Fadzayi Mahere Questions Speaker Jacob Mudenda’s Authority Over Portfolio Committee Appointments
By A Correspondent | ZimEye | In a bold statement, prominent Zimbabwean lawyer and politician Fadzayi Mahere has publicly questioned the legal authority of Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda regarding his recent actions to reverse appointments of chairs of parliamentary portfolio committees. Mahere’s pointed critique comes in response to Mudenda’s controversial decision, which she argues is both legally and constitutionally unsound.
Mahere began by challenging the legal foundation of Mudenda’s actions, stating, “In terms of what law does the Speaker of Parliament have the power to reverse appointments made by a political party regarding chairs of portfolio committees, especially when he has announced the appointments and the chairs have begun their work?”
Her statement reflects growing concerns about the Speaker’s unilateral decisions affecting the structure and function of parliamentary committees, which are vital for legislative oversight and governance.
Furthermore, Mahere highlighted what she perceives as inconsistency in Mudenda’s application of his powers. “When a charlatan purported to recall MPs, the Honourable Speaker acted on the letter claiming to have no power to inquire into the authenticity or legality of the fraudulent letter. Where does he suddenly get this power now? Does the ‘power’ depend on whether or not he likes the person making the appointments? What law is that?”
This reference to past events underscores the controversy surrounding the recall of MPs, where Mudenda’s actions were criticized for lacking due diligence. Mahere suggests a troubling double standard in the Speaker’s application of authority, raising questions about impartiality and legality.
In her critique, Mahere also addressed the constitutional implications of Mudenda’s actions. “Which provision of the Constitution, Standing Orders or any statute empowers the Speaker to declare a political party’s internal officers ‘null and void’? Given that only a court of law can declare invalidity, is it not this very announcement that is null and void?”
By questioning the constitutional and statutory basis for Mudenda’s decision, Mahere underscores the potential overreach of parliamentary authority into matters traditionally reserved for judicial review.
Mahere concluded with a poignant reflection on the state of Zimbabwe’s legislative integrity: “When the House that is meant to make law, breaks law, what hope is there for the rule of law, constitutionalism, and sound legal order? Why reduce the august House to a farcical den of contradiction and illegality?”
Her statement is a call to uphold the principles of legality and constitutionalism, warning against the erosion of the rule of law within the highest legislative body of the country.
As this controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen how Mudenda and other parliamentary leaders will respond to these serious allegations. The situation continues to spark debate over the limits of parliamentary authority and the need for adherence to legal and constitutional norms in Zimbabwe’s governance.
**[End of Article]**