Unity government controversy misrepresentations and political debauchery

MDC President and Zimbabwe Prime Minister Designate will be sworn in shortly

Sadc Heads of State met in South Africa on Monday 26 January 2008 to map a way forward for the stalled Unity government consummation in Zimbabwe.

Formation of the government had been bogged down over the sequence and chronology of steps that should be followed in forming the government.

During negotiations to form the inclusive government negotiators from Zanu PF and the two MDC formations which for clarity will be referred to as MDC-T and MDC-M agreed on elements that were at variance with current provisions of the country’s constitution.

The agreement was thrashed out in a less than ideal political environment where the electoral process was interfered with in midstream by the Military commanders who for all intend and purposes had suspended the Constitution and silently installed a Junta regime fronted by Robert Mugabe

Because Robert Mugabe had previously served 5 consecutive terms as Head of State and contested but lost the Presidential election on 29 March 2008, international response to the military coup that imposed him as President for a sixth consecutive term on 29 June 2008 was lukewarm and nowhere near as harsh as would have been the case had the military commanders imposed one from their ranks as the new Head of State.

It is the lukewarm response to the coup by the AU and SADC that led to a resolution that the coup be downgraded to continued aggravated political dislocation in the country requiring mediation to help protagonists settle their differences.

The 29 March 2008 election combined the Presidential, the Legislative and the Local Governance after Mugabe’s attempt to defer the Presidential election to 2010 had met serious opposition from opposition political parties and from within his Zanu PF party from camps jockeying to replace him as party leader.

Because of the country’s reputation for staging violent and discredited elections SADC had appointed former South Africa president Thabo Mbeki to help the country’s main political protagonists set ground rules for a credible election that would produce an undisputed outcome.

The Zanu PF leader had subscribed to the SADC mediation process to mitigate growing international condemnation of his government’s excesses after his government had violently disrupted an open-ground prayer meeting on 11 March 2007 organised by Civic Society leaders under the Save Zimbabwe Council banner which had attracted opposition political party leaders.

Opposition political party leaders were arrested and thoroughly beaten while in police custody resulting in worldwide condemnation of the Zanu Pf government’s intolerance of political diversity and disrespect of fundamental human rights.

When he felt the anxieties and consternation the thuggish violence by his law enforcement agents had subsided enough to allow him to have his way, Robert Mugabe suspended the mediation process and introduced Constitutional amendment number 18 (CA No 18) in place of the New constitution that was the central subject of mediated negotiations.

The hope that elections in March 2008 would be held under a new Constitutional order evaporated into thin air when out of confidence the political opponents had gained from negotiating with Zanu PF before the AU and Sadc appointed mediator, CA No 18 was passed by Parliament unopposed.

Robert Mugabe believed he commanded unassailable support to be Zimbabwe’s head of state and his opponents were in disarray after the main opposition party had split in October 2005 and had tried to reconcile in vain.

The March elections saw a remarkable reduction in incidence of pre-election violence and freedom of all political formations and Independents to canvass for votes wherever with minimal hindrance from Zanu PF militia and State security and law enforcement agents.

Despite marshalling all State resources to support his campaign Mugabe lost the election to MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

The margin of loss was so emphatic it took the Joint Operations Commission (JOC) 35 days of private tempering with ballots in secret locations before they could authorise the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to announce the cooked result that still confirmed Mugabe had lost the election but was entitled to seek a runoff election as no candidate had managed the absolute majority required of one to be declared duly elected and incontestable President.

The runoff was belatedly staged outside legally prescribed 21 day period from the date the initial election was held for such an election to be held if necessary.

The illegal extension of time within which the runoff Presidential election allowed Mugabe to revive his electoral violence network that he had demobilised in the run up to the March 2008 election.

Initial election winner Morgan Tsvangirai who had been coerced by SADC to participate in the runoff despite it being called out of prescribed time braved every threat to his life and tried to campaign but was barred by State security agents from doing so.

Over 200 of his perceived supporters were murdered and no less than a further 300 000 of his supporters were displaced by the violence.

Appeals to SADC, AU and the UN to prevail on Mugabe to stop the violence failed to yield a positive response from him forcing the MDC-T National council that was sponsoring Tsvangirai’s runoff bid to pull him out of the sham electoral process Zanu PF and Mugabe had embarked on.

Mugabe continued with the process and on 29 June 2008 was declared winner of a runoff election in which he ended solo contestant with a “landslide” 85% of the vote.

Immediately after his inauguration he boarded the plane to Sharm El Sheik Egypt where the AU summit was in session.

He was not well received and returned home with an AU resolution compelling him to negotiate an inclusive government to regularise his disputed “re-election.”

Once again he obliged and submitted to a Memorandum of Understanding that led to negotiations that culminated with the signing of a Global Political Agreement (GPA) on 15 September 2008.

In that agreement Robert Mugabe (Zanu PF), Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) and Professor Arthur Mutambara (MDC-M) AGREED to form an Inclusive government in place of one that would have been formed by the winner of the 29 March 2008 harmonised elections.

It therefore boggles the mind when Zimbabwean and International press misrepresent that Tsvangirai has agreed to form or participate in the inclusive government as determined by SADC on 26 January 2009.

This is a falsehood that needs to be corrected now before history carries a distortion that is material.

Tsvangirai Mugabe and Mutambara agreed to form and participate in an inclusive government on 11 September 2008.

The agreement was solemnised on 15 September 2008.

In agreeing to form and participate in the inclusive government, the subscribers held different visions about how the formation process would be carried through.

The negotiators envisaged that once the Principals appended their signatures to the GPA the provisions of the agreement would acquire legal force. That is why they inserted Article XXV which states;

“This Agreement shall enter into force upon its signature by the Parties.”
Mugabe viewed the agreement as having come into force in respect of his retention of the Presidency of the country when the subscribers upended their signatures.

Going by his actions thereafter it appears he held and still holds that the agreement gave him sole discretion to determine the chronology of events to be followed, appoint top Civil servants, Heads of Diplomatic Missions, Governors and other senior Statutory officers.

In short Mugabe is of the view that he has the legitimacy to appoint government and preside over it as he deems fit.

But the agreement seems to be premised on consensus between him and partners to the agreement in discharging governmental responsibilities.

This is only beginning to sink in his mind after numerous his numerous threats to form the government have come to nought after SADC resisted such moves and threatened to abandon mediation efforts if he ever dared take such a self destruct course of action.

Professor Mutambara on the other hand held that the formation of the inclusive government was concluded on 15 September 2008 when parties signed the GPA.

It is easy to visualise him hoping to walkout of the signing ceremony as Deputy Prime Minister.

He really believed and still believes that consensus seeking activities in the inclusive government are more procedural formalities to be worked out by the inclusive government structures rather than negotiated before the government structures are in place.

For Professor Mutambara the need for parties to submit names of functionaries in the agreed 31 Cabinet positions, 15 Deputy Ministers and the MDC-T Deputy Prime Minister nominee for attestation into the government is the only critical issue left to be addressed outside the inclusive government structure and the rest he believes will be sorted out by those assigned responsibility to govern.

Tsvangirai meanwhile appeared to hold that the signing ceremony on 15 September 2008 was the basis upon which consensus seeking initiatives in forming and running the inclusive government was to be premised.

Clearly the MDC-T was of the view that swearing in of the Cabinet and other members of the inclusive government would be the last formality after consensus had be reached among the signatories of the GPA on which Cabinet portfolios, which Governorships, Permanent Secretaries and Ambassadorial postings will be allotted to which party.

In addition to that the MDC would have wanted the structures of the new government agreed upon and legislation governing the National Security Council agreed upon before Constitutional amendment No 19 to give effect to the wholesomeness of the agreement was fast tracked in parliament to launch the agreed upon inclusive government.

SADC apparently prefers the Professor Mutambara version of what had to be done and have consistently pushed that line.

The danger though is that the mistrust between parties to the GPA will be carried into Government structures and valuable management time will be lost political power consolidation activities by those assigned responsibilities to govern at the expense of economic turnaround initiatives for the benefit of the people whose vote this agreement will supplant.

The MDC-T appears to now hold the view that it has made its basis for participating in the inclusive government tacit.

The party realises it will not attract the national goodwill and international support to the inclusive government to the extent it would have done if the fundamentals it raised were resolved before the inclusive government is in place.

