‘Madhuku’s views on promotions misplaced’

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

DEPUTY Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet (Presidential Communications) Mr George Charamba has rebuked constitutional lawyer Professor Lovemore Madhuku, accusing him of a fundamental misunderstanding of the President’s constitutional role and responsibilities over recent military promotions.

Promotions within the military, he said, followed an institutional process.

Responding to Prof Madhuku’s criticism that the President “acted improperly” in promoting a group of Zimbabwe National Army officers, among them his son Sean, to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, Mr Charamba dismissed the claim as baseless and inflammatory.

A Lieutenant-Colonel normally commands a battalion or holds a staff appointment of similar importance and the rank falls between Major and Colonel.

Writing on his official X platform, Mr Charamba said: “The usually suave and legally well-canvassed Professor Lovemore Madhuku’s claim . . . is legally fatuous and socially spiteful.”

At the heart of the dispute lies the scope of presidential authority.

Mr Charamba explained that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Force, exercises a role that is “absolute and indivisible”, grounded firmly in constitutional mandate. He argued that promotions within the military were neither arbitrary nor individual decisions, but the culmination of structured institutional processes.

“His Excellency . . . arrives at his final decision after a series of processes and recommendations by appropriate arms within the ZDF,” Mr Charamba stated.

“All those processes are always evenly done and fulfilled in all cases.”

Prof Madhuku’s criticism, which singled out one officer based on family ties, drew particular ire.

Mr Charamba framed this as an unfair and selective attack that ignored the broader context of merit and service.

According to Mr Charamba, the officers promoted had undergone “many years of competent service and several courses,” meeting the same standards applied across the board.

“There is no basis, legal or professional, to doubt those processes,” he insisted, adding that no prior challenges had ever successfully questioned such procedures.

Mr Charamba accused Prof Madhuku of misunderstanding basic administration by suggesting that the President should have delegated his authority to a Vice President in this instance.

Such a notion, he said, was inconsistent with the very nature of the Commander-in-Chief’s duties.

“What is more, it smacks of ignorance . . . to suggest that the Commander-in-Chief cedes his substantive constitutional role and mandate to a Vice President when he . . . is in place,” Mr Charamba said.

“If the Professor thinks his spite finds a leg in law, he is free to challenge the promotion . . . in a competent court.”

Political commentator Mr Brighton Musonza, writing on his X handle, weighed in on the matter, distancing himself from blind loyalty while defending the legal discretion of the President.

He stated that he is “not among (President) Mnangagwa’s top supporters”, but argued that claims suggesting the Commander-in-Chief is prohibited from promoting his son are misguided.

According to Mr Musonza, if the law were to be interpreted in such a restrictive way, “then one could reasonably argue that the law itself is poorly framed.”

“Not every issue begins and ends with the letter of the law,” he wrote, adding that Zimbabwe often suffers from an excessive tendency toward legalism, even in areas that require executive discretion.

Mr Musonza stressed that in matters of national security and defence, the Commander-in-Chief (President Mnangagwa) must retain authority over key appointments.