adminproclamation of the constitutional referendum date on March 16.
Prof Madhuku and the NCA had their application to review President Mugabe’s decision thrown out by the High Court on the basis that the Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ discretion in setting such dates was not be judicially scrutinised.
Justice Chiweshe found that Section 3 of the Referendums Act gave the President a wide and unfettered discretion in coming up with a referendum date, while Section 31 K (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe bars the courts from reviewing such decisions. The court agreed with President Mugabe’s lawyers Advocate Prince Machaya and Mr Nelson Mutsonziwa’s submissions and ruled in favour of the President. Harare lawyers Mr Alec Muchadehama and Mr Andrew Makoni of Mbidzo Muchadehama and Makoni law firm acted for NCA and Prof Madhuku.
In a notice of appeal filed by NCA lawyers at the Supreme Court yesterday, it was stated that Justice Chiweshe erred in finding that Section 3 of the Referendum Act fell in the ambit of the situations prescribed under Section 31 K(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. NCA argues that the powers of the President in the Referendums Act were subject to review by the court.
The President’s decision, according to NCA, affected the private rights of citizens and that the courts have jurisdiction to scrutinise it. NCA argues that the setting of the referendum dates was part of a process of the Constitution-making in the spirit of the Global Political Agreement and that President Mugabe could not have acted on his own deliberate judgement The notice of appeal was served on the Attorney General’s Office and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission yesterday.
Online Reporter