Drafters gone to the dogs

The findings of the Copac outreach programme were consolidated in a report called the National Report compiled by the three main political parties namely Zanu-PF, MDC-T and MDC. Thereafter, the drafters were assigned to write the constitution in the requisite legal format based on the National Report.

There is a glaring disparity between what the people said during the Copac outreach programme and what has been written to be the provisions of the new constitution. In their Drafter’s Letter 4.1 dated December 9, 2011, the writers have copied the ” . . . Constitutions of countries in Sub-Saharan such as Kenya, South Africa, etc”. The draft is simply off tangent.
So far the draft Chapters released, which are Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4 have touched on, inter alia, the topical issues of death penalty, gay rights, dual citizenship, war veterans welfare and recognition of indigenous languages. With the goodwill of the editor, I will be unpacking these chapters in serialised format.

Gay Rights.

According to the National Report, Zimbabweans in all provinces including the MDC-T strongholds (Manicaland, Bulawayo, Mat North, Mat South etc) said “NO” to the recognition of gay rights in the new constitution. In their wisdom (or lack of it) the drafters stated in Chapter 4.6 (section 3, everyone has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds such as their nationality, race . . . natural difference, etc. It is the term ‘‘natural difference” that from legal perspective, will import gay rights into our constitution. This phrase is not in our current constitution neither was it requested to be incorporated by the people during the outreach. It is such terms that lawyers will argue in court to interpret that gay rights are justiciable/acceptable.

When South Africans wrote their constitution in the early 90s, the people through their representatives never consented to the enshrinement of gay rights in their constitution. In fact their Marriage Act of 1961 enacted by the repressive apartheid regime did not recognise same sex marriages. The shock only came in 2002 when Marie Fourie and Cecelia Bonthuys, a lesbian couple, applied to the Pretoria High court seeking an order to compel the Department of Home Affairs to recognise their marriage.
The application was turned down and the lesbian couple appealed to the constitutional court which ruled that not recognising same sex marriages was unconstitutional and therefore legalised gay marriages. The judgment went further to order Parliament to come up with a new law legalising homosexuality.

How did they reach that decision? The applicants (the lesbian couple) simply argued that section 9.3 of the South African Constitution directed that . . . “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, etc.”
It is the phrase “sexual orientation” the lesbians used to argue their case. In our Zimbabwean case the drafters are using “natural differences” to provide for a loophole that gays and lesbians will exploit to apply to the courts of law to have their unions recognised.
When David Cameron decreed that the UK will not financially assist any recipient state that will not recognise gay rights, President Mugabe called him “Satanic”. Ghana, a country described by Obama as the leading democracy in Africa, its President Mr Atta Mills said Cameron was showing a “bullying mentality”. Last year, Ghana received £90million from UK but said “If they must take their money, so be it.”
Homosexuality will simply tear our African social fibre apart which regulates how we relate with relatives, neighbours, strangers, etc. I simply can’t fathom any one of my three sons bringing in another man as a

partner. How will one relate to him? Muroora?
If he will be called muroora what will be his role in the big family or in the clan. Definitely no children. Constitution must not be used to destroy people’s cultures, norms and beliefs. The phrase “natural differences” genesis must be traced and the writers must stop playing God on the wishes of the people.

Death Penalty.
The National report, which the writers have, says that all the provinces support the continuation of the death penalty. But our writers wrote in Draft Chapter 4.1(Right to life) section 3, “No law may prescribe death as a penalty and from the effective date no executions may take place in Zimbabwe.” But why?

In the last festive season, already more than 10 people were killed in fights over women, beer and one dollar debt. It is such callous and destructive behaviour that the penalty seeks to deter.
If one person takes the other’s life, then he/she abrogates his/hers. The US government still has the death penalty in its law books.
Zimbabweans spoke in support and the drafters are doing the opposite, which is banditry at its worst!

Languages
The National Report states that all the 10 provinces want all major and minority languages as official languages. This will abet the preservation of these languages and their cultures. It also prevents the dominance of their tribes and or languages over the others in national programs. The drafters in their Drafters Letter 1.1 dated December 8, 2011 page 6 says that, “It seemed to us that rather than specify every single indigenous language that is spoken in – and even you seem to be unsure about how many they are and how they are spelt – it would be better to specify just the three main ones.”

The drafters proceed in Draft Chapter 1 section 6 (2) states, “English is the language of record.” The majority of African countries have their own native languages declared languages of record. Zimbabweans want the same and drafters are writing something else.
Everyone thought recognition of each’s vernacular language is the bedrock of national unity,
According to section 19 of the current Constitution, the holding of the next elections is squarely indexed to the conclusion of the constitution making process. It is possible that there is a fourth force that is

engineering this confusion so that the whole process is thrown into deep turmoil, consequently, delaying elections.
I am beginning to believe rumours doing the rounds that American and British intelligence units have put many key people in the constitution making on their pay rolls. We will soon all see them. It’s those party representatives in Copac who will not query this fraud committed by the drafters so far are on this dirty pay roll. Political party leaders must now seriously consider recalling their Copac representatives.
It’s very difficult to talk when your mouth is full.