admin
No competent court would ever have agreed with Mr Nelson Chamisa that his faction is the sole and rightful claimant to the MDC-T name, logo and symbols.
This is so because there is absolutely no evidence to prove beyond doubt that Mr Chamisa is the legitimate president of MDC-T, particularly given that someone else has laid a claim to the same position. It is a matter of public knowledge that Mr Chamisa got the position he has in the opposition party through the force of the mob, manipulation of party structures and an unprovable assertion that, before his death in February, the founding president of MDC-T Morgan Tsvangirai, had anointed him.
Mr Chamisa did not subject himself to a succession process that is spelt out in his party constitution, that a president is elected by an extraordinary congress that must be staged within one year of a vacancy arising in the party. Instead, he mobilised top party structures to assume the position of party president ahead of two other deputy-presidents, one of whom, Dr Thokozani Khupe, was elected by congress.
In this context therefore, Bulawayo High Court judge, Justice Francis Bere had a simple task on Tuesday when he dismissed Mr Chamisa’s application claiming ownership of the MDC-T name, trademark, signs and symbols. Justice Bere said Mr Chamisa’s application was not urgent, adding that there was a constitutional crisis in the MDC-T because the opposition politician had not been confirmed by an impartial body as the rightful party president. Apart from stating that both Mr Chamisa and Dr Khupe were of equal standing in terms of their claims to the ownership of the MDC-T’s name and symbols, Justice Bere said the rule of law and constitutionalism has to prevail in MDC-T.
“There is a constitutional crisis in the MDC-T which must be urgently resolved first to determine the legitimacy to one of the competing parties to the leadership of the party. That resolution is the only one that must confer legitimacy to one of the competing parties to the leadership of the MDC-T,” he said.
“It . . . makes sense to put that dispute before an impartial body to give guidance or lasting solution to the conflict. Issues of legitimacy in the MDC-T cannot be resolved on the basis of popularity or lack of it. . . . There should be no room for the subversion of that constitution by any of the factions or any member of the party, and whenever that happens, it would be a serious violation of the rule of law. The issue of a trade mark is a peripheral one that should resolve itself once the substantive issue of the legitimacy to the MDC-T leadership is resolved.”
It will be interesting to see how the Constitutional Court will rule in an application filed by Dr Khupe challenging her recent expulsion from Parliament on the basis of a letter written to the Speaker, Advocate Jacob Mudenda, by Mr Chamisa’s group. If the apex court agrees with Justice Bere that Mr Chamisa has no right to claim ownership of the MDC-T name and symbols and that both factions are of equal standing pending the resolution of the succession dispute, it may decide that Dr Khupe was expelled on the basis of exhortations advanced by an illegitimate leader. That would mean she regains her place in the House.
If that happens, it would be a huge legal reversal for Mr Chamisa which will potentially have adverse political implications for him with elections some three months away.
All this comes after Dr Khupe played some smart politics by staging an extraordinary congress in the name of MDC-T on Saturday last week in Bulawayo. That congress elected her to the position of president of MDC-T.
As the drama continues, we were shocked by the angry response to Justice Bere’s ruling by Mr Chamisa’s group on Wednesday.
“The national executive took note of the decision of the High Court. It noted with concern the creeping of politics into law and remained concerned that a whole respectable court can choose to relate itself to the issue of the so-called factions which was not even before it,” said the pro-Chamisa MDC-T.
In our opinion, the statement questions Justice Bere’s professional integrity and by extension, that of the judiciary. It can easily attract a contempt of court charge. We are most surprised that Mr Chamisa’s group is the one that approached the court seeking an order to settle their internal political dispute but later questions the integrity of the same court just because it did not rule in his favour.
Mr Chamisa needs reminding that the court has no reason to condone his power grab. Also, there is no basis for it to agree with him that he is the legitimate custodian of the MDC-T name and symbols when he did not subject himself to due process in assuming the leadership of the party.
Bongani Ndlovu
Online Reporter