By: Hatirebwi Nathaniel Masikati

MDC President and Zimbabwe Premier setting milestones on how to manage under performers in government

On to numerous occasions political rabble rousers and respected opinion leaders alike have got it wrong when it comes to the political acumen in MDC-T President and Zimbabwe Premier Morgan Tsvangirai.

A common denominator in MDC-T critics that have had to eat humble pie when the MDC-T President proved them wrong is the superiority complex that underpins their assessment of the Premier’s leadership suitability.

All Tsvangirai detractors think he is not his own man and survives on charity from his so called “Kitchen Cabinet.”

All political leaders globally heavily rely on advice they get from inner circle advisers they constantly consult before taking a political stand yet none has ever had their circle of advisers ridiculed to the extent that the premier’s team has been.

Amazingly the most ridiculed advisors to the Premier appear to have defied all odds and directed him to the most advantageous political position.

Tsvangirai reshuffles MDC-T Ministers in the Coalition government

MDC-T President and Zimbabwe Premier Morgan Tsvangirai reshuffles his party's Cabinet Ministers to re-energise the party in the coalition goverment

Prime Minister and MDC-T President announced a reshuffle that a leader under siege would not naturally contemplate.

"Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here today to announce a ministerial reshuffle. This reshuffle is about the MDC delivering to the people of Zimbabwe what they are looking for – real change.

Bring back Zimdollar: Zanu PF zealot wails

The worthless currency that Zanu PF zealots were availed by Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono and they in turn used to buy fortune and fame is now yearned for as the zealots find that money does not grow on trees.

By: Matthias Kufandirimbwa,

To show how fearful Zanu PF is at the prospect of impending elections to wind up the coalition government the Herald has been publishing letters from Zanu PF supporters like Matthias Kufandirimbwa who is infamous for his vicious campaigns for the party in Kuwadzana but whom the Herald would like to sell as a property market analyst.

We reproduce the masterpiece he wrote to the Herald on Saturday 19 June 2010 to Party President Robert Mugabe pleading for postponement of the elections and reintroduction of the invalidated Zimdollar that brought him fame and wealth he is now dreaming of as loopholes for black marketing have been closed by the multicurrency fiscal regime currently obtaining in the country.

Political party leadership cannot be bought by wealth

By: Hatirebwi Nathaniel Masikati

MDC-T President Morgan Tsvangirai is at present the face of the party's struggle for power and is unlikely to be unseated at congress unless he personally decides to quit as the current formation he leads only became a party under his leadership in 2006 
 

While money can exert tremendous influence on politics, the reality is that political leadership has no coloration with wealth ownership. If anything the only coloration between political leadership in so far as wealth is concerned is that politicians increase their wealth dramatically as they gain political clout and power.

In Zimbabwe there are two fundamental constituencies that wield immense power that drives politics in the MDC-T/Zanu PF divide. The MDC-T’s strength is in the Workers while Zanu PF strength is in the Miltia.

There has been speculation that some business mogul will shortly take over leadership of the MDC-T party and transform it into a successful private enterprise.

MDC-M in danger of being swallowed by Zanu PF

By: Hatirebwi Nathaniel Masikati

MDC-M President Professor Mutambara is unwittingly leading his formation into the Zanu PF clutches from which it will never come out the same if ever it will

The Zimbabwe political formation that claims to be the most strategic and enlightened is in real danger of going under.

The formation that emerged from the infamous MDC split on 12 October 2005 promising to rebrand not just itself but also the politics of the country has found it difficult to sustain its elitist ideology and strategy as envisaged at its formation.

The Professor Mutambara fronted formation whose anchor and key driver is former MDC Secretary General Professor Welshman Ncube, has tried to forge lasting alliances with other pro-democracy institutions without any success.

Prime Minister Tsvangirai drives George Charamba bonkers

By: Hatirebwi Nathaniel Masikati

Has Charamba finally bitten mopre than he can chew and swallow?


It has always been coming and now it has arrived. The simmering and intriguing political contest between Premier Morgan Tsvangirai and Permanent Secretary for Media Information and Publicity as well as Presidential Spokesman George Charamba aka Nathaniel Manheru has exploded.

They may hail from the same District and have grown up eating the same Majekuchenene from the Mwerari River, fishing bream and cat fish from the Nyazvidzi river and herding the same goats, cattle and donkeys together but there is certainly no love lost between them politically.

President Mugabe and not MDC or Zanu PF is spurning chances for judicial reform

President Mugabe in undisguised failure to uphold constitutional amendment No 19

The opinion by Tererai Mafukidze a President Mugabe apologist masquerading as a local lawyer in the Zimbabwe Independent on Thursday, 10 June 2010, under the misleading header ‘MDC spurned chance for judicial reform,’ cannot be allowed to go unchallenged for its lack of merit.