It is a frightening prospect with real potential to alienate the party with the swelling grassroots support it currently enjoys when inclusive government failures will now be equally borne by the parties yet Zanu PF will be pulling the strings in the government because of the failure to address power disparities from the outset.

Be that as it may the party has other pressing issues to prove itself on like restoration of government accountability to the nationals, exposing selective application of justice and rule of law, consolidating its political space by reigning in on errand law enforcers, access to privileged information status preserved for Zanu PF, influencing monetary policy and fiscal discipline in government and defending human rights which it can do more efficiently and effectively as part of the government than the opposition.

Put otherwise the widely held view that Mugabe is ironically the cause of Zimbabwe’s woes and their solution as well seems to be central to the position the Party’s national Executive will take on the inclusive government process at its meeting today 30 January 2009.

It is clear that the MDC fall-back position on opposing passage of Constitutional Amendment No 19 will be balanced against the opportunities its passage will create for the party and the decision will be in favour of its passage like what happened to CA No 18 and the benefits that devolved to the party despite the unpopularity of its passage.

To that end therefore the MDC-T will almost certainly support the passage of CA No 19 ahead of resolution of its expressed misgivings paving the way for its leader’s inauguration as the 2nd Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.

The fall back position will be shifted to the get out clause in the agreement.

MDC-T wants to try and push for a new Constitutional order and control of key state institutions after which if Zanu Pf refuses to tow the line it will abandon ship and cause the collapse of the inclusive government and

Morgan Tsvangirai is on record as saying “there is no such thing as a risk free political decision” and the risks involved in the party taking positions in the inclusive government will be categorised as such.

Perhaps the lies peddled by the Herald and other Sate owned and controlled media will be put in check by the activation of the GPA and for once we will be spared the misrepresentations about sanctions, sovereignty and Tsvangirai agreeing to join the inclusive government on 26 January 2009 when that decision was taken on 11 September 2008 but had been stalled by inconsistencies in implementation methodologies due to unresolved issues surrounding it.

Sadc Indaba

Mugabe and Tsvangirai in the SADC sportlight over the GPA impasse on Monday 26 January 2009


For most Zimbabweans the Sadc meeting in South Africa on 25 January 2008 is best poised to decisively dispose of the impasse if only the regional leaders remain focussed on the key objective of impartially helping feuding Zimbabwean political opponents resolve their differences.

It would appear that the abundance of time after the signing of the base agreement to form an inclusive government has in a way allowed evaluative processes to negatively impact on the implementation process and cloud the object of Sadc mediation.

Mediation: "involves the intervention of an acceptable party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power, but who assists the involved parties in voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute" (Moore, 1996, 15).

There is basically no reason to suspect or believe that any of the parties that subscribed to the AU and UN mediation process has reached a point where it is felt that Sadc intervention has outlived its usefulness and is no longer acceptable to any or all of the parties to the Zimbabwe Global Political Agreement.

What is evident is that the evaluation process has established that lead Mediator and former South Africa President has lost credibility to lead the process and is now excess baggage that must be alleviated from the process before it can be positively turned around.

For the avoidance of doubt the overall objective of the mediation process has been and will always be to restore credible and effective democratic governance in the country in which the Zimbabweans believe and trust is representative of their needs.

To that end therefore, it would appear that before such a trustworthy government is formed, mistrust inducing areas must be visited and reassurances that they will not perpetuate or recur as the case may be, put in place.
This is the attitude that must pervade the Sadc meeting.

With the benefit of hindsight of positive and negatives that ensued after each of the six attempts it has indulged in to break the bottleneck to the formation of the inclusive government, one would assume that Sadc would by now be in possession of the factual basis upon which the logjam is anchored.

The assumption here being that in these preceding meetings mediators asked the right questions to expose passionate and sentimental differences from real issues necessary to address in order for a workable inclusive government relationship to be consummated.

We emphasise workable inclusive government relationship because without that the buy in necessary to legitimise it among Zimbabweans will not materialise if after consummation the inclusive government fails to deliver on key expectations among the majority of them.

In that respect therefore it is important that Sadc be mindful of what triggered its involvement in the Zimbabwe conundrum.

The crisis in Zimbabwe has been raging on for some time now because successive Zanu PF regimes have largely pursued partisan party political agendas at the expense of national interests.

Key government responsibilities towards habitants of the country have been neglected and or systematically preserved for a privileged few deemed supportive of the regimes.

Endemic corruption has been allowed to breed within government institutions resulting in the breakdown of the law and unimaginable human rights abuses that the successive regimes did their best to conceal under Pan Africanism and sovereignty mantra.

Critical service delivery infrastructure and social amenities have been allowed to disintegrate while the successive regimes pursued dysfunctional isolationist policies to entrench themselves in absolute power.

Massive service delivery dislocation ensued condemning the majority of the country’s population to abject poverty and in turn developing socio-economic and political strategies to counter state abuse they were and are still subjected to.

Each denizen strategy to cope with life under state abuse was to push the successive Zanu PF regimes to innovate more complex and vicious means of suppressing the counter strategies resulting in unbridled violent electoral conduct and rigging.

Regime legitimacy became increasingly questionable as each successive suppressive measure adopted bore increased evidence of repression and suppression of citizens’ will.

It became evident that the political crisis in the country had eluded local control when Sadc realised massive inflows of Zimbabwe political and economic refugees and ever increasing orders and pleas for food, and economic aid from Zimbabwe which the country was seemingly failing to pay for after delivery.

When in March 2007 Sadc and the entire world were shocked by video footage of assaulted opponents of the Mugabe regime while they were in police custody, Sadc had to act and they did.

Having established beyond reasonable doubt that political diversity intolerance on the part of the Zanu PF regime in Zimbabwe was at the centre of the political precipice in the country Sadc felt the correct entry point in managing the conflict was to officially encourage political protagonists in the country to officially recognise each other as legitimate political institutions in the country and learn to exist in their political diversity.

They officially appointed as mediator, then, South Africa President His Excellency Thabo Mbeki who had been involved with the crisis on a bilateral country to country level since 2001 when violent land seizures and a disputed Presidential electoral outcome put the country in global political bloc arenas.

Using his prior knowledge of the “key” political players and what now appears to be Zanu PF intelligence feedback he handpicked political entities led by Robert Mugabe, Professor Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai as the nucleus of his mediation effort.

The country was building up to a Constitutionally prescribed presidential election that had triggered political tensions when incumbent President Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF had resolved to unilaterally defer the crucial election to 2010 arguing that was necessary to lower rising political tension and ameliorate electoral costs at a time when the country was in an economic quagmire.

In mutually working democracies such arguments as Zanu PF had raised would not have raised the political furore it did in Zimbabwe where the incumbency of Mugabe as President was in dispute from its disputed extension in 2001.

The thought of such a presidency being unilaterally extended by a cabal of beneficiaries to his presidency in parliament made up of majority he had handpicked to be in Parliament at a time they were refusing to heed loud cries for a New constitutional order was unpalatable for the majority.

It was vigorously resisted. In efforts to suppress the resistance Mugabe and Zanu PF committed the cardinal mistake of arresting leadership of opposition political parties and subjecting them to humiliating and vicious assaults while in custody that convinced SADC to intervene.

The motive of Sadc intervention was to ensure the country held violent free elections that allowed the electorate to express free will and choose leadership free from coercion that characterised previous elections in the country and were used to discredit the government that emerged.

These disputes had in turn morphed into targeted sanctions by influential global political blocs like the EU, the Commonwealth and Global economic players like the USA, Canada, Australia and the Breton Woods institutions.

In a way it can be interpreted that the Sadc intervention had in mind the realisation of a Zimbabwe government free of illegitimacy allegations and capable of restoring the country’s tarnished international image and it nearly paid off when despite failing to comprehensively address electoral malpractices entrenched in the system over years of neglect, a reasonably harmonised electoral process was staged in the country up to counting of votes when intervention by the military delayed and distorted the outcome.

All the same the results produced adequate pointers that the electorate was no longer in favour of a Mugabe led government while the military establishments in the country preferred such a government.

This is the outcome that must guide Sadc consistence in dealing with the Zimbabwe crisis.

The challenge is not how to get Mugabe and Tsvangirai to agree on power sharing in an inclusive government for the sake of clarity on who is in charge of the country.

Rather it is to get them to agree on what would best represent a compromised leadership position for the differing preference of the military and the people it serves in an inclusive government.

