By Dorrothy Moyo| Former President Robert Mugabe has described President Emmerson Mnangagwa as his own son who is misbehaving.

Mugabe told an ITV news anchor from inside his Blue Roof home, his belief is that Mnangagwa is illegal.

Below was an excerpt of the interview:

“Because he wasn’t elected, he is an imposition of the army and we are saying let’s get that position corrected,” Mugabe said.

What do you think of the man who describes you as a father, what kind of son has he been to you?

Mugabe answered; “Of course sons will not always be obedient (once-sic) to their own father…he has got his own views, he has got his own character and its a character I perhaps did not quite see and know about him. Eh that of not forgiving. If a person stepped onto his toe, he will go after them.”

Do you think he has betrayed you?

“In that regard, yes. He has betrayed, and in not wanting to be democratic he has betrayed the whole nation, a whole nation…”

Meanwhile, Mnangagwa himself has shrugged off Mugabe’s statements, saying the nation has moved on. Mnangagwa’s spokesman, George Charamba told the state media it was absurd for Mr Mugabe to place himself above the entire State and polity, and arrogate power to bestow legitimacy.

Charamba told the Sunday Mail, “the former President has asked for a meeting with President ED to cleanse what he calls an unconstitutional order.

“Well, far be it from me to prevent any meeting between the President and any Zimbabwean, least of all his former boss.

“However, looking at it from a commonsensical point of view, I can’t see how an order which is allegedly unconstitutional gets cleansed by a meeting of two individuals over a cup of coffee.

“That is to assume that the two, in the sum, constitute the State and the two define constitutionalism. Is this not really an issue that he (Mr Mugabe) should take to the courts for them to determine? But as I said, this is just me.”

Lawyers who spoke to The Sunday Mail said Mr Mugabe’s departure from office was wholly legal.

Law Society of Zimbabwe president Mr Misheck Hogwe said, “Mugabe’s statements have no legal basis. He does not supersede the Constitution.

“The old man resigned and according to the laws of the country, the ruling party has to replace the President as we witnessed by the elevation of President Mnangagwa.

“The fact that President Mnangagwa was sworn in by the Chief Justice, who was appointed by Mugabe himself, makes the former President’s statements worthless.

“His statements are coming from a disgruntled person who should not be taken seriously. There is no other way the President can be legitimised other than by what happened.”

Continued Mr Hogwe; “I don’t know why he wants to engage with the President because the President is legitimate according to the laws of the country and he has been accepted both locally and internationally.”

Lawyer and Zanu-PF Secretary for Legal Affairs Mr Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana weighed in: “Due to old age, the former President might have forgotten that the national Constitution he signed has a provision for impeachment of a President.

“That process was underway when he finally tendered his resignation and the pressure of the constitutional process forced him to resign.

“Zimbabweans must forgive the old man. Maybe due to his advanced age he has forgotten that he willingly tendered his resignation to the Speaker of Parliament.

“History has to be written correctly; all due constitutional process was followed. After Congress recalled him as First Secretary and President of Zanu-PF, the same party initiated impeachment processes through party Chief Whip Cde Lovemore Matuke.”

Another lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said “a coup by definition is a sudden and violent takeover of Government and that did not happen as all systems of Government remained functional”.

“Section 212 of the Constitution provides that the Zimbabwe Defence Forces are the last line defence of the Constitution,” he added.

“And where there is a dispute over legality, isn’t the cure approaching the courts? He should approach the Constitutional Court if he has a legitimate claim of a coup. Right now he is implying that a bilateral meeting is larger and above an election or a court.”