Zanu PF Lawyer Throws Mnangagwa Under the Bus
6 September 2018
Spread the love

Jane Mlambo|President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s lawyer in the just-concluded presidential election challenge, Advocate Lewis Uriri, yesterday challenged the Zanu PF leader’s authority to appoint a special anti-corruption investigative unit, saying it was illegal for him to just wake up and appoint a government crack unit without an Act of Parliament, arguing such action was clear abuse of his duty.

Uriri recently successfully represented Mnangagwa at the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) against a petition filed by MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa, who was seeking to overturn the Zanu PF leader’s victory in the July 30 election.

Addressing Harare magistrate Lazini Ncube, where he was representing suspended University of Zimbabwe (UZ) vice-chancellor Levi Nyagura in a criminal abuse of office charge, Uriri also said the prosecutors seconded by the Office of the President to handle the matter were before the court illegally.

The National Prosecution Authority had seconded Tapiwa Godzi and Mikel Chakandida, who are in private practice and were recently incorporated into the anti-corruption special unit housed in the Office of the President.

While challenging their presence in court, Uriri said it was a clear violation of the Constitution to have the prosecutors who directly report to the President, saying this compromises the administration of justice.

“These prosecutors take instruction from the State President. They do not report to Prosecutor-General. The President woke up one morning and said I am putting a commission or a special unit, that is fundamentally a breach of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,” Uriri said.

“It is an abuse of power for other purposes not known to us. If there is going to be a conferment of prosecutors who are not from the Prosecution Authority, such power must be by Act of Parliament.”

“These learned colleagues are subject to control by the Office of the President. The role of public prosecutor lies at the centre of the constitutional right to a fair trial. If they are employed by the Office of the President, are they going to be fair? Obviously they are going to please their appointing authority, who is the President.”

Uriri asked the court for referral of the matter to the ConCourt to determine whether the granting of certificates to private lawyers by the National Prosecuting Authority did not violate the constitutional rights of the accused person’s right to equal protection under the law.

“Prosecutorial independence lies at the heart to constitutional right to a fair trial. The public prosecutor is intended by the Constitution to be independent, impartial and not subject to the direct or control of someone,” he said.