Chronicle Editor
Khumbula Vodloza Sibanda
OVER the past fortnight some print media titles carried stories on the Political Actors Dialogue (Polad).
The first one was about how some Polad members who challenged and harassed Polad International Re-engagement Team Chairperson, Dr Thokozani Khupe and some of her party members who chair are rapporteurs in some committees of the body comprising members of 22 out of the 23 political parties which participated in the 2018 presidential election.
The latest and most shocking one was one in which Polad member and National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) leader, Professor Lovemore Madhuku threatened that all members would walk out of the body, which was formed by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in May last year to promote unity in the country and chart the way forward for Zimbabwe’s future post the last poll, if the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi does not withdraw Constitutional Amendment Bill which was gazetted last month.
The Bill seeks to, among other things, extend the women’s proportional representation in Parliament, which is set to expire at the end of the current Parliament, by another 10 years, introduce 10 more parliamentary seats which are reserved for the youth, do away with the running mate clause, which was set to kick in, in 2023, enable the President to appoint two more non-constituency Cabinet Ministers and to extend judges’ tenure by one yearly for up to five years depending on their health and fitness for duty.
Petty jealousy and the push for self-enrichment
Going back to the Dr Khupe issue, it is clear that the fight against her by her is driven by jealousy. One of the main bones of contention was the fact that some members of Dr Khupe’s MDC-T party dominated leadership roles in Polad sub-committees. While unfair dominance would be inimical to the spirit of Polad and jeopardise it, it should be borne in mind that the MDC-T is the largest political party among the opposition parties in Polad in terms of membership and is, therefore, bound to have more of its members filling in available posts.
It should also be remembered that the MDC-T has experienced people such as Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga who has been contributing immensely to Polad’s Governance and Constitutionalism Committee. Another point to note about the MDC-T is that some of its members in key roles such as Nickson Nyikadzino, who chairs the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, are in their positions on merit and are discharging their duties well since they were placed in roles which are their areas of their core brilliance and expertise.
Removing them to please other member political parties would militate against Polad’s success. The unjustified push for power could see Polad failing to deliver if its members prioritise personal power at the expense of merit. Dr Khupe has also been accused of wasting resources by spending three weeks at the Monomatapa Hotel in Harare purportedly meeting diplomats accredited to Zimbabwe only for it to emerge that her team only met three ambassadors. If this is true she must shape up.
She must be accountable to fellow members and, ultimately, to the President. Against the backdrop of Dr Khupe’s disagreements with her colleagues, she did not attend the Polad Economic Summit last week where President Mnangagwa was the guest of honour.
The MDC-T leader should thus prioritise national interests over the MDC-T and her own concerns. If she has any anxieties, she should seek to have them resolved amicably instead of missing a critical Polad event meant to proffer solutions to our economic challenges.
Another issue which has driven a wedge between Dr Khupe and other Polad members is the prospect of financial benefits which she and members of her committee are likely to enjoy if planned trips to South Africa, the United Kingdom and a number global capitals such as Washington, Brussels and Paris next month to push for the removal of the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe and to get the true Zimbabwean story out there, materialise.
The matter was worsened by unconfirmed rumours of Dr Khupe’s team getting diplomatic passports for the trips. Polad members should remember that the body is not all about the personal benefits that come with the task at hand. Their role includes tackling legislative reforms, policy reforms, uniting the nation and economic recovery and not foreign trips.
Polad is not about self-enrichment. When need for foreign travel arises, it should be known that not every member will travel and that fact should not be allowed to shipwreck Polad’s noble mission through petty jealousy.
The President’s detractors have questioned the rationale of Polad members travelling to Western countries to tackle sanctions when the task is under the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s purview. Yes the ministry continues to push for the removal of sanctions but the country’s approach to the issue is multi-pronged.
This is why even the Southern Africa Development Community (Sadc) and the African Union (AU) are also pursuing the same matter. Questions have also been raised about the cost of the trips. The costs of trips are nothing compared with the benefits when the sanctions are eventually removed.
Erring Professor
Prof Madhuku is a respected constitutional lawyer. His decision to join Polad is equally laudable and respectable but his threats to disband Polad through a walk out of its members over the Constitutional Amendment Bill are very unfortunate. If the people of Zimbabwe are disagreeable to the proposed amendments they will turn them down during the consultative outreach stage. Their legislators will turn them down in Parliament. If he does not agree with the amendments he can simply recuse himself on the matter instead of trying to use Polad to force Government’s hand into withdrawing them.
The professor is erring by throwing around threats that if President Mnangagwa does not enforce the resolution of the Polad Governance and Legislative Agenda sub-committee, which he (Prof Madhuku) chairs, to have the proposed amendments withdrawn, it would be a sign of ineffectiveness on the part of Polad that would justify the disbanding of the body.
Interestingly, Prof Madhuku and his sub-committee have not provided any reasons for rejecting the proposed amendments. As if the baseless rejection is not enough, the sub-committee has indicated its intention to follow the path of the Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN), which has written its own draft bill on electoral reforms and submitted it to Parliament, by writing its own similar document.
If the sub-committee has proposals it should submit its input to the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs without unnecessary drama. Polad, while it is a separate and independent body, should not be used to fight Government or anyone. Instead of pulling in different directions its members should work hard to deliver on their mandate of uniting people and strategising for a better Zimbabwe.
Online Reporter