To establish that position in mediation Sadc must apply its mind to what would best define democracy in the situation where the military is at loggerheads with the citizenry on who should lead the country and of the two groups which is likely capable to hold international sway in attracting international support.

Said otherwise Sadc must position itself such that it clarifies the benefits that are likely to accrue to the country through the inclusive government initiative if;
a. The preferred military leader holds the balance of power or
b. The preferred civilian leader holds the balance of power or
c. If the two leaders have counterbalancing powers on each other until the electorate is given a chance to make a final ruling on whom of the two must be in sole charge of the country in a credible election where violent coercion will not be part of the equation in who to select as the undisputed head of State.

The current position guiding Sadc involvement in mediating the crises seems to be premised on the third scenario.

Consistent with that, and that is assuming we are accurate in our assessment of Sadc drivers in its involvement, It is imperative that Sadc asks the leaders to list the order of importance its constituency attaches to Cabinet portfolios agreed for the inclusive government and compare them to determine where there is variation.

Using that order it should be possible for Sadc to then decide what should constitute equitable counterbalancing of preferences and help the parties resolve their differences accordingly.

In the case of Provincial Governors, Permanent Secretaries, Diplomats and Heads of Key State institutions allotment, Sadc should not have much difficulty as there is consensus among GPA subscribers that these must be shared equitably.

The current problem appears to be when the sharing will be done rather than whether the sharing will be done.

This becomes a trust issue that requires irrevocable assurances from the mediators. Nothing is more reassuring than the realisation of the intent. Sadc must help leaders to realise that the effects and costs of terminating 90% of the occupants of these posts is nowhere near the cost of keeping them in place on the economic wellbeing of the country.

The incumbents realise they were appointed by a Government whose tenure of office has expired and many of them have qualifications and abilities to compete and win back their jobs in an inclusive government set up.

These are the true and deserving professionals that do not owe their appointment solely to political patronage.

Sadc must find out why a political party that has chosen inclusivity in governance would not want the same extended to the service delivery level at inception if not to retain attendant power and use partners in government as window dressers.

Sadc must never allow itself to be hamstrung by accusations of inconsistency and fabrications of insurgency without substance nor must it allow itself to be abused by real or perceived foreign sponsors of parties to the GPA.

The political situation in Zimbabwe is as dynamic as it is anywhere else in the world and decisions made today may be stale and of no consequence if they are not implemented and must be revised continuously to take account of prevailing realities and macro political environmental changes globally.

The only consistence required of Sadc in mediating the Zimbabwe crisis is that which leads to restoration of civilian political rights and economic dignity that at present have been usurped by the Military.

Anything at variance with that will simply not resolve the problems in the country with any degree of permanence.

There is too much depth and political insight in Sadc for them not to realise that making orders that do not take widely held and expressed fears on board simply does not further the quest to resolve the Zimbabwe impasse.

Opportunism in the Zimbabwean struggle

Neo-liberal, elitist mafia who best fits the description among the the three images

January 23, 2009

By Tendai Biti

WHEN a struggle becomes long, and the end becomes as illusionary as a
mirage, opportunism, hypocrisy and mendacity creep in.

In all these situations, principles are sacrificed on the altar of
self-interest. The struggle, already arrested by exhaustion, becomes
commodified and bastardized.

History also shows that those struggles that have survived have only done so
because a few have stayed the course and have refused to be seduced by
myopic soft-landings.

It is this sort of mentality that has given rise to a new school of thought
that seeks to revise our recent history and has peddled myths about the
limited options available to the people of Zimbabwe and has, therefore,
sought to compromise the one thing that can never be compromised. This is
the sacrosanct principle that it is only the people that have an inalienable
right to decide their course and their destiny.

The revisionist school of thought and its disciples constitute a bunch of
tireless, airport lounge activists and a beehive of "people representatives"
who are nothing but a cocoon of neo-liberal, elitist mafia.


Oftentimes, their ideology is betrayed by a series of pseudo-intellectual,
high-sounding superfluous blur and the sepulchral mucus oozing from this
camp. It is a pure distillation of anger and frustration masquerading as
political strategy.

Let us begin with the fiction and contention that there was no winner in the
29th of March election.

But indeed there was a winner! We contested this election without resources,
without access to the media, without access to vital electoral information
and data.

Contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act, we were not availed the
voters' roll, neither did we know the number of polling stations. The law
kept being changed in the course of the game and it was more like playing
tennis with a continuously moving base line.

For instance, the law made it clear that every candidate in the four-in-one
harmonized election would be entitled to an agent inside the ballot booth
but this was ignored. On the 20th of December Mugabe himself signed a law
that kept policemen outside polling booths but by the 10th January he had
reversed that law through a presidential decree.

Furthermore, as we exposed at the time, all State agents manning the polls
were carefully handpicked to exclude anyone thought to be sympathetic to us.
Indeed, over 5000 teachers were excluded as a result of this. What monstrous
fraud!

Beyond legal shenanigans was the massive vote buying spree authored and
executed by the insufferable onyx, Gideon Gono. In March, trillions of
dollars were splashed in the so called Phase Two of the farm mechanization
program.

On the ground, hundreds of our meetings were denied. Indeed we went to court
on this and other issues and not once did this fantastically marinated
judiciary pronounce judgment in our favour. At the same time, Zanu-PF
gallivanted freely across the countryside. Mugabe roamed the thirsty
countryside in three state of the art helicopters whilst Tsvangirai and the
rest of us drove like maniacs in dilapidated jalopies in the dusty and
cracked cheekbones of Zimbabwe's countryside.

In short, the political, legal and contextual frame-work could and did not
justify an incontestable election. The fact that the election was run by a
totally partial body, that there was no access to the media, that there was
proscription of free movement, the abuse of state resources and the denial
of access to information is evident of the fact this was a limping election
whose ethos fell below international standards.

The achievements of the MDC and indeed of the people of Zimbabwe were
Herculean. That the opposition in all its forms won this election under
these circumstances was hardly surprising. The result would certainly have
been more emphatic was it not for the gerrymandering of constituencies by
deliberately creating more rural constituencies and indeed the absence of an
even and equal playing field. Moreover, Zanu-PF narrowed the gap in two
constituencies i.e. Red cliff and Gwanda South which it won in the violent
27th June event.

To suggest that the MDC did not win the election on the 29th March is
intended to obfuscate the Zanu-PF decline while inflating the over-inflated
egos of some who were severely defeated in that election! Their
self-proclaimed mantra as kingmakers is a by product of this myopic venery.
More importantly, it underlies a deep and inveterate contempt and disrespect
for the people .It is the people that decide their fate and not some overfed
Google-addict sitting on a table. Politics is not a chess game of fluent
gambits or over elaborate flip-charts.

A second fraud is to try and equate Tsvangirai with Mugabe. This, with all
due respect, is sick populism intended not to defile Mugabe for he has done
that on his own, but to ridicule and demonise Tsvangirai and the MDC.

The attack is personal and is no different from the daily diatribe of
defamatory vituperations churned in the Herald. In short, to both Mugabe and
others, Tsvangirai is the red flag that has generated anger and hatred of
satanic proportions.

Is it an accident that a rocket scientist can be so ahistorical and so
revisionist as to equate the sins of this regime with any other person? Can
the failure of this agreement be visited upon our shoulders?

One thing has to be emphasized for the benefit of those conducting the
symphony of hatred and discord at Herald House. Tsvangirai is the undisputed
and uncontestable leader of the MDC. Not only that, he is the leader of this
struggle. Every struggle has a face and a leader.

Thus, Vladimir Lenin was the face of the Bolshevik Revolution despite the
array of luminaries in the Bolshevik party. Equally, Nelson Mandela is the
face and leader of the struggle against apartheid despite giants like Albert
Luthuli, Govan Mbeki, Sisulu, Oliver Tambo and others.

For the record, it is Mugabe alone and his acolytes who have been
responsible for the castration of Zimbabwe's manhood. It is not land reform
or so-called sanctions that have created the phenomenal decline of this
economy to levels unheard of in modern economics. Gukurahundi and
Murambatsvina, the post 2000 violence and the post 29th March violence are a
progeny of this violent "thugocratic" state run by a securocracy or, as I
described recently in Parliament, a "juntacratised" State.

Now where does Tsvangirai fit into all this?

The answer is simple. It is not Tsvangirai who is frustrating the
consummation of this deal but rather Mugabe himself. In this regard let's
put into perspective the MDC position on the dying dialogue.