The “learned” Mafukidze either does not know the meaning of the word spurned or alternatively chose the word to justify the political mischief that he intended to sell to the nation to discredit the MDC.

By using the word spurned in his header Mafukidze implied that the MDC scornfully and contemptuously rejected the opportunity that Sadc mediated negotiations presented the party to agree meaningful and irrevocable judicial reforms with Zanu PF.

After reading the facts on which he premises his wayward conclusion it becomes evident that the word was cynically used to discredit the MDCs political acumen as nothing he relied on supports his conclusion

To the contrary all the legal statutes he relied on clearly indicate that the MDC tried its best to legislate for legal reforms but for President Mugabe and not Zanu PF intransigence this once, the good intentions in the 15 September 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) have been deliberately scuttled from ill-conceived advice the President is getting from legal minds of Mafukidze’s ilk.

Mugabe abused insult and defamation laws

Zanu PF President Robert Mugabe is not not one and the same person as Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe for the purpose of defamation and insulting laws against the President

President Laws against insulting or defaming the nation itself, the head of state, as well as foreign heads of state and diplomats, public institutions and bodies, and public officials, either while they are exercising official functions or because of those functions are on the statutes of most countries.

Yet prosecution for such crimes is in most such countries are rarely resorted to and where there has been evidence of enthusiasm in pursuing felons in this category convictions have been rare and far between and sentences have been restricted to fines rather than confinement in prison.

Zimbabwe merits its rogue status in Law enforcement

By Hatirebwi Nathaniel Masikati

Zimbabwe President Mugabe is by far the single highest complainant in Zimbabwe's criminal courts over the ludicrous crime of citizens demeaning or insulting his person or his office.

There are evident signs that Zimbabwe is still controlled by law enforcers who are compromised in favour of Zanu PF.

Recent arrests and arraignments of MDC-T MP’s and activists for breaching the notorious section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] suggest that the harassment of Zanu PF political opponents by law enforcement officers will be increasingly relied upon by Zanu PF to disturb political cohesion in political formations with the greatest potential to unseat Zanu PF in any constituency.

Return Mutumwa Mawere’s assets

De-specified Zimbabwe business mogul Mutumwa D Mawere being victimised by Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for declining the 2003  Zanu PF Masvingo Provincial offer of a seat in his absentia

The recently de-specified Zimbabwe business mogul now domiciled in South Africa Mutumwa Dziva Mawere must be ruing the fateful day in 2003 when he politely declined to accept his election in absentia as secretary of economic affairs of the then ruling Zanu-PF's Masvingo Province.

He has paid heavily for committing the "cardinal sin" of distancing himself from a party that does not take kindly to anyone it claims to have liberated from colonial bondage showing any sign of ingratitude of the kind Mawere displayed.

Despite his protestations that he was a victim of Zanu PF political vindictiveness for having declined political office in a party he was never a member of in the first instance not few if any bought into his pleadings of innocence given his history of close association with the party stalwarts in Zanu PF such as Emmerson Mnangagwa, President Mugabe, John Mapondera, Jonathan Moyo, Phillip Chiyangwa and others too numerous to mention.

Zimbabwe Laws

The chief law abusers Patrick Chinamasa (Minster of Justice) Augustine Chihuri (Police Commissioner General and Johannes Tomana (Attorney General) all of Zanu PF. How they love these repressive clauses in our laws!

Here are some of the repressive sections of our laws that are dear to Zanu PF and the Law enforcement operatives with an affinity to the party of geriatrics.

