns of Court, represented Parliament.

The legislators argued that Parliament did not follow the correct procedures in passing the Bill.

It was argued that Parliament failed to comply with the constitutional obligation defined in Section 328(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which requires a Constitutional Bill to be passed by two-thirds of the membership of both Senate and National Assembly, sitting separately.

They also argued that no vote was conducted as required by the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

The MDC-T chief whip further argued that some legislators who did not attend the sessions were counted as being present.

They argued that some were even out of the country and they have since filed affidavits confirming that they were not in the House on the day the voting process was done.

They argued that the common practice, where Parliament tellers would move around with the chief whips acting as election observers for transparency’s sake, was disregarded in favour of counting of each party’s sitting arrangement.

Parliament argued that it was not a corporate body that is capable of being sued in its own name, hence the application was defective.

It was argued that the events of the day in question show that voting indeed took place and that it was conducted in a transparent manner.

Parliament’s lawyers argued that the legislators’ application lacked merit and urged the Constitutional Court to dismiss it.