Mwonzora’s Supreme Court Judgement, The Truth
21 March 2021
Spread the love

21 March 2021
By Brian Mari
To Dr Thomas Svosve.
Greetings my leader.

I tried to read your article which you said was a response to my earlier thread on how you were interpreting SC judgement. However after an effort to show you item by item nothing of my input was responded to.
I was going to be happy if you had pointed areas of objections. Instead you bring issue of splits. While I will respond on that issue, I feel if you had responded to my thread it was going to help me why you feel zanu is not behind the problems in MDC. Now I am going to respond to this article as if I have not mentioned something to you. I may repeat somethings too.

In your article you titled it
” MDC splits – 3rd force or Self-inflicted (No holds-barred)?”

Before responding to the whole article let me give definition of the words in your title
i) MDC- MOVEMENT for DEMOCRATIC CHANGE. This is a political organisation that was formed by groups of people coming from labour Union, students, Churches and other social groupings that were at a National Convergence in January 1999. It was launched in 1999 September 11. The first Congress was held in January 2000. A constitution was adopted and leadership was elected. Dr Tsvangirai who was ZCTU SG was elected President of MDC and G Sibanda Deputy President while W Ncube was SG. In MDC constitution of article 2 as adopted in 2000 it states that MDC is a body corporate with perpetual succession. It is separate person from its members. It can sue or be sued in its own capacity. The same constitution has article 9 which define roles of each office bears. The president is the Chief Principal of the party. In article 6 it defines the organs of the party. Congress being the Highest decision making body of MDC. Article 10 states that MDC operate by way of committees in all its operations.

The ordinary dictionary meaning of split is to divide or break into pieces.

iii) 3rd FORCE

The OxfordDictionary define 3rd force as A political group or party acting as a check on conflict between two extreme or opposing groups.

The “Third Force” was a term used by leaders of the ANC during the late 1980s and early 1990s to refer to a clandestine force believed to be responsible for a surge in violence in KwaZulu-Natal, and townships around and south of the Witwatersrand.


A self-inflicted wound or injury or harm is one that you do to yourself deliberately.

Having defined the terms in your heading I shall go into the body of the article basing my arguments from the definition I gave above.

I shall paste what you said as part of your introduction.
“There have been different views on who is responsible for the splits in the MDC. One of the views is that that the splits are caused by the 3rd force (largely composed of ZANUPF, because it stands to benefit from the spoils). The other view is that the splits are self-inflicted and therefore expose the movement to the state-controlled machinery such as the state-captured courts”

My comment. If we are to understand the whole debate we must have common definition of terms. If each is to have different term we will not get anywhere. I will for now rely on my definitions I put above. If MDC as defined by its article 2 a separate person from its member, operate by way of committee and have organs and highest organ being the congress and President being the principal, then split has to be of its organs or committees for us to say this is a split. If a member has issues or is not happy with the conduct of the other or others and decide to go his way outside a committee or organ of MDC that cannot be defined as MDC split because MDC is a person separate from her membership. Hence I say only one event in the whole narration of events suit my definition of Split.
That is in 2005. In an Executive meeting people disagreed on the issue of Senate. Never mind the views of each group. The point is it was in a meeting of MDC organ and the officials disagree on a view. They even voted over the issue and still after the vote they did not agree on the out come of votes.
This is when one group led by Dr Tsvangirai went its way and one led by Gibson Sibanda went its way. A lot of people want to say it was led by W Ncube but thats not true. Sibanda was A Deputy president.
This was a split of the National Executive Committee we then want to see if really MDC split.
A congress of MDC was convened in 2006. This is the highest decision organ of the party. It elects new leadership every 5 years. The congress by article 6.2.3(g) states that the time frame of holding Congress cannot be changed by anyone. Whether the NEC was united or divided the organ of MDC had to seat and decide on the matters of the party. First the congress dissolves previous Executive and then elect new one. That some Members of NEC did not attend the said Congress is neither here nor there. The Congress is bigger than individuals. Tsvangirai was re elected by congress of MDC as president.
After that G Sibanda and W Ncube were no longer D President and SG of party by operation of constitution. What ever they were doing after 2006 MDC congress was their own actions which has nothing to do with MDC and cannot be regarded as MDC split.