It is that there must be a satisfactory legal framework to underpin the
agreement. Secondly, that there must be an equitable distribution of
ministerial portfolios - in short, responsibility with authority.

Thirdly, there must be defined the constitution and composition of the
National Security Council. In view of the "juntacritisation" of the State
surely this overseeing body is essential to ensure the gradual weaning of
State Institutions from the breast of Zanu-PF.

Fourthly, there must be an equitable and fair distribution of key public
positions including governors, ambassadors and permanent secretaries.

Lastly, there must be a reversal and cessation of all breaches of the MOU
and the GPA. This includes the unconditional release of Jestina Mukoko,
Gandi Mudzingwa and all abductees and the reversal of all executive
appointments unilaterally made after 21 July 2008.

Surely there is nothing extraterrestrial about these demands. The demands
are not domiciled at Albus Dumbledore's Hogwarth School of Magic and
Wizardry. There is nothing British or American in the same. In fact the
demands are a logical platform if not precondition for any viable Government
of National Unity.

That however is not the view of others. Just get in there and sort
everything while you are inside! In short, put your eggs in the basket of
hope and faith. More plaintively, trust Zanu- PF.

Trust is exactly what we did when we signed the GPA on the 11th September
and attended the glittering ceremony of a doctored document of the 15th
September when so many issues were outstanding. We genuinely assumed that
Zanu-PF was ready and bona fide. Alas, we were naive. We ignored the
fundamental construct that Zanu-PF sees itself as being endowed with a
divine right and obligation to rule Zimbabwe . The sense of entitlement
common in many nationalist parties is disproportionately overdeveloped in
Zanu-PF, particularly when one considers the role of the peasant countryside
in the war of liberation.

The sense of entitlement is the tumour at the epicenter of Zanu-PF's power
retention mantra which is the sole reason for its existence and not any
other ground norm. Thus, engaging the MDC through the GNU is a strategic
retreat in the power retention project. A retreat that is necessary for the
party to regroup following what Mugabe has called the "lapse" of the 29th
March.

The events of the last three months following the execution of the GPA have
shown beyond reasonable doubt that no self respecting person can ever trust
Zanu-PF. Daily have been episodes of the clear lack of paradigm shift on the
part of Zanu-PF.

First has been the interference and frustration of food and humanitarian
assistance in breach of agreements. Second has been the unleashing of a
fresh wave of violence, this time characterised by an evil spate of extra
legal abductions. The case of Mr and Mrs Chinanzvavana, Gandi Mudzingwa,
Chris Dhlamini, Jestina Mukoko and others reflects beyond a shadow of doubt
the mindset of this voodoo regime and its lack of bona fides.

The reappointment of Gideon Gono as Reserve Bank governor and the
appointment of Johannes Tomana as Attorney General add to the body of
incontrovertible evidence of this lack of paradigm shift. Quite clearly,
these are the things that others will not talk about. But that we are
expected to gloss over these issues and pretend they don't exist eludes our
wisdom.

One can understand the desperate shrill of some to make this agreement work
despite the clearly foreseeable Golgotha . After all this is the one
God-given opportunity of holding public office to many of us who cannot in
the immediate to short-term win any election

What is clearly as hypocritical as it is obnoxious is the populist attack on
the West. Two things are particularly appalling.

First, is the attempt to frame an anti-Mugabe position as being mothered and
authored by the West. Therefore we in the MDC can't think for ourselves but
must wait for Condoleeza Rice and Jendayi Fraser.

What philistine madness!

Second, for some having cut our teeth in the West and some of its best
universities to try and reinvent ourselves as latter-day Che Guevaras is a
humourless banality. It does not fool any one. Not at all.

The struggle for democratisation in Zimbabwe has been a long and arduous
one. Indeed the struggle for independence itself was a first step in this
gravel road. This generation has a duty is to fulfil the unfinished business
of that struggle. On this we stood with Joshua Nkomo, Edgar Tekere and
Ndabaningi Sithole as they were persecuted by Mugabe.

We were there when thousands were violently displaced killed and maimed
during Gukurahundi, Murambatsvina the post 2000 violence, the Final Push and
other great demonstrations.

We were proudly there in Hillside at the National Working People's
Convention on 26 February 1999. We were also there on that sunny, lovely
Saturday afternoon at Rufaro stadium on 11 September 1999 when Gibson
Sibanda arrogantly told Mugabe that: "We have accepted your invitation to
form our party. This is our party."

We were there inside Matapi police station as Isaac Maphosa told us the
results of the Constitutional referendum on a smuggled mobile phone. And
yes, we have buried comrades, from Tichaona Chiminya, Talent Mabika, Trymore
Midzi, Nomore Sibanda and the irresistible Learnmore Jongwe. Tonderai Ndira
still looms large in our dreams, the peerless Gertrude "Diesel" Mthombeni
will not leave our hearts and the pillar of our struggle, Isaac Matongo,
continues to lift us on his bulky shoulders.

That is our history. No one then can bastardize the same and seek to frame
it on a template of a neo-liberal, British or American creation or
construction. That is the greatest insult to the people of Zimbabwe and to
our history as a social liberation movement completing the unfinished
business of the liberation struggle.

Finally, a myth has been peddled that there is no other strategy or option
other than that of a GNU. This can only be a Freudian dislocation. Dialogue
and the GNU are the conscious by-product of a roadmap we crafted in May
2006. They are the baby and not the mother.

They are a means and not the end. They are an adjectival issue and not the
substance. The substance is to achieve democratic change in Zimbabwe through
peaceful, democratic, constitutional and non-violent means. To then suggest
that this can only be achieved through a GNU chaired by Mugabe is somewhat
cataleptic.

In short, we remain committed to the cause of change in Zimbabwe as we
remain committed to the GPA, subject to the resolution of our demands.
However, we are not naïve to allow Zanu PF to trap us in the cul-de-sac of
any sterile processes.

Our party might be 10 years old, but our experience is of gerontocratic
proportions.

(Tendai Biti is the Secretary-General of the MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai

New demands from Tsvangirai scuttle Inclusive Government formation initiative in Zimbabwe?

Junta's Head Juror Patrick Chinamasa

The Zimbabwe Junta’s jury verdict on who is responsible for stalling the formation of the inclusive government panacea for the country’s crises is out.
No price for guessing who the culprit is.

Morgan Tsvangirai the MDC leader who won the 29 March2008 Presidential elections but whose inauguration was barred by the Junta who substituted him with runner up contestant and Zanu PF octogenarian leader Robert Mugabe is the culprit according to the verdict.

He has introduced new demands formulated by his handlers in the USA reads the verdict in part.

The new USA President Barack Obama elected on 4 November 2008, 7 months after the Zimbabweans elected Tsvangirai, was seamlessly sworn in, on the day after the jury sat.

Zimbabwean despot and Junta front man Robert Mugabe had failed to persuade SADC leaders mediating the crisis to prevail on Tsvangirai, to join him in an inclusive government where he would be a window dresser.

That was why the Jury was hastily convened to consider what had gone wrong and identify the culprit convict and sentence him.

It says a lot about what sort of a jury has passed the verdict and under what sort of compelling circumstances.

Tsvangirai, Mugabe and Mutambara signed a tripartite entente dubbed the Global Political Agreement (GPA)on 15 September 2008.

This wasthe outcome of several months of haranguing between the March 2008 Presidential winner and the June 2008 Junta imposed substitute "President."

Mandated and unmandated negotiators representing Tsvangirai, Mugabe and Professor Mutambara respectively had spent two years talking but failing to agree any meaningful positions to halt the dysfunctional political polarisation in the country.

In terms of that agreement triggered by an AU resolution passed by the African Union (AU) at its Extraordinary meeting in Sharm El Sheikh Egypt on 2 July 2008 and assigned to the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) for mediation, it was agreed that a government would be formed wherein Tsvangirai would be Prime Minister, Mugabe President and Mutambara co-Deputy Prime Minister with a nominee from Tsvangirai.

The key attitudes, behaviours, components and procedures identified there inas prerequisite to forming the government were agreed to be;
1. commitment to work together,
2. restoration of economic stability by addressing negative impact of sanctions and closure of the land redistribution chapter,
3. cessation of political hostilities,
4. recognition and respect of national events and institutions,
5. avoidance of foreign interference,
6. guaranteed free lawful political activity for all,
7. upholding of the rule of law and respect of the constitution,
8. freedom of assembly enforcement re-education for the police and other law enforcement agencies,
9. none party political interference with state organs institutions operations such as Traditional leaders,
1o. Youth national service training and humanitarian food and aid distribution.