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].
121 Appeals against decisions regarding bail
(1) Subject to this section and to subsection (5) of section 44 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], where a judge or magistrate has admitted or refused to admit a person to bail—
(a) the Attorney-General or his representative, within seven days of the decision; or
(b) the person concerned, at any time; may appeal against the admission or refusal or the amount fixed as bail or any conditions imposed in connection therewith.
(2) An appeal in terms of subsection (1) against a decision of—
(a) a judge of the High Court, shall be made to a judge of the Supreme Court;
(b) a magistrate, shall be made to a judge of the High Court.
(3) A decision by a judge or magistrate to admit a person to bail shall be suspended if, immediately after the decision, the judge or magistrate is notified that the Attorney-General or is representative wishes to appeal against the decision, and the decision shall thereupon be suspended and the person shall remain in custody until—
(a) if the Attorney-General or his representative does not appeal in terms of subsection (1)—
(i) he notifies the judge or magistrate that he has decided not to pursue
the appeal; or
(ii) the expiry of seven days; whichever is the sooner; or
(b) if the Attorney-General or his representative appeals in terms of subsection (1), the appeal is determined.
(4) An appeal in terms of subsection (1) by the person admitted to bail or refused admission to bail shall not suspend the decision appealed against.
(5) A judge who hears an appeal in term of this section may make such order relating to bail or any condition in connection therewith as he considers should have been made by the judge or magistrate whose decision is the subject of the appeal.
(6) Subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and sixteen shall apply, mutatis mutandis, in relation to any appeal in terms of this section.
(7) Any order made by a judge in terms of subsection (5) shall be deemed to be the order made in terms of the appropriate section of this Part by the judge or magistrate whose decision was the subject of the appeal.
(8) There shall be no appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court from a decision or order of a judge of the High Court in terms of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), unless the decision or order relates to the admission or refusal to admit to bail of a person charged with any offence referred to in paragraph 10 or 11 of the Third Schedule, in which event subsections (3) to (7) shall apply to such appeal.
(9) This section shall apply in regard to a private prosecution as if references to the Attorney-General were references to the private party instituting the prosecution.
Law and Order (Maintenance) Act [Chapter 11:07].

46 Undermining authority, etc. of President
(1) Subject to subsection (2), any person who, without lawful excuse, the proof whereof lies on him, utters any words, or does any act or thing whatsoever which—
(a) is likely—
(i) to undermine the authority of; or
(ii) to engender feelings of hostility towards; or
(iii) to cause hatred, contempt or ridicule of; the President, whether in person or in respect of his office; or
(b) is likely to expose the President, whether in person or in respect of his office, to hatred, contempt or ridicule; shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(2) It shall be a sufficient defence to a charge of contravening subsection (1) to show that the words, act or thing on which the charge is based were uttered or was done, as the case may be, in good faith and with the intention of fairly, temperately, decently and respectfully criticizing any opinion expressed or held or any measure taken or proposed to be taken by the President.

Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:17].

(2) Any person who, whether inside or outside Zimbabwe—
(a) organises or sets up or advocates, urges or suggests the organisation or setting up of, any group or body with a view to that group or body—
(i) overthrowing or attempting to overthrow the Government by unconstitutional means; or
(ii) taking over or attempting to take over Government by unconstitutional means or usurping the functions of the Government of Zimbabwe; or
(iii) coercing or attempting to coerce the Government;
or
(b) supports or assists any such group or body in doing or attempting to do any of the things described in subparagraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a); shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years without the option of a fine.

6 Insurgency, banditry, sabotage or terrorism

(1) Any person who, for the purpose of—
(a) causing or furthering an insurrection in Zimbabwe; or
(b) causing the forcible resistance to the Government or the Defence Forces or any law enforcement agency; or
(c) procuring by force the alteration of any law or policy of the Government; commits any act accompanied by the use or threatened use of weaponry with the intention or realising that there is a risk or possibility of—
(i) killing or injuring any other person; or
(ii) damaging or destroying any property; or
(iii) inflicting financial loss upon any other person; or
(iv) obstructing or endangering the free movement in Zimbabwe of any traffic on land or water or in the air; or
(v) disrupting or interfering with an essential service; shall be guilty of an offence, whether or not any purpose referred to in paragraph (a),
(b) or (c) is accomplished, and be liable—
A. where the act of insurgency, banditry, sabotage or terrorism results in the death of a person, to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life;
B. in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, where any act of insurgency, banditry, sabotage or terrorism does not result in any of the consequences referred to in subparagraph (i),
(ii), (iii), (iv) or (v), the competent charge shall be one of attempting to commit an
offence in terms of subsection (1).

15 Publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the State
(1) Any person who, whether inside or outside Zimbabwe, publishes or communicates to any other person a statement which is wholly or materially false with the intention or realising that there is a risk or possibility of—
(a) inciting or promoting public disorder or public violence or
endangering public safety; or
(b) adversely affecting the defence or economic interests of Zimbabwe; or
(c) undermining public confidence in a law enforcement agency, the Prison Service or the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe; or
(d) interfering with, disrupting or interrupting any essential service; shall, whether or not the publication or communication results in a consequence referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(2) Any person who, whether inside or outside Zimbabwe and whether with or without the intention or realisation referred to in subsection (1), publishes or communicates to any other person a statement which is wholly or materially false and
which—
(a) he knows to be false; or
(b) he does not have reasonable grounds for believing to be true; shall, if the publication or communication of the statement—
(i) promotes or incites public disorder or public violence or endangers public safety; or
(ii) adversely affects the defence or economic interests of Zimbabwe; or
(iii) undermines public confidence in a law enforcement agency, the
Prison Service or the Defence Forces of Zimbabwe; or
(iv) interferes with, disrupts or interrupts any essential service; shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 100 thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