The government gave Ncube Political Funding money to Welshman Ncube even after 2006 Congress. If this is how it should work then tell me why. At congress everyone loses post to regain it. The other organs of the party have nothing to do with your personal view. The government decided to give people who were not elected by MDC congress money that belonged to MDC and not Tsvangirai or Ncube for three years running to 2008. Again those that received it did so without mandate of MDC congress

2008 Election
In 2008 General elections MDC wanted to contest election. When they approached ZEC they found W Ncube grouping having registered to contest under the name MDC. If you then fail to define MDC from its constitution you struggle to see the part played by the regime. How did ZEC determine that the office bearer registering as MDC are the true office bearers of MDC elected at a Congress of MDC and attended by all organs of the party? Already MDC as a separate person and not as individuals calling themselves has been put into a situation. The President as Chief Principal of the party decided through the national Council to put a T in front of MDC in order to differentiate the real MDC from another MDC. Those who want to call it faction do it at their own definition. I call them imposters because MDC is represented by single structure with organs that do not duplicate.

2011 Congress
Again MDC held a congress in Bulawayo. At the Congress Dr Tsvangirai addressed the Congress of MDC and informed the Congress that they had to use a “T” in front of party name in order for voters to identify the party by the true leadership the congress had elected in 2nd Congress. By article 6.2.3 the Congress condoned the decision. The congress never changed the name of party as in its article 1. So people must differentiate a condonation of a decision taken by office bearer or other organ for putting a T in front of the party name as changing of name by the party. The same congress directed that the W Ncube grouping be stopped from using party name.
Again the courts have not decided on that issue to date.

Election 2013
Since MDC had used MDC T in 2008 election for reasons explained earlier it used the same name again. The strategy to use a face of Tsvangirai on the party logo was not meant for MDC but for ZEC. It was a strategy to beat ZEC on its interference. Once a person’s face is used as a logo in ZEC files it cannot be replicated or claimed by someone else. This was not a decision of congress or a logo that was part of MDC identity as in article one. If ZEC was not playing a part in allowing someone not elected by congress we would not be having this MDC T or someone’s photo in a palm.

2014 EOC
After general elections of 2013 some members felt they should find arms to fight but Tsvangirai refused. Some individuals wrote a letter to Tsvangirai calling for his resignation . Others tried to drag him into disciplinary action. In the mean time it was individuals without a committee meeting or organ of party or office bearer’s powers.
Because this was not coming from any committee meeting unlike in 2005 I disregard it to be called MDC split. Rather defection.
Now the difference from 2005 in this situation that people do not realise is in 2014 the party was left without a treasurer of the party. Roy Bennet had resigned and Elton Mangoma had defected. While other offices had deputies to carry on to next congress, this office was closed. The constitution then only allowed a NSC member to act only for 3mnths. This is what prompted to call for an EOC. The rest is politics.
Since the EOC had been convened the other posts had to be filled because those who act they do so up to the next congress. Now those posts created by defection created movements of those that remained because some wanted to go on other post thereby creating vacancy on their own post.
Some of the dynamics of this movement I will explain in later heading- Nyanga meeting.

The 2014 MDC congress had three congress resolution that I do not want you to lose site of.
i) Structural changes. It was resolved we have extra Deputy president and that president may appoint National members. The deputy president and National Chair were to remain congress elected office bearers.
ii) The congress resolved to amend the constitution in order to avoid splits and make the president the custodian of party symbol and party name. If this resolution is to be taken by you seriously you will see that definition of split I gave fit exactly with this resolution. Any other person who leaves the party which the congress elected president is, has no MDC in him or her but self.
iii) The congress resolved to have a big tent and directed president to have Alliances with all progressive organisation in order to have a collective approach to 2018 election .
This is the resolution that brought about MDC A.

Let me correct the notion taken by many about 2014 Congress. Some want to call it Congress without qualifying it by its constitution provision that it was an EOC not a 6.2.2 congress. The previous congress was 2011 and by article 6.2.2 we were suppose to hold a 6.2.2 congress in 2016. All the office bearers elected in 2014 were finishing the terms of those that defected. It is a lie that Tsvangirai or Khupe or Lovemore Moyo were elected at congress. They were confirmed by congress that they were still having mandate of 2011 Congress. A 6.2.2 congress dissolves right from branch which was never done. It is convened by article 6.2.4 yet the 2014 congress was convened by 6.5. That is critical.

