My views have nothing to do with Zanu-PF

Professor Lovemore Madhuku (LM) to talk about this and other issues related to elections.

FN: Professor Madhuku what do you make of the ongoing contestation around the poll date? 

LM: It is very unfortunate. It shows that the country has no leadership. What we need to get is to be very certain of when the elections are to be held. That certainty came with the Constitutional Court judgment for 31 July 2013 and must be maintained. So the contestation simply shows a lack of seriousness among the political leaders bent on wanting to confuse the public. What is significant is that there was a judgment of the Constitutional Court and as a constitutional democracy or a society aspiring to be a constitutional democracy we have no option but to stick with that date of 31 July 2013. So I can say that so called contestation is just an unfortunate display of lack of leadership in the country.

FN: Which leadership now, seeing that we have three parties in Government? Who is to blame for all this?

LM: I am blaming all of them because they should find a way of ensuring that there is decisive direction. Once we have had one arm of Government which is one arm of the State, the Constitutional Court setting the direction and that is the direction that must be maintained. The role of the executive is just to ensure that aspect is maintained. There were disputes before the judgment and we cannot have disputes after the judgment.  So, I blame all of them because they must find a way in which there is finality to that issue.

FN: What is your take on the Sadc resolution tasking Justice and Legal Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa to launch an appeal seeking an extension of the poll date to August 14?

LM: I think the resolution and its implementation is not a problem. What will be a problem is the reasoning behind the recommendations. If it is based on a disrespect for our courts then it should be condemned but if based a on the mis-appreciation of the reasons behind the judgment like for example if they thought that the court had discretion to order any date, then in that case you can forgive Sadc for making the recommendation.

FN: Is Sadc not interfering in the internal legal systems of Zimbabwe? Are the Sadc leaders respecting our courts?

LM: The recommendation was unfortunate. I think what Sadc should have done is to ensure that the elections were free and fair within the time span set by the courts. What Sadc should have done is to put more resources to voter registration, to encourage a violence free environment, to encourage the parties to work flat out to address concerns that were in fact raised at the summit. The concerns raised at the summit did not require a change of dates given what the court had already decreed.

FN: Should the Government have heeded Sadc leadership’s proposal in Maputo?

LM: They should have, because there could have been a misunderstanding between Zimbabwe and Sadc if the Government had not respected. I think the Government is clearly aware that the courts when they sit would apply nothing but the law. So that was the best thing to do so that there was no misunderstanding between Zimbabwe and Sadc.

FN: We have different interpretations to the outcome of the Sadc Summit? What is happening here?

LM: Those are just political games. The Sadc resolution is very clear. It acknowledges the Constitutional Court’s decision. In other words Sadc accepts that this judgment is binding unless set aside. That is why it then asks the parties to go back to the courts and seek an extension. In seeking that extension Sadc is very clear that the final decision will lie with the court. In other words any misinterpretation is just political games, it should be avoided. The parties must simply go to the Constitutional Court, as recommended by Sadc and wait for the decision of the Constitutional Court and ensure that the decision is made as soon as possible.

FN: What do you make of the reform agenda of the MDC formations?  The fact that the parties were in Government since 2009 and now seek to cram into two weeks what they could have done over four years?

LM: The reform agenda is good. But the reform agenda to put forward now is an admission that they have not succeeded for the past four-and-half years. I know that most of them were not serious about those reforms. They focused more on personnel wealth accumulation at the expense of the agenda that had made them to go into the inclusive Government. If you look at their first, second, third and fourth year in the inclusive Government, they have nothing to account for. I think this is a realisation that they have not been doing anything and we know that they will do nothing in the two weeks. At the moment what matters is that the five-year-period has ended, there must be a new government in the country and that government must take over the reform agenda of the people and the government of Zimbabwe.

FN: What could be motivating the MDCs to call for poll extension?

LM: I honestly do not know why they want an extension. I think that currently it’s merely scoring goals against the other side. They would want the date of the elections to be their date and not the date of the court or the President. I think it is more important for the country to respect our institution than to look at the interest of individuals.

FN: You once formed what you called a broad alliance with the MDC-T, why did you fall out?

LM: That is an old institution, I think things have happened. We separated over the constitutional process. I think it is now common cause that the fall out, if there is such a thing, came about as a result of the differences that we developed as a result of the constitution making process. We did not support the Copac process, we did not support the so called new constitution, we campaigned in opposite directions and that is the reason why up to now we think cannot walk in same direction.

FN: You have been critical of the MDC formations of late and some people accuse you of having joined Zanu-PF. How do you respond?

LM: It is a very unfortunate state of affairs in this country where things are seen as either Zanu-PF or MDC. There is more to this country than those two political parties. My criticisms are simply based on my own views about the direction of the country and those views have nothing at all to do with Zanu-PF. At some point my views about the direction of the country were very much in agreement with what the MDC was saying at the time. So it is possible that some of the views that I may be expressing may be much in line with what Zanu-PF is saying at the moment. That does not make me Zanu-PF or anti-MDC. I am just a Zimbabwean citizen and currently I am representing the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), they are in support of every statement that I have made. So I am working for the organisation and in terms of the interest that we represent, we think that we must support constitutional democracy, we must support the rule of law and we must not make this country dependent on a few individuals, be it from MDC or Zanu-PF

FN: Now that the issue of the constitution has been settled, what is the future of the NCA? Any chances of Prof Madhuku going into fulltime politics?

LM: The NCA has made it very clear, it will continue to advocate a democratic dispensation but after the elections the NCA has already said that it will consider transforming itself into political party but that is only after the elections.  Any entry into what you call full time politics will be exclusively within the framework of what the NCA decides to do after the elections.