President Mugabe Lied irks Professor Moyo

Professor Jonathan Moyo is at it again frothing his mouth with calls for the arrest of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Jameson Timba over allegations they undermined the of or alternatively they insulted the President in contravention of section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

Ever since his conditional readmission to Zanu PF following years in the political wilderness he was dumped in following the infamous Tsholotsho Declaration that was deemed a rebellious attempt to topple Zanu PF First Secretary Robert Mugabe,  Professor Moyo has been at pains to show that he is a true and loyal Zanu PF cadre with the capacity and intellect to revive the doomed party to its days of glory.

Unfortunately

for him the monumental tasks set for him to prove he has truly repented and is back in the Zanu PF fold have not been as easy to accomplish as he had imagined.

The battery of tests set for the Professor to prove that he was deserving of unconditional  reintegration into Zanu PF structures included among other things to do with intra Zanu PF discipline;

·         The ouster of Lovemore Moyo as Speaker of Parliament

·         Stirring mistrust within MDC-T leadership with the objective of  causing a split in the party on similar lines to the October 2005 split that almost brought the MDC to its knees

·         Rejuvenation of the Zanu PF propaganda machinery to the heydays of his sojourn as Minister of Information and Publicity.

The Zanu PF leadership guaranteed him full support in these endeavours and opened doors for the Professor to use State owned Media and resources in Ministries controlled by Zanu PF nominated Ministers as long as the Ministers were indemnified against any statements attributed to the Professor should they arouse negative sentiments against the party from the electorate and  more pertinently the international community.

Professor Moyo’s attempt at creating a rift between Tsvangirai and Biti by projecting them as faction leaders in the MDC-T floundered despite the intensity with which it was pursued in the State owned and controlled media.

The short-lived sweetness of victory the Professor tasted when his appeal against the initial election of Lovemore Moyo as the first none Zanu PF Speaker of Parliament was set aside by the Supreme Court became Professor Moyo’s worst political nightmare when the re-run Parliament Speakership election not only confirmed the initial result by restoring Lovemore Moyo to the Speakership but also exposed that some Zanu PF MP’s had defied the party’s whip and voted for the MDC-T candidate.

This was a shocking revelation for Zanu PF which had fielded its National Chairman for the crucial position in government given that the nullification of the initial result had been made possible with the support of MDC-M legislators who logically could not have been expected to vote for the same person they had legally ousted.

Having lost in two of the most critical assignments set for him the shameless indefatigable Professor turned his attention on discrediting the MDC-T leader as an incompetent  leader of the party and focussed on infiltrating the MDC-T Congress by creating factions and intra party violence along those fictitious factions. The ploy failed as the MDC-T emerged stronger and more united in purpose from its Bulawayo Congress much to the Professor’s chagrin.

When the SADC Troika met in Livingstone Zambia and delivered an unprecedented chiding for President Mugabe and his Zanu PF party’s failure to abide by the Global Political Agreement (GPA) – itself the current Constitution of the country- the intemperate Professor went ballistic hurling insults and expletives at not just Premier Tsvangirai but also SADC facilitator and South Africa President Jacob Zuma.

When the flames of the fire the Professor had torched threatened to consume Zanu PF and its President the party was quick to publicly dissociate itself with the Professor’s misguided vitriol and reaffirm its commitment to the GPA. Undaunted Professor Moyo carried on demeaning the South African President and SADC facilitator on Zimbabwe Jacob Zuma.

“The only people who standby idly when their country is subjected to inflammatory demonisation, or who even assist that demonisation by celebrating and propagating it, are shameless puppets and sell-outs who are a disgrace not only to Zimbabwe’s hard won independence but also to our fallen heroes who sacrificed their lives to gain that independence.
Because a very clear and self-evident virtue and gain of our heroic independence is freedom of expression, it is hard to imagine a more treacherous negation of that virtue or gain by any right thinking Zimbabwean than using it to demonise or celebrate or propagate the demonisation of their own country just to please our erstwhile colonizers,” wrote Professor Moyo in reaffirmation of his insults of President Zuma.