16 Undermining authority of or insulting President
(1) In this section—
“publicly”, in relation to making a statement, means—
(a) making the statement in a public place or any place to which the
public or any section of the public have access;
(b) publishing it in any printed or electronic medium for reception by the
public;
“statement” includes any act or gesture.
(2) Any person who publicly and intentionally—
(a) makes any statement about or concerning the President or an acting President knowing or realising that there is a risk or possibility of—
(i) engendering feelings of hostility towards; or
(ii) causing hatred, contempt or ridicule of; the President or an acting President, whether in person or in respect of his office; or
(b) makes any abusive, indecent, obscene or false statement about or concerning the President or an acting President, whether in respect of his person or his office; shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

25 Regulation of public gatherings
(1) If a regulating authority, having regard to all the circumstances in which a public gathering is taking or is likely to take place, has reasonable grounds for believing that the public gathering will occasion—
(a) public disorder; or
(b) a breach of the peace; or
(c) an obstruction of any thoroughfare; he may, subject to this section, give such directions as appear to him to be reasonably necessary for the preservation of public order and the public peace and preventing or minimising any obstruction of traffic along any thoroughfare.
(2) Without derogation from the generality of subsection (1), directions under that subsection may provide for any of the following matters—
(a) prescribing the time at which the public gathering may commence and its maximum duration;
(b) prohibiting persons taking part in the public gathering from entering any public place specified in the directions;
(c) precautions to be taken to avoid the obstruction of traffic along any thoroughfare;
(d) prescribing the route to be taken by any procession;
(e) requiring the organiser to appoint marshals to assist in the maintenance of order at the public gathering.
(3) Whenever it is practicable to do so, before issuing a direction under subsection (1) a regulating authority shall give the organiser of the public gathering concerned a reasonable opportunity to make representations in the matter.
(4) A direction given under subsection (1) shall have effect immediately it is issued and may be published—
(a) in a newspaper circulating in the area to which the direction applies; or
(b) by notices distributed among the public or affixed upon public buildings in the area to which the direction applies; or
(c) by announcement of a police officer broadcast or made orally.
Provided that, where practicable, the regulating authority shall ensure that the direction is reduced to writing and served on the organiser of the public gathering to which it relates.

At face value some of the laws sound rational but it they have been applied so selectively against Zanu PF opponents that they have become synonymous with repression.

Section 121 of CPEA[CAP 9:07] has been a favourite of the AG in denying freedom for accused MDC activists and has never been invoked against the granting of bail to any known Zanu PF connected criminal since it was legislated.

Section 46 of the LOMA [CAP 11:07] and or POSA [CAP11:17] that criminalises the undermining or insulting of the President and or his office including the Acting President for whatever reason is outrageously repressive.

There are political reasons that an active political player like a President who calls opponents puppets, frogs, tea boys, chematamas, harlots, tsuro mageng’a’s, ignoramuses’ and any derogatory terms he can think of for political expediency cannot be legally protected when competitors for his office hit back at him with derogatory name calling of equal or greater measure.

In any event by contesting for and accepting appointment to the highest public office in the country and drawing income from taxpayers’ funds the President must accept accountability to the taxpayers and their expression of public indignation with his performance including the chiding all other employees get from their employers.

An abusive employee cannot expect his/her employers to take the abuse in silence and worse craft sign work rules barring the employers from evaluating his/her performance.

POSA [CAP11:17] section 15 that criminalises publication of falsehoods has been used against journalists from privately owned media houses yet it is the State owned media that churns out shameless lies and falsehoods in each and every issue.

It cannot be disputed that each and every Zanu PF MP has at some point shouted the party slogan;
“Pasi ne zvimbwasungata zveMDC (Down with the MDC puppets)” and thus incited public violence.

But none have been arrested for that obvious breach of this section of the law.

The recent indigenization regulations published by the Minister of Youth Indigenization and Empowerment have been admitted to be erroneous and needing of amendment yet they have caused economic alarm and despondency globally and damaged the reputation of the country yet he is still walking free after the false and alarming publication.

Jonathan Moyo and his renowned team of Zanu PF propagandists planted in State Media houses have been dishing out damaging open lies through ZBH and Zimpapers yet none have been arrested for that.

Only the Freelancers and Privately owned Scribes have been arrested and incarcerated for long periods without trial only to be exonerated by the courts whenever their cases make it to the courts.

The other clauses we all know against whom they have been applied don’t we?