15 JULY 2016

While you correctly quoted the appointments of Chamisa and Mudzuri as Deputy president and correctly quoted that these were unlawful appointments, you missed a lot behind this.
When Mwonzora won SG post against Chamisa he went about suspending members and sometimes expelling them. There was division within the party and anyone who was aligned to Chamisa was being targeted. The real thing is the congress was due in 2016 and the populace of Chamisa was seen. This populace was a threat even to Tsvangirai himself.
If anyone stand up and only challenge the appointment of Chamisa and Mudzuri as the great sin of Eden then that is blasphemy. It was Chamisa who was demanding that a congress that was due in 2016 should be held. His supporters were agitating for it to be held. Without a truce with Chamisa no one can stand and explain to us why 6.2.2 congress was not held in 2016 as was. After Chamisa was appointed VP all his supporters never bothered about congress 2016 because they were consoled.
Mwonzora and Tsvangirai had the duty to organise the 6.2.2 Congress. Till Tsvangirai death that congress was never called. We were now told that congress was due in 2019. Even now Mwonzora still want to finish Tsvangirai term of 2011 and Komichi want to finish Lovemore Moyo’s 2011 term.
If ever truth be said the real violation was not calling for congress in its due date of 2016. In any case Chamisa would have been elected VP and not appointed. It now looks like its Chamisa who was not elected only while it is the entire National leadership.
Article 6.2.2 is very clear

“6.2.2 The Congress shall meet once every five years, provided that an Extra-Ordinary Congress may be convened, at any time, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

It shows clearly you can have as many as they can be EOC within five year in accordance with provisions of constitution but 6.2.2 congress has to be held at its stipulated time as per 6.2.3 (g)
“6.2.3 The functions and Powers of Congress shall be:
(g) To condone any reasonable non-compliance with the time limits provided for in this Constitution, save for the time limits defined in Article 6.2.2; ”

This is the most serious breach of constitution Which Mwonzora did. He gave himself mandate of being SG after congress date but want to point the appointment of Chamisa as the sin in Eden.
I stood up in Gweru congress soon after President Chamisa’s address to the congress. I wanted to raise this. The Chair refused me time to raise it. If I had raised it at SC hearing I know Mphofu would have used this to defend why June 2019 congress should never be stopped. It was 3 years behind schedule. All this long people were running without anyone’s mandate.

In the mean time if Tsvangirai had lived up to congress his decision to appoint Chamisa could have received condonation just as the decision of National Council to make Chamisa Acting President got Congress condonation in terms of 6.2.3 which ratify any decision by official. Constitutional or non constitutional congress has powers to ratify. In this case it was ratified at congress.

In this case Dr Masvosve take the correct way of criticizing. It has to be from constitution and not from emotion.


In October 2018 MDC and 7 other political formations entered an Alliance Agreement. I like to use the correct name MDC and not MDC T because the T is not party name but it is a lock by one who is bestowed the custody of party name. The face is the lock to the one bestowed party symbol. So those that call for rebranding of party and the like do not realise kuti takabva neko. We now have safe lock for imposters. You can only take that key at congress. Because W Ncube was also in the agreement using name MDC, Tsvangirai used resolution of 2014 plus article 9.1.3 of constitution and put a T. We as MDC are not confused with that we can track it as ours.
In the agreement there are few clauses that need attention.
i) The identity and logo of the Alliance. It was named MDC Alliance with face of presidential candidate encircled by logos of alliance partners. I want you to go to the original 2017 Alliance logo and notice that the logo of MDC which is in article 1 of constitution is the one that is on the circle and the one for MDC led by W Ncube is different and not the one on MDC identity. The face of Tsvangirai inside that circle is not there because of MDC constitution or resolution but because the agreement said so.
ii) The criteria for selecting a presidential candidate- it is in clause 3.0.(b) of agreement. Clearly stated an individual from alliance partners with capacity to win election against the incumbent.
He or she did not need to be a president of any party but individual.

iii) In 3.1 Dr Tsvangirai of MDC T(name lock) was selected as presidential candidate. This is not in his capacity as president of MDC T(name lock) but as individual fitting 3.0(b)
iv) 3.0.j This is the clause that state criteria of replacing a presidential candidate in the event of something happen before election. The clause state that one in 3.0.(b) shall be used.
v) The Clause that state that each political party shall remain independent save for items in the agreement.
vi) The clause that states that each alliance member shall have its candidates seeking nomination from nomination court in its name then use the Alliance symbol along. Very crucial.

Forget about the rest for now. These clauses I stated above are the ones that zanu only realised later and cannot change. Chamisa was selected by other partners independent of politics in MDC T(name lock) using criteria in 3.0(b) by that selection he qualified to be the presidential candidate and his face appearing on the Alliance Logo. This had nothing to do with internal politics in MDC even if he was a card carrying member but fitting that criteria he was the chosen candidate.

