Online Reporter
Zvamaida Murwira
Senior Reporter
THE Attorney General’s Office has reported major progress from recent legal interventions aimed at effectively representing the Government in civil and constitutional matters.
A notable success was achieved in a landmark court victory regarding the Patriotic Act.
In a statement, Mr Johanne Gandiwa, executive secretary in the Office of the Attorney General, emphasised the office’s commitment to competently represent the Government in all legal matters.
“As an office, our thrust is to competently represent the Government in all civil and constitutional matters. This is a function that we take seriously,” Mr Gandiwa said.
He highlighted several programmes instituted to enhance the skills of State Attorneys, ensuring they represent the Government with expertise.
Mr Gandiwa noted that the interventions are yielding positive results in areas such as litigation, legal advice, and legislative drafting.
This aligns with the office’s vision to become a “centre of excellence in the provision of legal services to Government by the year 2030”.
One of the cases involved the successful defence against a constitutional challenge to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Act, which was gazetted in December 2023.
This law criminalises conduct that undermines the country’s sovereignty and national interest.
The applicant, Mr Freeman Chari, sought a declaratory order claiming the amendments were unconstitutional and vague, infringing on freedom of expression and political rights.
High Court judge Justice Regis Dembure dismissed Mr Chari’s application, ruling that the language of the amendment was clear and contextually related to crimes against the constitutional Government.
The applicant, who cited Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi and AG, Mrs Virginia Mabiza, as respondents, took issue with the amendment, arguing that it was constitutionally vague and therefore void.
He argued that the provisions violated freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and political rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Following submissions by the parties, the court held that the words used in the amendment were not vague, as they must be construed in the context of a crime against the constitutional Government and their ordinary meanings.
The court ruled that the criminalised conduct was proscribed with sufficient clarity for a person of common intelligence to regulate his or her behaviour and act lawfully.
It further observed that criticising the Government in a manner acceptable in a democratic society was not prohibited by the Act.
What was criminalised was behaviour that went beyond the bounds of normally accepted and constitutional means of removing or changing a constitutionally elected Government.
The court accepted the Attorney General’s submissions that the Constitution, amongst other things, does not provide for the right to remove a Government through unconstitutional means.
The court stated that the criminalised conduct was sufficiently defined for individuals to understand and comply with the law.
Justice Dembure explained that while criticism of the Government is permissible in a democratic society, actions aimed at subverting or overthrowing a constitutionally elected Government are not protected.
“Nothing in Section 61 guarantees the right to subvert or overthrow a constitutional Government,” he said.
The court further clarified that the law does not limit peaceful political activities aimed at influencing Government policies.
“Participation in lawful activities meant to influence policy-making does not fall within the conduct proscribed under s 22A(2)(b),” Justice Dembure said.