To expedite attainment of these desired values the parties agreed to expedite legislative agendas, guarantee safety from violence to all people and freedom of expression through the state controlled media and opening avenues for foreign based media to localise.

Parties further agreed on a government framework where Executive Authority of the Inclusive Government shall vest in, and be shared among the President, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as provided for in this Constitution and legislation and painstakingly defined the Executive role of each component.

The Executive structure was agreed to comprise a President’s office, which shall continue to be occupied by President Robert Gabriel Mugabe, two (2) Vice Presidents, who will be nominated by the President and/or Zanu-PF, a Prime Minister’s office, which shall be occupied by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, two (2) Deputy Prime Ministers, one (1) from MDC-T and one (1) from the MDC-M.

In addition to that the parties agreed that there shall be thirty-one (31) Ministers, with fifteen (15) nominated by ZANU PF, thirteen (13) by MDC-T and three (3) by MDC-M.

Of the 31 Ministers, three (3) one each per Party, may be appointed from outside the members of Parliament. The three (3) Ministers so appointed shall become members of the House of Assembly and shall have the right to sit, speak and debate in Parliament, but shall not be entitled to vote.

The 31 Ministers would have below them fifteen (15) Deputy Ministers, with (eight) 8 nominated by ZANU PF, six (6) by MDC-T and one (1) by MDC-M.

Such Ministers and Deputy Ministers it was agreed, may be relieved of their duties only after consultation among the leaders of all the political parties participating in the Inclusive Government.

The legislative House of Assembly was by this agreement expanded by six additional members to the 210 seats to accommodate the Prime Minister and his two (2) deputies as well as the three (3) unelected Ministers one each per subscriber party that could be appointed.

The legislative Senate was expanded by another six unelected seats to allow Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara to nominate balancing Senators to the allotment of 5 Mugabe can nominate from his party ranks.

Any vacancies that will arise in the inclusive government structures would be filled by the party from which the vacancy was initially allotted in terms of the agreement.

Any other vacancies that would occur in the Senate or Parliament within one year of the date the agreement was signed would equally be the responsibility of the party to which the cause of the vacancy is ascribed to fill without the necessity of a by election being held.

Overall implementation and monitoring control of the September 15 agreement was assigned to a Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) made up of four senior Party members from each of the signatories of the GPA.

It is not clear if the Junta jury’s verdict was premised on JOMIC implementation reports or other unknown sources.

The implementation process was however envisaged in the agreement to start with Parliament enacting a constitutional Amendment No 19 to give formal existence to the created Office of the Prime Minister and his deputies as well as the new structure of the National Security Council.

The Inclusive Government President Designate was empowered by the agreement to invite the designated Prime Minister and his Deputies to join him and his nominated Vice Presidents in an interim ruling council pending their official confirmation after passage of the envisaged Constitutional amendment in the legislature.

He did not do that and instead simply nominated and swore in his Vice Presidents and then started to behave as if he was in sole charge of implementing the GPA by proceeding to appoint Provincial Governors and his allotted 5 Senators, gazetting Cabinet Ministries allotted to each party to the GPA and then convening Parliament.

It took nasty events in Parliament when his the Zanu PF and MDC –M sponsored contestant for Parliamentary Speakership Paul Themba Nyathi was soundly beaten to the post by MDC-T sponsored candidate Lovemore Moyo and the following day Mugabe was heckled and humiliated when he opened what was to be the first session of the Inclusive Government Parliament under his control for Mugabe to realise it was never going to be business as usual thereafter.

Moyo’s election as the Speaker had shifted the control to MDC-T and ensured Zanu PF was no longer in the driving seat for government business.

This is the setback that set the tone for further negotiations on power sharing Mugabe had for all intends and purposes shelved in preference of him individually appointing the government and presiding over it.

The verdict passed avers that by claiming to have Constitution Amendment No 19 passed by Parliament, likewise the National Security Council Act, equitable distribution of Provincial Governorships among the parties, nullification of Mugabe’s unilateral appointment of the Reserve Bank Governor and Attorney General, six Provincial Governors, equitable distribution Cabinet Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, Heads of Diplomatic Missions and release of abducted and detained political and Civil Society Activists new demands in the way of forming the inclusive government.

Even more absurd and mischievous is the part of the verdict that implies that the new demands are from Tsvangirai’s handlers in the UK and USA and in particular a one Jendayi Fraser.

In his inaugural speech new USA President Barack Obama without specifically naming Robert Mugabe and his Junta regime had this to say about despots masquerading as democratic governors across the world;

"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Perhaps the Junta’s jury would like to explain to us how a demand by MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to have issues he magnanimously allowed not to deter the signing of the GPA and got assurance would be addressed after the signing ceremony, suddenly become new issues if he refuses to come on board the inclusive government as he has done so far before they are addressed as promised.

None of the so called new issues raised by Tsvangirai are new demands for those that have cared to read the GPA.

The Herald alleged that;
“On Monday, efforts to conclude the formation of the Government hit a brick wall after Tsvangirai again tabled fresh demands and rejected a Sadc proposal that would have brought finality to the long-drawn saga after initially assenting to it.”

This was however contradicted by the very people it alleged were castigating Tsvangirai for making the new demands.

“Most of the demands he is making right now have been dealt with at the level of negotiators while there is a deliberate move by the MDC-T to re-open such issues," Thompson Magariro of Budiriro said.
"They have also come with a new list of ministerial allocations; something many of us believed was water under the bridge. I think the MDC-T should come out in the open and tell the nation that they do not want to be in this Government," Mildred Mapfumo said.
"I also do not understand why in their counter-proposal they have decided not to recognise Professor Mutambara who is an equal member of the opposition in the country," another Harare resident said.

Dispelling the myth the jury is attempting to sell that demands are new is simple because they are in fact as old as the AU resolution in Egypt as far back as July 2008 if not as late as April 2, 2008 when the Junta refused the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission permission to release Presidential election results.

The AU resolution is tacit and allows for no ambiguity in its interpretation and is reproduced herein verbatim;

“Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt — The African Union Assembly, meeting in its 11th Ordinary Session held on June 30 to July 1, 2008 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt,
DEEPLY CONCERNED with the prevailing situation in Zimbabwe;
DEEPLY CONCERNED with the negative reports of SADC, the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament observers on the Zimbabwean Presidential run-off election held on June 27, 2008;
DEEPLY CONCERNED about the violence and the loss of life that has occurred in Zimbabwe.
CONSIDERING the urgent need to prevent further worsening of the situation and with a view to avoid spread of conflict with the consequential negative impact on the country and the sub-region;
FURTHER CONSIDERING the need to create an environment conducive for democracy, as well as the development of the people of Zimbabwe;
EXPRESSING its appreciation to SADC, and its Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation, as well as the Facilitator of the intra-Zimbabwe dialogue, His Excellency Thabo Mbeki, President of the Republic of South Africa, and His Excellency Jean Ping, Chairperson of the African Union Commission for the ongoing work aimed at reconciling the political parties;
RECOGNISING the complexity of the situation in Zimbabwe;
NOTING the willingness of the political leaders of Zimbabwe to enter into negotiations to establish a Government of National Unity;
NOTING FURTHER the preparatory discussions on this matter had already started, under SADC facilitation;
Hereby decide:
1. TO ENCOURAGE President Robert Mugabe and the leader of the MDC Party Mr Morgan Tsvangirai to honour their commitment to initiate dialogue with a view to promoting peace, stability, democracy and the reconciliation of the Zimbabwean people;
2. TO SUPPORT the call, for the creation of a Government of National Unity;
3. TO SUPPORT the SADC Facilitation, and to recommend that SADC mediation efforts should be continued in order to resolve the problems they are facing. In this regard SADC should establish a mechanism on the ground in order to seize the momentum for a negotiated solution;
4. TO APPEAL to states and all parties concerned to refrain from any action that may negatively impact on the climate of dialogue;
5. In the spirit of all SADC initiatives, the AU remains convinced that the people of Zimbabwe will be able to resolve their differences and work together once again as one Nation, provided they receive undivided support from SADC, the AU and the world at large.”

Clearly the AU resolution did not recognise Professor Mutambara as one of the protagonists in the Zimbabwe presidential dispute for him to deserve exclusive mention in its resolution.