15 February 2018
This is after Tsvangirai had died . The National Council upon realising that Khupe was against Alliance which was a congress resolution the nominated and appointed Chamisa as Acting President. That he was not elected is only convenient to those who want to point the spec in one’s eye but ignore a log in his eye. No one there had congress mandate. Everyone was beyond 5 year term of 6.2.2 congress. Everyone had come to agree that Chamisa is VP by appointment just as Khupe was VP by extension without mandate of congress. We as members looked at the objective more than individual gain. In any fact it was in an Acting capacity and congress had to be convened. It did not follow if you act you become substantive.
Even if Khupe was not happy with action of council she had option to approach court over it but she had a duty to implement the congress resolution of Alliance in election 2018. She cannot claim right to election in 2014 but refuse to implement same congress resolution of Alliance. It double standard.


Khupe went and registered at ZEC as MDC T. This is after her congress in Bulawayo. This had effect on the Symbol of ALLIANCE. If the Symbol of Alliance was to contain an MDC T(name lock) and there is another MDC T contesting the actual losers is other Alliance partners who are independent of fights in MDC. This where identify the real MDC that held congress in 2014 not because of a T because Tsvangirai had died but because of implementation of congress resolution. Komichi as the Chair decided to use MDC A as a party name and image of Chamisa encircled by words Chinja maitiro. There was no more names and symbols of 7 parties and no candidate approached the nomination court under the names or symbols in Alliance agreement.
It is absurd for Mwonzora camp to go and drag Khupe as the legitimate Acting president of MDC T(name lock) yet she did not implement the Alliance agreement. If she was the president of MDC T(name lock) then who was the Principal for MDC T(name lock ) in the run up to election. Should it not be the indicator that MDC T was not part of MDC A. This is if we return to definition of MDC. In this case if the Chief Principal in not in Alliance how does MDC act because by law MDC is a separate person from its members. If it was true that Khupe is the acting president then MDC T is not part of MDC A that went into 2018 elections.


It was brought to us that there was a meeting held in Nyanga before Biti defection. Mwonzora is the one who brought the news but Khupe, Biti, Chamisa were also mentioned. If people forget to mention this meeting by individuals outside party organs planning to topple the party president you miss a lot.
This was not a party event. What ever resolutions those who were they made they were not made public. The mere attendance of that meeting must tell that each had a personal agenda. Each had his or her driving factors. I do not want to speculate but soon after that meeting we saw a new way of doing things. Deception became order of the day. Black mailing became of the day. Khupe went about promising District chair some funds. Mwonzora went to make himself a good boy to Tsvangirai as one who brought the news. Chamisa was labelled a Gushungo partner and His father is a General in army. Only to find that Muzion zvake asina kana neruzivo rwe left or right yake. I for the first time see members being suspended by SG when you are at Province without Province given explanation. We lost members like Hlalo.
We started to have formalised factions of Cobras and Huku
We started to have tortoises on top of the pole. While Tsvangirai died of cancer of colony in 2018 but in MDC we lost a lot of member of similar problem. In our own structure we lost couple too who were influential in SA assembly dynamics. Surprisingly Mwonzora after working with Mangwana in COPAC is seen with him a lost. I may not doubt the disappearance of Court papers on election petition of 2018 had an insider. If Mwonzora does not want his followers not to criticise ED, if Gutu is in zanu you must then ask yourself as to when they became ED front men.
If Thabani Mpofu the guy in Mnangagwa office and not my Fulcrum was in MDC offices during GNU what else did he take to ED?


While I already commented on the SC technicals which I shall not repeat, I want to ask you if you have seen the facial image of Mashavira? If Mwonzora was more than happy to the outcome of ruling more than Mashavira and if in all his appointments he forget to appoint Mashavira to any post. Who was Mashavira? Why did Mashavira forgot that actually in 2014 we held an EOC and not a 6.2.2 Congress?

