Zvoma case: Judgment reserved

debate on an MDC-T motion calling for his dismissal from the august House.
Justice Francis Bere heard Mr Zvoma’s application, which was brought to court under a certificate of urgency on December 15, a few hours before Parliament debated the motion. The motion that has since been amended to give Mr Zvoma the right to reply through a five-member team, was adopted last week.
This came in the wake of a walkout by Zanu-PF legislators who were protesting the alleged procedural irregularities.
Justice Bere heard arguments from both parties sitting in his chambers and reserved judgment for December 28.
Advocate David Ochieng instructed by Mr Edwin Manikai of Dube, Manikai and Hwacha appeared for Mr Zvoma while Mr Chris Mhike of Atherstone and Cook and Ms Beatrice Mtetwa of Mtetwa and Nyambirai acted for the respondents.
These are – House of Assembly Speaker Mr Lovemore Moyo; his deputy, Nomalanga Khumalo; Hwange Central House representative Mr Tshuma; Mr Shepherd Mushonga; Senate President Cde Edna Madzongwe; Mr Willias Madzimure and Lynette Karenyi.
According to the papers filed with High Court, Mr Zvoma requested the court to issue an interdict to stop his dismissal by voting in terms of Section 48 of the Constitution before due process is followed.
He submitted that the disciplinary path being used by the legislators was illegal arguing that the legislators debated the motion on the same matter despite a court application for an interdict. He further argued that the House of Assembly should not be allowed to “break its own rules, let alone the laws of the country, which it enacts”.
“I have a right to due process as enshrined in the House of Assembly Standing Orders, the Officers of Parliament (Terms of Service) Regulations of 1977, the Labour Act and the rules of natural justice,” reads part of the application.
“These rights are being trampled upon by the respondents. There is a matter of subjudice. The respondents are hell bent on proceeding notwithstanding the pending main application and the objections taken to the process.”
But the respondents, through their lawyers, argued that the motion had already been adopted and only the House of Assembly could reverse it. It was their submissions that the urgent chamber application had been overtaken by events, and the relief sought by Mr Zvoma would be unenforceable.
“Parliament, duly constituted and with an adequate quorum, debated the subject motion and adopted same with amendments on Thursday 15 December 2011. That decision is reviewable or reversible, only by the House of Assembly.
“As at 12 December 2011, there was no interdict from any court of law in favour of the applicant, or against the House of Assembly.
“The existence of a court application cannot operate as a bar to the conduct of parliamentary business, especially in the absence of a valid court order,” they submitted.
They also argue that parliament followed its own rules and regulations. The respondents also argue that the House of Assembly is empowered by law and relevant Standing Rules and Orders to debate the matters under present litigation.
They urged the court to dismiss the urgent chamber application for lack of merit.
Moving the contentious motion on December 6, Mr Tshuma said Mr Zvoma should be fired for bringing the image of Parliament into disrepute by failing to properly conduct the election of the Speaker on August 25, 2008.
He said the Clerk also unprocedurally and unilaterally deferred the sitting of the House of Assembly on March 22, 2011 and showed “disdain” for advice from the Attorney-General regarding the status of the Matobo North constituency.
He further accused him of having a condescending attitude towards House representatives.