By Mari Matutu | I listened to the Morgen Komichi’s interview by Costa Nkomo. While Costa Nkomo’s idea was 100% right, he lacked a lot of research in the whole matter. It is very dangerous to hold interviews with sensitive issues and have no confirmed facts. You end up helping the lier to go own.
I wish Costa Nkomo had invited me on the same panel, I would have helped make straight the following points that are abused
1)The SC Judgement
i) Morgan Komichi must be reminded that in SC he was found not properly before court as the rightful representative of MDC. His status as a representative of MDC was questionable as to where he draws the authority. It looks he has not changed.
ii) The SC cites MDC as a political party with capacity to sue or to be sued. How this MDC becomes MDC T and what the T stands for is not explained. Costa Nkomo did not ask this important question as to the relationship between MDC and MDC T, especial when there is no real official from MDC.
iii) There was also debate on the constitution presented in court. The court was clear that it was going to use the presented one ONLY for the purpose of that case. This is clear that should a real representative come foreard they can present another constitution for MDC
iv) While Costa also believed and repeated the like that SC said MDC must go to EOC and it must use 2014 structures. Here is what Costa Nkomo should have done- download the Judgement, read paragraph 2 of SC. It reads: “The judgement of the court a quo be and is hereby confirmed, save save for the deletion of paragraphs 4 and 5 of of the operative order”
This order look innocent and people enjoyed the first part and forgot to check what the SC deleted in paragraph 4 of court a quo(HC). That is why even Costa Knomo was repeating the lies of Komichi as if it is true.
Let us see what order 4 of HC wss saying before it was deleted
” 4 The 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to hold an Extra Ordinary Congress after the lapse of at least one month after date of this order”. Here goes the SC delete order 4 as a whole. No amendment or variation of the order. Be reminded the 1st respondent referred here is MDC which is a party with capacity to sue or be sued. If MDC had mouth of her own and not use stinking mouth like Komichi’s and you meet her coming from SC would she say SC ordered her to hold any EOC? Very clear SC did not order MDC to hold an EOC in stead it relieved her from the order to hold congress. Clear clear. Where does 2014 structure come in? What will that structute coming to do? MDC is a person separate to its members. So Costa Nkomo do us a favour and correct that. The judgement is there for you. Page 42. MDC was never ordered to hold an EOC.
v) The next point you never asked this bully is paragraph 3 of HC operation order which was confirmed by SC. It reads ” 3 All appointments and/or reassignements and actions of 2nd Respondant (Chamisa) in his purpoted capacities as Deputy/Acting or incumbent president were unconstitutional and therefore null and void”. It is an order that pleases Komichi when he says it but there is one thing Costa Nkomo failed to ask. After death of Tsvangirai as the case was before the court, Chamisa acted as Principal of MDCT. He assigned people in Alliance Nomination Committee of MDC A. As Principal he sat in meetings of Coalition Principals Forum if we believe their version of pact. All the people who went to ZEC and register as office bearers did it after being assigned by Chamisa to the Committee of Alliance. Now if SC decared them as null and void in the eyes and capacity of MDC T. Simple terms is MDC T did not do it. It does not mean it never happened. The point is it happened but not on behalf MDC T. How then does Komichi in his lack of wisdom come and claim right of a null and void decision as MDC T right. As the people boasting of a win you were the best people to shun those seats, that whole process presided by him does not belong to MDC T by SC ruling because those are the assignments, actions and appointments Chamisa did on behalf of MDC T and later declared null and void in eyes of MDC T. All what it means is these were personal decisions of Chamisa. If there is benefit it is his and if loss it is his not MDC T.
vi) By Confirming that Khupe was rightful Acting president it means all decision she carried on behalf as MDC T president are valid and binding on MDC T. By SC we can safely say MDC T did field candidates and contested against MDC A members all against the agreement. Why does she want to claim from MDC T which she did not belong? Who is MDC T then? Because where she was president there were candidates who contested as MDC T, who is that MDC T who was fielding candidates while she was not there on behalf of MDC T? Is it Komichi or Mwonzora who are MDC T?
Costa Nkomo you missed to ask these question as they relate to the SC. You also missed an important thing. The Members of Senate are created by s120 of Costitution and House Assembly is created by s124. They make it clear that elections of these members MUST be held only in accordance with electoral law. The Electoral act establishes an Electoral Court in s161 of act. This is the only clourt with jurisdiction of electoral disputes. SC never sat as electoral court. Nothing in that court says Chamisa was a wrong candidate or his election was against any electoral law
2) Alliance Agreement
Coasta Nkomo again while you had good intention but you also did not research anything from the Alliance agreement.