Secondly the Inclusive government proposition was made by Robert Mugabe who was at the Egypt meeting and not Tsvangirai and he was granted the right to form such government with Tsvangirai by the AU.

Tsvangirai agreed to form the government if Mugabe was willing to share power with him equitably and he obliged in writing by signing the September 15 GPA.

Tsvangirai is now demanding his pound of flesh before getting on board and Mugabe is frightened at the prospect of sharing power with Tsvangirai or losing legitimacy to preside over Zimbabwe.

He has been forced to seek help from Professor Jonathan Moyo former Information and Publicity Minister he publicly dismissed in a cloud of acrimony over the Tsholotsho declaration to dethrone him as Zanu PF leader he alleged Moyo spearheaded.

Real demands must neve be wished away and deferred. They will be restated at inconvinient timesin a process.

Abductions and detentions of political opponents form the violent conduct that appalled the AU meeting in Egypt leading to resolution in article 4 of the Sharm El Sheikh declaration on Zimbabwe.

Coalition governments the world over are not formed through coercion and compulsion but through bargaining and tradeoffs of real and substantive power between the parties to the coalition.

If Mugabe is not willing to trade off some of his military and law enforcement power with Tsvangirai who is willing to legitimise his sixth term Presidency before the coalition government is consummated he is unlikely to relinquish any power after being legitimised.

He would be an idiot to do that.

The Herald Defending clench fisted despots

Elsewhere on this site is an article where I analysed the Professor Moyo blueprint for Zanu PF negotiations before the reconstituted SADC mediation team and here is proof of how accurate I was in my conclusions on Professor Moyo’s purport

Talks inconclusive
By Mabasa Sasa and Sydney Kawadza

EFFORTS to finalise the broad-based agreement appeared to have irretrievably collapsed yesterday after MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai rejected Sadc proposals that would have seen an inclusive Govern-ment being formed by the end of this week.

President Mugabe and MDC leader Professor Arthur Mutambara assented to a proposal that would have resulted in a Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Cabinet ministers being sworn into office starting from January 24 in line with the agreement reached by the three political parties in September last year.

Instead, another Extraordinary Summit of Sadc Heads of State and Government will be held either in Johannesburg or Gaborone on Monday next week where the chair of the regional bloc and President of South Africa, Cde Kgalema Motlanthe, will give a full briefing on yesterday’s meeting.

At a Press conference in the early hours of this morning after hours of negotiations, Sadc executive secretary Dr Tomaz Salomao said the talks were inconclusive and Presidents Motlanthe and Guebuza and Cde Mbeki had recommended that a summit be held next week.

Early this morning, President Mugabe expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which Tsvangirai had frustrated the implementation of the agreement and the proposals brought forward.

"It didn’t go well. We had a proposal from Sadc that would have brought us to a situation where the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers would have been sworn-in.

"We agreed to it, as did Mutambara’s MDC but MDC-T did not agree. They instead came up with their own counter-proposal that naturally was in conflict with the position of Sadc which would have seen us move forward and that is where the talks broke down.

"We will continue to discuss here at home. There will be a meeting of Sadc in a few days time where a report will be made to Sadc. We are for the Sadc proposal and abide by it to the full," President Mugabe said.

(The full text of the Sadc proposal is reproduced elsewhere on this page.)

President Mugabe added that Government would continue discussions in a bid to find common ground over the Sadc proposal.

Though Tsvangirai insinuated that it was Zanu-PF’s fault that the talks had not yielded a positive outcome, he conspicuously refrained from mentioning to the Press that Presidents Motlanthe and Guebuza and Cde Mbeki had laid a proposal on the table.

Tsvangirai simply said: "The chairman of Sadc has suggested a meeting next week."

Initially, Tsvangirai is said to have given indications that he would support the proposals if President Mugabe and Prof Mutambara would also do so.

However, after both Zanu-PF and the MDC made it clear that they had no reservations on the proposals, Tsvangirai turned around and said he needed to "consult" on whether or not to proceed.

In an interview afterwards, one of Zanu-PF’s negotiators to the talks, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, said Tsvangirai’s latest U-turn had surprised everyone.

"We as Zanu-PF told the Sadc chair, Cde Mbeki and Cde Guebuza — who is the acting chair of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security — that we had no problem with the proposal put before us.

"In essence, the proposal was that the three parties issue a statement declaring that we would all support Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill when Parliament resumes sitting on 20 January, 2009 (today).

"This would be followed by the swearing-in of the Prime Minister and the two Deputies by January 24, 2009, after which Cabinet ministers would be appointed.

"MDC-T would make an undertaking to submit a Draft Bill for the National Security Council by January 24 because this is essentially something that they have demanded today.

"On the issue of governors, the parties would agree that these would be shared as and when vacancies arose according to a formula that the parties would agree on and that the allocation of ministries would be reviewed after six months.

"We agreed with all of this in the spirit of the agreement that we all signed and Professor Mutambara also assented to this proposal.

"However, Tsvangirai suddenly, and to everyone’s consternation, said he needed a bit of time to consult after initially saying he too would go with it if the other parties agreed.

"But as you know, and has become the norm with him, the little bit of time he asked for turned into hours and when he came back he said he had a counter-proposal and this was contradictory to the Sadc proposal.

"It is obvious that this is a delaying tactic meant to frustrate the implementation of the agreement in line with instructions from his handlers and advice from God-knows-who," Cde Chinamasa said.

Zanu-PF, Cde Chinamasa said, would welcome MDC-T’s Draft Bill on the National Security Council, pointing out that the structure had always been in existence albeit in an administrative capacity and the opposition now wanted it reconstituted as a statutory body.

Cde Chinamasa added that Tsvangirai’s demands for the rescinding of the appointments of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor and the Attorney-General were misplaced.

According to the agreement, he said, President Mugabe was only required to consult Tsvangirai after he became Prime Minister but since the opposition leader had refused to be sworn-in the Head of State had been left with no option but to proceed for the good of the country.

He said the President had no legal obligation to consult anyone from any party over a State appointment.

"If you read the agreement and Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill, it is very clear the President Mugabe makes such appointments after consulting with the Prime Minister.

"There is no Prime Minister right now for the simple reason that Tsvangirai has refused to join Government and so President Mugabe has made the appointments in line with the Constitution and the laws governing the country.

"There was an urgent need to fill in the two positions in question. The Governor of the RBZ has been playing a leading role in fighting the illegal sanctions that Zimbabwe is wilting under and there is no way we can allow a vacancy in that office.

"In the case of the Attorney-General, there has been an increase in banditry and insurgency and there is no way we can operate without such an appointment because that office is the chief crime fighter in the country."

Cde Chinamasa said it was clear that Tsvangirai wanted key offices to remain vacant so that the country would become ungovernable and this would advance his

cause.

"MDC-T’s intention is to create a vacuum so that they can advance their agenda to illegally and unconstitutionally remove Zanu-PF from Government.

"It is to everyone’s knowledge that MDC-T was recruiting former soldiers and police officers for military training in Botswana with the intention of removing the Government. Without substantive people in crucial positions, they would create havoc and there would be no one to deal with the perpetrators of this insurgency."

On Constitutional Amendment Number 19 Bill, Cde Chinamasa said it has to be made clear that this was a tripartite undertaking and not a Zanu-PF project and as such the opposition had to fully support it.

"We have learnt our lessons from the 2000 Constitutional Draft that was made to appear as a Zanu-PF project when it was a national one.

"Zanu-PF will not want to be ambushed by a rejection from a party acting in bad faith. So our position is that the Bill should be pushed through Parliament by the Ministry of Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, which has been allocated to MDC-T according to the agreement.

"They should play a leading role and Zanu-PF would give all its support as we always honour our commitment to the agreement."

Insiders revealed that yesterday’s proceedings started with a meeting between President Mugabe and Tsvangirai in which the latter presented a list of grievances.

Among them was a demand that all people arrested for politically-related crimes be released and that virtually all senior Government appointments be annulled.

"Tsvangirai wanted governors’ appointments to be terminated, for all ambassadors to be recalled and for permanent secretaries to be dismissed.

"President Mugabe flatly told him that this was just not going to happen because this would cripple the country.

"Furthermore, he pointed out that he had no obligation to consult Tsvangirai on these appointments because the agreement and the proposed law only made room for the Head of State to work with the Prime Minister."