It appears professor Moy defines freedom of speech differently when the right is used to expose President Mugabe. For if he was applying the same logic he used the right to defend Zimbabwe against President Zuma and the Sadc Troika’s failings, there is no chance in the world he would be offended by Minister Timba and Premier Tsvangirai’s accusations against Mugabe to the extent of agitating for their arrest. One wonders how such an arrest if it was to be made would support the duo’s freedom of speech.

Naturally the Professor would argue that freedom of speech is curtailed by the law protecting the President from insults and insubordination. But such argument would simply not wash where such protection is ultra vires the country’s Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech. In any event Professor Moyo appears to have misunderstood the very law that he claims was breached by the duo which is reproduced herein for the avoidance of doubt.

“Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].

33      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, unlawfully and intentionally—

              (a)       makes any statement about or concerning the President or an acting President with the knowledge or realising that there is a real risk or possibility that the statement is false and that it may—

                         (i) engender feelings of hostility towards; or

                         (ii) cause hatred, contempt or ridicule of;

              the President or an acting President, whether in person or in respect of the President’s office;  or

              (b)       makes any abusive, indecent or obscene statement about or concerning the President or an acting President, whether in respect of the President personally or the President’s office;

shall be guilty of undermining the authority of or insulting the President and liable to a fine not exceeding level six or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or both.”

Clearly the law protects the President against having his authority undermined or him personally or his office being insulted which is where the Professor appears to have ended reading the law. However the law is tacit and unambiguous about which forms of Presidential authority undermining or insults it prohibits. T be in breach of this law the statement must be;

·         publicly made or published,

·         unlawfully made or published and.

·         intentionally made or published.

Secondly the proponent or publisher must;

·         have prior knowledge or

·         realisation that  

·         there is a real risk or

·         possibility

·         that the statement is

·         a false statement.

Even if all that is present in the statement it does not necessarily mean that a crime has been committed because the law specifies that for the statement to be criminal the statement must have been deliberately intended to:-

·         engender feelings of hostility towards; or

·         cause hatred, contempt or ridicule of;

·         the President or an acting President,

·         in person or in respect of the President’s office.

Alternatively one has to make or publish an:-

·         abusive,

·         indecent or

·         obscene statement about or concerning the President or an acting President personally or his office to be found guilty of the offence of undermining the authority of or insulting the President.

The first huddle any prosecution of Minister Timba or Premier Tsvangirai as demanded Professor Moyo will be to show that their constitutional right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution has not and will not be vitiated by the arrest and trial which is impossible in this instance where the speeches were made to Diplomats and Party followers respectively.

Further to that it will not be easy for the best Prosecutor to convince any impartial court that the statements uttered or published by the duo were known or realised to be false prior to publication or utterance or even after that event because they are known to be true and supported by a SADC Heads of State Communiqué.

.

Equally difficult will be for the Prosecution to prove that exposing Presidential lies is a criminal offence when the complainant is a proponent of doing exactly that about other Presidents in the name of defending the right to freedom of speech.

The alternative charge of accusing the proponents of uttering and or publishing obscenities, abusive and or indecency towards the president or his office is not any easier to prove. By virtue of their political office and their legislative responsibilities the duo had a right to give feedback to their constituency about a crucial meeting that they attended in their capacity as MDC-T national Executives in negotiations with Zanu PF politburo members to iron out disputes in the coalition government. Mugabe did not lie and was not accused of lying as the national P{resident because he was not at the Sunday 12 June deliberations of SADC Heads of State as leader of the government delegation but as leader of Zanu PF which is the signatory to the GPA.

When Mugabe made statements as to the outcome of SADC Heads of State deliberations he was not making the commends as Head of State but as Head of Zanu PF and it is in that capacity that he lied. Even if he had made the statement as Head of State he still would have lied and his political contestants had and will always have the right to expose such political disinformation and lies.

Professor Moyo ought to know better.