It must be noted it is MDC T that brought this agreement to court to prove that the ALLIANCE was for 7 political parties when in other point MDC A was saying they formed their own party.
The onus of proving how the Alliance agreement as presented was the one that was used and how it was used rested on MDC T and prove how they implemented it and who actually implemented it. I will go down the agreement and ask questions of what Costa Nkomo should ask the fraudster of Chairman.
i) In the agreement you presented there is 7 political parties like Komichi say. Of interest is MDC T as represented on that day by Tsvangirai and an MDC as represented by Welshman Ncube. We also saw in SC there was a party known as MDC without a T. We also saw that while all were fighting for succeeding Tsvangirai but no one came with full authority to say he or she was rightfully standing for that MDC. Now question is did Tsvangirai left MDC or he left MDC T? If agreement you present is relied on and you insist these were 7 political parties then agree with me that MDC belong to Welshman Ncube because Tsvangirai left a signature that confirms that and he also confirmed the same. So MDC T must not change and say its also MDC and claim the constitution of MDC is its constitution. The number 7 confirms Tsvangirai had a party MDC T as its principal. In terms of MDC constitution by standing up as president of a political party other than MDC Tsvangirai had expelled himself from MDC. His signature is evidence of who he was.
ii) Going in the dispute. The MDC T presented a raw 2017 agreement to prove an agreement of forming an alliance. While the agreement was between political parties through principals. How MDC T want to put it to candidates. Did they form Alliance? There is difference between MDC T and its members. What ever MDC T agreed to do with six other parties does not bind members. They have their right to make political choices as individuals or as a group. They have freedom of association. That MDC T signed agreement with other parties does not stop them from leaving MDC T and form their own party or join other parties and seek nomination under what ever name.
iii) While the agreement was signed in 2017 there is one thing that does not need court to rule on that. That is Morgan Tsvangirai died on 14 February 2018. After his death surely one has to explain how the agreement of 2017 was implemented as it is in 2018 July 31.
Of first note is article 3.1.1 state that Morgan Tsvangirai of MDC T was the alliance presidential candidate. By his death it means Alliance has to replace a candidate and MDC T had to replace a principal. It is misplaced to present the agreement as it was in October 2017 as if this never happened. Again Costa Nkomo listened to lies. For now we now all know that Tsvangiai’s role as Principal of MDC T was the one that was dealt by SC and we have shown that by SC ruling the actions by Chamisa were nullified in eyes of MDC T.
I will deal with his role as presidential candidate.
iv) The agreement they presented has article 3.0.(i) reads “In the event of a vacancy occuring for the presidency for what ever reason before the election the alliance partners shall select another candidate bssed onthe criteria in clause 3(b)…”
We read the clause 3(b) of agreement.” The presidential candidate must be selected from amongst parties on the basis of the best individual who can win election against the incumbent based on popular support”
Now Costa Nkomo, did Tsvangirai died? Yes. Did he die before election? Yes. Did he have to be replaced ? Yes. Was there a written down criteria of replacing him? Yes. This is where you should corrected that thinking mouth Komichi and show him that the agreement had a criteria of selecting the presidential candidate and it says “individual” not president of MDC T as you lie to the people. Right in front of camera you should shame him. Its in black and white.
I forgive you if you say you did not have but next time get a copy.
vi) Now Costa Nkomo you know that Chamisa was selected as individual by alliance partners and not by MDC T to stand as presidential candidate. Khupe did not like it. She wanted to be the candidate. The next condition that would take with being a presidential candidate is being part of MDC A symbol. Chamisa by being selected by 3.0(i) using criteria in 3.0(b) his facial image became the symbol of MDC A. Again this did not please Khupe. But if ever someone holds the agreement he cannot remove Chamisa’s face on the Alliance symbol and still want to implement the the agreement. It must also be stated that the SC never ruled on the ALLIANCE and its Symbol. Neither the role Chamisa played as MDCA presidential candidate was in capacity as MDC T president but as individual. Oooo Costa Nkoma you missed this blood kick on his ass. The symbol cannot be changed and mantain other articles.
vii) The next lie that is given is the candidates that were nominated as MDC A in 2018 belong to MDC T or PDP or MDC or ZimPF.
Here is the wording of the agreement which this stinking mouth lier should explain.