President Mugabe reportedly told Tsvangirai that there was no way he could consult him when he was not in Government and, therefore, not bound by the oaths of loyalty and secrecy.

President Barack Obama's inaugural address on Tuesday 20 January 2008,

USA President Barack Obama willing to engage and extend his hand despots the world over like Mugabe of Zimbabwe if the despots agree to unclench their fists.

OBAMA: My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been.

So it must be with this generation of Americans. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics.

Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions as; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.

Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing put, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short.

For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward.

Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.
They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.

With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet.

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect.

For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

We honour them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the fire-fighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true.

They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have travelled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.

The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

When the brain dead come up with a fatally flawed defence for a Junta regime simple solutions become elusive.

Zimbabwe inclusive government President designate Robert Gabriel Matibili Mugabe the menace and prodigal Zanu PF supporter rediscovered Professor Jonathan Moyo MP Tsholotsho North Constituency
Could former Zimbabwe Minister of Information and Publicity and sitting MP for Tsholotsho North constituency Professor Jonathan Moyo along with the Inclusive Government Deputy Prime Minister designate and losing Zengeza East Parliamentarian aspirant Professor Arthur Mutambara have already placed themselves in the leading pack of 2009’s defenders of the indefensible in Zimbabwe?

It is early days yet. Distinguished and veteran defenders of the Junta, George Charamba aka Nathaniel Manheru, illegitimate Senator Patrick Chinamasa, illegitimate Minister Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana MP, illegitimate Deputy Minister Bright Matonga MP, Dr Tofatoona Mahoso, Munyaradzi Huni, Caesar Zvayi, Itayi Garande, Mthulisi Mathuthu, Reason Wafawarova and former MP Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu are as expected in the leading group that has been joined by Dr Ibbotson Mandaza and surprisingly Senator David Coltart.

If idiocy has been accepted to be the act of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result then those named must be crass idiots.

All of them have to a nauseating degree advanced and still advance that Robert Gabriel Mugabe can at the advanced age of 85 years lead a political economic and social turnaround in Zimbabwe that he has failed to do over the past 22 years after he battered PF ZAPU into dissolving into his Zanu PF structures.
Facts on the ground however point in the other direction. Mugabe is no longer in charge of whatever is happening to Zimbabwe let alone to himself.
Mugabe and his Zanu PF are now hostages of the Military Junta he created and nurtured over 20 years in power as Head of State and another 8 years before that as Commander in Chief of ZANLA forces in Mozambique.
For all his fiery talk about his political opponents- not allies like Prof Mutambara and Welshman Ncube)-being puppets and or frogs or some such other derogatory form of existence Mugabe is today the weakest ruler and certainly not leader on planet earth who is most feared by his subjects but easily manipulated by his military handlers.
Mugabe’s numerous spokespersons official or self imposed alike are responsible for instilling this fear in his opponents.
But history is littered with evidence of former spokespersons that have sacrificed their all in defence of a perceived immortal only to be reduced to nonentities as soon as their idol is deposed and exposed as a mortal after all.
But being the idiots they always have been proven to be the spokespersons exceed tolerable limits in defence of the indefensible and in many instances ideas they have rather than those held by their idol.
They couch their language in such authoritative language as if it is coming from their perceived immortal handler and frightened subjects believe them thus making them more powerful surrogates of the powerful.
Zimbabweans have had their fair share of the rabid views of people who speak “on behalf” of real and perceived powerful politicians when on analysis they are speaking on their own behalf and only get away with imposed views because their powerful handlers ignore the surrogate speeches they invite public indignation and irritation to the handlers.
Professor Jonathan Moyo’s latest instalment published by Itayi Garande’s Zimbabwe Guardian (Talkzimbabwe.com) on 17 January 2009 is a classical example of a self appointed zealot couching personal opinion in language that he believes pleases the perceived master.
In the http://www.talkzimbabwe.com/news/130/ARTICLE/4088/2009-01-17.html Professor Moyo titled “Trading in false controversies destroying us”, he examined three recent topical issues concerning Inclusive Government partners consensus seeking by President designate Robert Mugabe on various national issues and appointments to key state institutions, High Court Judge President Rita Makarau’s comments on lawyers who criticise the Courts judgements outside of Court proceedings and the newly appointed Attorney General’s Johannes Tomana’s public confession to being a Zanu PF member.

In all the cases he concluded that nothing untoward had happened to justify the public outcry that followed the events “from those trumpeting the controversies,” as he put it.

First the “us” in his title refers to Zanu PF supporters and no one else. Second “those trumpeting the controversies” refers to MDC led by Tsvangirai sympathisers and supporters alike who have voiced concern on the issues.

After falsely declaring that all Zimbabweans “-excluding those who are brain dead” are members or supporters of either Zanu PF or MDC because “neutrals have become endangered species and the same goes for independents" –like him we presume.

Moyo pointed that those trumpeting controversy in the appointment of Tomana as the new Attorney General are at best naive or at worst untruthful about their pronounced fears.

He advances that because of the threat on neutrals and independents as well as the more compelling fact that “it is not a crime to be a member of Zanu PF or to support it, despite its suffering from self-evident leadership and policy failures, as it still remains the only major political party whose declared principles and heritage speak to the unshakable fundamentals of Zimbabwe’s nationhood.”

How far true that is remains purely for individual Zimbabweans to judge but if election results are anything to go about how the majority of Zimbabwean voters perceive Zanu PF’s declared principles and heritage represents their beliefs it would appear Prof Moyo is in the minority that share the beliefs he holds about Zanu PF.

He further premised his conclusion that it was honourable for Tomana to disclose his political orientation to the nation after he has held the Deputy Attorney General post in the country for several years and executed functions therein with distinction.

He argued that in the civilised world to which we presume he believes a political opponent bashing Junta in Zimbabwe belongs it was the norm rather than the exception for holders of such a post to be compelled to disclose their political affiliation long before they are confirmed.

He cited the appointment of South Africa’s National Prosecution Authority Director Mukotedi Mphse that was recently upheld to be political and USA President Elect Barack Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder a reputed and long standing Democrat for the position of USA Attorney General as a case in point.

That was impressive we must concede except that Professor Moyo deliberately excluded the critical reasons behind the moans and groans and cries over Tomana’s elevation to Attorney General.

Many Zimbabweans remember the Government advisory role Tomana played during the chaotic land invasions from 2001 to date and how he has failed to conclude High Court ordered prosecutions of Zanu PF thugs Mathew Mwale, Kitsiyatota Zimunya, Joseph Chinotimba and many others fingered in gruesome murders of Commercial farmers, Farm workers and MDC activists.

They hardly have anything to thank Tomana for in the backdrop of such dereliction of duty on his part as a legal practitioner and ex-officio officer of the courts and Deputy Attorney General responsible for equitable administration of a justice system that is heavily tilted in favour of Zanu PF supporters and sympathisers.

In contrast his South African counterpart is making headlines for going after a suspected corrupt ruling ANC party and aspiring next South African president Jacob Zuma and has been intolerant of violent crimes in his country.

Tomana has watched Dr Gideon Gono and many senior Zanu PF looting the fiscus and declined to prosecute them. Professor Moyo personally looted the fiscus to sponsor Zanu PF Galas and mount his election campaign for Tsholotsho constituency and Tomana did nothing to stop him abusing taxpayer’s funds on political party programmes.

Which Parliamentary vote of expenditure did he use to host Zanu PF Galas and beauty pageants?

Meanwhile the same Tomana was instrumental in formulating trumped up treason charges against MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai and Secretary General Tendai Biti.

Identified assailants of MDC spokesperson Nelson Chamisa remain immune to prosecution an so des the policemen and soldiers that have killed and maimed and savagely abducted, tortured, assaulted and raped thousands of political activists from MDC inside and out of State custody remain untouched by Tomana’s prosecutors because they are Zanu PF supporters.

More crucially he has assigned his chief Justice to crown Mugabe President after a clearly fraudulent Presidential run-off and has not ordered investigations into the murders preceding his current coronation.

If this is the record of service that makes Prof Moyo proud to the point of him wanting Zimbabweans to sing praises then something is definitely wrong with Zimbabweans who buy into that crap or Prof Moyo himself.

Which other Attorney General in the civilised world can match the vicious record of dereliction of duty that is behind Tomana?