Why did Mashavira remain thinking Chamisa was the MDC president as at October 24 of 2018 when Khupe who he said was the president for MDC T had contested election as MDC T and was the one using MDC T. Where was the MDC T in Chamisa that he claims Chamisa had taken away from Khupe. Someone took the tortoises on a fence post.
On the day of SC ruling Khupe and Komichi went “knowing the verdict”. He was deliberately made to announce words he cannot change even now when he knows it was a lie, he cannot reverse.
A well calculated onslaught was made. The SC judges gave a sober and classic ruling that site plenty cases of similar nature but state media , social media was made to believe SC said go and practically hold an EOC. Yet clearly in the judgement the two Principal of mootness were explained. In the judgement the Court stated it took judiciary notice of Chamisa’s election and clearly stated it is inescapable.
The court declared the present matter was moot and academic but its now giving an authoritative determination on second principle of mootness which clear on page 33 to 34 that the determination is not for practical use by parties in it but has practical effect to others as in one of cases cited which is to alter A high Court Judgement. Which is exactly what SC stated in is Disposition and it modified HC judgement by deleting order 4&5 then introduce order 3&4. Clearly in line with the principles.


The electoral law is very clear in what is a political party. “Any political organisation is a political party” section 4 of Act.
S38 of electoral Act state the process of registering Party officials for parties who wish to contest and state the party name and symbol they represent. The signatures of these officials are send to ZEC CEO at template to compare authenticity.

Nomination of candidates is done on prescribed form and it is the candidate who must state the party he or she want to stand for and that name of party and its symbol as they should appear on ballot paper must be stated.
The Party officials must sign that form.
On the nomination day the Nomination officer check and ascertain if the candidate actually has authority to stand for that party. He also check if the name and symbol belong to another party.
At end of process those that succeed in nomination are Gazette in a government Gazette that state name of candidate, party name and symbol. This Gazette prompt the election of those Gazetted.
Section 66 of Act state that upon winning election by a candidate the election officer declares the winner. This declaration cannot be changed by anyone unless by a court after a petition.
Section 67 of Act,The election officer immediately inform the ZEC CEO who shall record the details of the duly elected member on a form. He record the name of member, date of election and party he or she is standing for. As soon as possible the submit this to Clerk of Parliament.

Now if Speaker of Parliament is given a notice to recall someone, what record does refer to in order to recall a member if not the Declaration form in custody of Clerk of parliament which state name of member, date of being elected and party one is representing?
If he read of one ceasing to belong to party one belonged to when elected which time of election is referring to if not on declaration form in custody of clerk of Court.
Which source does speaker refer to which then cease the membership of a person in parliament if not in custody of speaker of parliament.
How does PDP which never submitted office bearers to ZEC or signed any prescribed form find its notice accepted.
Whose application do the Gazette that stated the candidates and their party names as they appear on ballot paper serve if not citizen that must make informed decision on who to vote for? Is it not correct national election are for every citizen. Where will the citizen get that information of PDP if the Govt Gazette does not state it.
Upon election a Gazette is published giving names of Members of parliament and their constituency. If PDP was never Gazetted as having an MP how does the Speaker all of a sudden get a notice from PDP. What notice does that notice serve if it is not an application. A notice is for those with standing relation. What is the relation standing between Speaker and PDP? Is it coming from statutes or it is a tortoises on a fence pole.

The Political Finance Act state that a party that get minimum of 5% of individual votes out of total qualifies to apply for Funds from government.

The said party must only do it by the end of financial year of the year in which general elections are held.

If the party that get the 5% vote apply to the minister , the minister can approve or reject by way of written notice.
The party applying must submit its details.
What %did PDP get in the individual votes that add up to 29% for MDC A, what is % of each of the 7?
Did PDP ever upon getting such % apply for fund before end of 2018?
Did The minister approve by way of written notice on this fact.
How much votes did MDC T(name lock) get from the total? Did it apply for funding based on such application? Did minister give them the written notice?
How then do we find Finance minister paying amount to parties that do not know their %vote, never applied for funding or got a written notice of approval.
If the MDC A was an Alliance of 7 parties and all contributed to the 29% vote how then do find minister giving Mwonzora whole amount? Did MDC T(name lock) then get all votes?

The SC has a standing judgement barring Minister of Finance from giving out the money until the matter in courts are finalised. How then did he give Mwonzora money in December in defiance of same SC that they conveniently use as reason for a judgement to recall.

ZEC is the one that register votes, register office bearers of parties and all election material and do the Gazettes of elections how then does it forget it had Chamisa and Khupe contesting under different party names and even in election petition MDC T was a respondent and not applicant.

If this does not open your mind that problems in MDC are created by Zanu then tough luck.
Individuals in MDC defect or cause issues for personal reasons that relate to their relation with zanu and zanu abuse state institution to propel the problems. If this is not the 3rd force defined the I do not know.

Currently there are MPs who have loans of cars they bought . These loans are a wedge in between these MPs loyalty to party and risk of losing.

I rest there. Until you bring something to respond to. – By Mari Matutu