Article 3.0.(g) reads ” Each alliance partner candidate shall seek nomination at the nomination court under its name but using Alliance symbol” Straight forward to read at October 2017. But now Costa Nkomo we are in 2020 and 2 years after 2018 election. Why , why Costa did you not ask Komichi the lier simple things here. The agreement shows that they knew that a candidate has seek nomination at nomination court. They also knew that you seek nomination under a name and a symbol. In the case of what agreement had said each part that was in the alliance had to have their candidates go to nomination court and each state that he or she is MDC T or MDC or ZimPF or TZ on the nomination paper then put a common Alliance symbol. Did MDC T candidates went to nomination and do as the agreement say? Did TZ candidates went , MdC,PDP? The answer is non of the candidates went and sort nomination under any of those names. What can be seen is MDC T went and sort nomination at court and used their own symbol. Fortunately Komichi knows of conflict of identity. He want us to believe there were MDC T candidstes who sot nomination as MDC A and some who sort nomination as MDC T and there is no conflict of identity. Was there a written agreement that candidated could ever seek nomination under MDC A? The proof is there that there was no such agreement, neither was MDCA a name to be nominated under. What is in agreement is these parties were going to use a common symbol that had the face of presidential candidate surounded by party logo of the partners. No candidate ever such symbol.
Someone then has to explain how they implemented the agreement and how they can positively say a person who never sort nomination as stated in their agreement is theirs by agreement?
Is it not correct that by electoral act for MDC A to appear on your ballot it must be a party name? How can one still argue that it was not a party name when it is clear in their agreement the name you are nominated under is called party name. How can they miss that it is the candidate who should SEEK nomination under those party names. The names are not imposed on them. They seek to be under those names. What if they do not seek nomination under that name are they forced to be under those names? Is it on the agreement too? Come on Costa Nkomo. You betrayed the nation by not exposing this stinking mouth.
viii) The agreement in article 7 which I shall not copy but say in brief state that only writen parts of agreement are binding. Any other thing that is not written is not binding.
Come on Costa Nkomo. If you have read this article and noted that Tsvangirai died and no party ever used their name to seek nomination and no one used a logo with logos of 7political parties around face of presidential candidate how does Komichi bind people with things that are not written any where in the agreement. How does he force a person to be MDC T by agreement when he never sort the nomination as MDC T by agreement. Is it not clear he abandoned the agreement at nomination. Why is it hard to see that these people registered their political party in terms of s38A of Act which is a name that was never agreed to be a name of nomination and was not owned by anyone by ZEC records. Is it also not clear that they created their own symbol that did not include names or logos of parties in alliance.
Is it also not clear that of all political parties MDC T and its logo are the ones that breached the same agreement yet they come to cllaim right over it. Was it in the agreement that parties were independent of each other. Whom did MDC T put as it principal to implement the agreement. Only a president could be a principal of MDC T. Now that court ruled that Chamisa was not Principal. Who then does MDC T acted as principal and fulfill the agreement and explain why his MDC T candidates ended up MDC A.
ix) Article 9.0 of agreement state clear that the laws of Zimbabwe shall govern the agreement. Come on Costa Nkomo. Did you not see that this stinking mouth was tell Zimbabweans that “their agreement shall govern the laws of Zimbabwe”. While the wrote all what they intended to do nothing in the agreement was implemented. They never sort nomination as MDC T, They never used the MDC A common symbol as per their agreement, they do not accept they chose Chamisa as candidate and say he was not the rightful candidate. Now they take a raw agreement they never implement and come to challenge the s46(1)(c) nomination choices made in terms of electoral law. They challenge a declaration done in terms of s66 of electoral act and say a person who was elected under a name which is not theirs is actually their because the agreement of 2017 had said candidates were going to seek nomination under MDC T. The whole prescribed form is now a useless. The declaration under oath that they are MDC A and not MDC T is rubbish. The s38A registered office bearers also declared under oath that they represent MDC A a political party . The Nomination officer believed that these office bearers had signed on behalf of MDC A and not MDC T, he put in a gazettee for whole nation that these candidates have sort Nomination under a name and symbol that will appear on ballot paper. The ballot comes with MDC A on one slot and MDC T on another but the MDC A is a fraud of a party that hides behind wrong name and wrong candidate. The voters were given chance to object the candidature or the use of name or symbol as the act directs. In stead we as a nation must listen to an agreement writen in 2017 but never implemented by those who made it. Our speaker of parliament or president of senate must now be governed and be directed by this agreement.
x) Costa I thought as a Zimbabwe you should have reminded what their agreement mean in article 9.0 by saying the agreement shall be governed by laws of Zimbabwe. It looks like Komichi knows non.