Prof Moyo observed that the remarks by Judge President Rita Makarau’s that she and her court officers had had enough of the criticism of partial Court decisions by ex-officio court officers in private practice, were targeted at Beatrice Mtetwa, the current “reckless” President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe.

The reason for that was according to Prof Moyo, because Mtetwa made irresponsible statements after losing the case for abducted Jestina Mukoko and other MDC Activists due to her incompetence after which she then rushed contemptuously to the foreign media with a scandalous statement clearly calculated to harm not only the integrity of the judiciary but also Zimbabwe’s national interest.

That the same High Court over which Makarau presides had ordered unconditional release of the same detainees but had been overruled by the subordinate Magistrate Court was entirely lost to professor Moyo in his overzealousness to defend the Junta.

Does it make any judicial sense for a Minister of State Security too sign an affidavit and certificate overriding the High Court’s decisions on protection of Civil liberties and the Magistrate Court to abide by such a certificate and override a High Court Order without any evidence of an appeal having been noted in the Supreme Court over any matter?

Prof Moyo argued that Mtetwa’s national irresponsibility was aggravated by the background of the prevailing situation in the country and her being an unpatriotic Swazi national comfortably accommodated in Zimbabwe.

As far as we know Beatrice Mtetwa is a true Zimbabwean patriot who has selflessly defended Zimbabweans against State excesses in the demoniac situation obtaining in the country and has personally been subjected to vicious and demeaning physical and verbal assaults by Zanu PF thugs and militia.

Prof Moyo has never been subjected to physical ZANU PF violence and may never live to be subjected to it but we can assure him that his Swazi tribal jibe towards Mtetwa was in very bad taste and especially coming from him of Ndebele and South African tribal origins.

What makes him think South African descendants naturalised as Zimbabweans like him are more patriotic than Swazi descendants naturalised as Zimbabweans?

If anything Zimbabweans find Prof Moyo to be more reckless and unpatriotic in every sense than Beatrice Mtetwa.

Pity that she does not hail from Tsholotsho for if she was the MDC would have found a more commanding person to field against Moyo in the next election and he will see how unpopular he is.

According to Prof Moyo either it is because there is the rule of law in Zimbabwe or because she wants to be handsomely rewarded in hard currency by pretending to be fighting for human rights that motivates Mtetwa to approach the Courts with numerous applications.

Really cheap politicking by a Professor who himself amassed hard currency from Ford Foundation through legal and illegitimate access to his principal’s funds.

And When it became apparent he was at the verge of imminent arrest for fiduciary impropriety at the Kenya Ford Foundation he made good his escape to the safety of his place of origin South Africa from where he negotiated sanctuary with the despotic Zanu PF leader to lead the 2000 Constitutional rewriting exercise that ended in defeat for Zanu PF sponsors of the initiative.

Much worse the Zanu PF values system he lauds as representing Zimbabwean heritage paid him handsomely in hard currency during his tenure at the Constitution Commission and then appointed him Information and publicity Minister thereafter.

In that position he crafted the repressive AIPPA and POSA legislation to justify his worthy to have access to the preferential exchange rate that Mugabe extends to his cronies in senior government positions.

The same system now charges its citizens in hard currency for services it renders to them yet it pays its employees in useless printed paper money that looses value at the rate streams and rivers drain early summer torrential rains and flooding.

Talk of an African clay pot accusing cotton of being black!

Professor Moyo reserved his best for the last which was the real reason for his Zanu PF PR effort disguised as political comment when in fact it was an advance disclosure of the position paper the Professor had had prepared for the senile Zanu PF leader to in negotiations before the reconstituted SADC mediation team to form the elusive government that he desperately needs to regain lost legitimacy as Zimbabwe President.

Professor Moyo who immediately after the MDC national executive pulled its leader Morgan Tsvangirai out of the illegitimate and vile June 27 2008 Presidential runoff election falsely declared that Tsvangirai had dug his political grave and would be buried in it is now on a mission to lead the funeral procession that he predicted but that appears was inaccurately predicted.

Tsvangirai has never been the academic’s model politician and disappoints several Professors in Zimbabwe politics not list among them Jonathan Moyo whose aspiration to lead opposition against Mugabe and inherit the country presidency has fizzled into thin air because of Tsvangirai’s popularity with voters disenchanted with Mugabe.

Because of that disappointment which has degenerated into undisguised jealousy and hatred of Tsvangirai’s political successes that continues to increase in defiance of political logic if ever there is such a thing, Professor Moyo discredits anything and everything associated with Tsangirai and the MDC as “needless yet very damaging hullabaloo.”

Very damaging to who one wonders? “President Designate Mugabe of course, for being exposed as having violated the September 15 2008 political agreement between Zanu PF and the two MDC formations by defiantly continuing to govern, including making constitutional appointments, without consulting partners in the agreement from the MDC led by Tsvangirai when according to Prof Moyo he has done none such nonsense.

In Prof Moyo’s view the September 15 agreement was between and among political parties in their respective capacities. Because of that fact “there’s no way people who have taken an oath of office in government and are therefore accountable to the constitution and the law for what they do and say can freely share official and protected state information with people who have not taken a similar oath of office and who thus may be tempted to abuse the protected state information they receive during consultations without being held accountable in terms of the law.”

What a mouthful of crap! If the September 15 agreement was not an agreement to share governmental responsibility between Zanu PF and MDC that would be the case.

But the very essence of the September 15 agreement was for the political parties that won Parliamentary representation after the March 29 harmonised election to enter into a coalition government arrangement that could not be formed when the most critical segment of the harmonised election – The Presidential Election- was tempered with in such a manner that a conclusive outcome was not declared.

With that inconclusive outcome it meant that nobody including Mugabe had the legitimate right to form a government after his June 27 attempt to legitimise himself as president met with global resistance.

By his title Professor Moyo must rank amongst the most literate people in Zimbabwe. His illiterate mouthful that seems to suggest the September 15 agreement was between a legitimate government and political leaders when he has already accurately identified that it was between political parties in their respective capacities is nothing more than nonsensical political mischief.

If Mugabe has been legitimately sworn to govern in terms of the constitution and share official and protected state information with those equally sworn to the same constitution and are legally barred from abusing disclosure of such information what clause of that constitution gave him the right to negotiate government formation under regional SADC mediation let alone negotiate instead of constituting a government from a legitimate electoral mandate in his favour.

The whole world including Professor Moyo knows that the only reason why Mugabe signed the September 15 agreement to form an inclusive government was because his mandate as President expired on 29 March and he is desperately trying to remain President through the protracted negotiations.

It is for that reason that his actions that seems to suggest that he is exercising legitimate power when in fact he holds none such power nor is he in any way legally bound by a constitution under which his term of office has expired but is only in office because the Military will not allow him out nor will it permit anyone else to enter.

Are we to believe that the Zimbabwe constitution recognises Coup hostage Presidents as legitimate political leadership of the country?

As things stand in the country at present it cannot be disputed –other than by the brain dead- that Mugabe is at present no more entitled to protected state information than his counterparts in the September 15 agreement in terms of Article XXV of that agreement contents of which we are sure Prof Moyo is not only aware of but also overqualified to comprehend.

Article 25 of the agreement Prof Mutambara, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai consciously and willingly signed and are expected to be guided by in their political actions towards constituting a government from the ashes of the disputed 29 March Presidential election that reached an anticlimax end on 27 June 2008 is reproduced as a reminder for Prof Moyo and those who share his level of amnesia.

Article XXV
COMMENCEMENT
25. Commencement
This Agreement shall enter into force upon its signature by the Parties.

It follows that from this clause that any of the signatories has recourse to natural justice to enforce clauses in the agreement the minute after he appended his signature to it regardless of whether or not the clause is constitutionally provided unless that is specifically prohibited in the agreement.

When Professor Moyo was appointed by Mugabe into the 2000-2005 government he did not object that Mugabe discussed state governance appointments protected by the same constitution he now says bars him from discussing such appointments with Tsvangirai, Mutambara and or both of them.

It is nonsense and plainly ridiculous for Professor Moyo to suggest that Tsvangirai should not be consulted in appointments prescribed for such consultation in the agreement he has with Mutambara and Mugabe.

The current Zanu PF and Mugabe prescribed volatile situation in the country requires that, unless Professor Moyo has hidden agendas and the desire for Zanu PF and Mugabe to continue burning and crashing the nation, he and others in positions of authority must avoid the futile defence of a controversial Junta with nothing than misery to offer to the people of Zimbabwe.