I will help him in next
3) Zimbabwe Electoral laws
Zimbabwe has constitution which bind us all not these MDC constitution and agreements. This is what the article 9.0 of their agreement meant
i) The position of member of senate is brought to being by section 120 of constitution and House of Assembly by 124. These state it as a MUST not option that Election are held in accordance will electoral law. Like it or not only electoral laws must be used for electing MPs. Spare us your agreements they are not electoral laws. For a full Speaker of parliament to hold an agreement of a political party and decide with what party an MP belong is unconstitutional and fraud.
ii) s157 of constitution explain how an act of parliament must be enacted and what not to miss. I want these goons see this part ,Costa Nkomo, s157(3) tells that the nomination process shall be in brief as follows-: the election date is published 14 days before nomination date and the nomination is at least 30 days from election date. These are important time frames.
iii) s38A of electoral act state that parties who wish to contest election may submit names of office bearer on any of the days from 4th day after publication of election date ending two days from nomination date. It very important to note elements of s38A that relate to this
a) A political party that wish to contest must show by presenting itself. If you do not present yourself on the this day they you are not contesting.
b) You must present yourself and wish on a stated period as set. Not 2017 agreements that are not presented.
c) The parties submit names and signatures to be used by nomination officer for scrutinising candidates forms. Well before nomination court. If MDC T wanted to contest, MDC , ZANU NDONGA, TZ wanted to contest election they would have come and submit those office bearers names under their parties names on the stipulated period by constitution and act. It does not save to present now an agreement that was never presented or parties that never showed interest to contest.
d) This section gives right to those parties to accept candidates to choose them. If a party never presented it self on the stipulated period it could not accept candidates. So as it stand no PDP, MDC, TZ and other went to register for accepting candidates.
iv) s45B make crucial interpretations. Constituency candidate, constituency member, party list candidate, party list seat. They show you that one first become a party constituency candidate first then after winning you become a party constituency member. It will help us on relalling.
v) s46(1)(c) state that candidate wishing to stand for election must state this fact on a prescribed form and choose the party abreviation and party symbol as he or she wish to appear on ballot paper. This is where we are fed lies by these goods. The law does not provide for seconding of candidates. In fact right to stand for election is given by s67(3)(b) of constitution. You do not need Komichi to approve you to contest. You choose if you want to go independent like Jessie Majome or Choose MDC T or Zanu or MDC A. After choosing to stand for the party you seek authority of the party. Not a party that did not present itself in period. The party that has registered office bearers. The office bearer accept or reject your choice. They sign on behalf of party MDC A. Then the prescribed form goes before nomination. You become a party candidate.
The names are published in a Gazette and ballots are printed and voters vote. A winner is declared by s66 of act. This declaration cannot be altered unless by an order of an ELECTORAL COURT not SC after a petition. A electoral court is established by s161 of act and has sole jurisdiction on matters of electoral law and act not SC judgement on corporate organisation dispute.
s2 of Electoral act also state that the whole act is for elections not for settling power disputes in parties.
vi) Should the MP who was estsblished by constitution in a process that follow electoral laws cease to belong to something it means he is ceasing on what the Zimbabwe electoral law first established and registered.
vii) s129(1)(k) talks of a member of Parliament established by [s120 ors124], you cease to belong to a party that showed interest to contest and accept nomination[s38A] then got chosen by candidate as interpreted by [s45B] and accept the candidate by way of soleminized declaration on a prescribed form[ s46(2)] This party become concerned party by this declaration. Without proof of such declaration under oath the concern and interest of that party cannot just emerge on ceasing before being presented. It has also been proved that the time before election in terms of electoral laws is from day of nomination which is 14 days after date of election is published and date of election which must be at least 30 days before election date [s157(3)of constitution]. The party one belongs during this stipulated period is the party one belongs before election. Not October 2017 agreement to determine period of belonging to a party. That period is not prescribed to be a period before election. Other wise its a period for recalls of previous parliament. The act shows there is a period to join parties and belong for purpose of election. This is what the law of Zimbabwe govern elections. If you never presented yourself or got candidates choosing you do not violet our institution by your greedy and corruption
Please Costa Nkomo in future invite me ooo. I want to expose these greedy money monkers.
Now they know they messed up they want to change names.