PRESIDENT Mnangagwa says Zimbabwe has one of the most democratic constitutions in the region, but indicated that it was important for every citizen to respect the rule of law.
He made the remarks during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Africa in Cape Town on Wednesday following an enquiry by a Washington Post journalist regarding how the country reacts to protesters.
The journalist’s question was motivated by the reaction of the security sector following the violent protests of August 1, 2018 and this year in January.
President Mnangagwa said he was acutely aware Zimbabwe will be respected by the global community if it showed that it is democratic and gives equal space to everyone.
“We have one of the best constitutions in the region, I think, which is very democratic and we respect it,” he said.
“However, the rule of law must be obeyed, the rule of law must take root in our country.
“Not everybody observes that, but I have no doubt that as we move on we shall continue to improve and deepen our democracy.”
Since coming into power through an unconstitutional coup, Mnangagwa has gone through massive violations of the constitution to an extent that the constitution he brags about is as good as non existent.
The first obvious point of reference of Mnangagwa’s arrogance on the constitution is his failure to uphold the independence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec) which he used to get himself back into power.
In terms of s155 of the Constitution, the State has an obligation to ensure that all parties are granted fair access to electronic and print media both public and private. Failure to ensure fair media coverage by the State broadcaster no doubt continuously cast doubt on the integrity of Mnangagwa and the electoral process.
In addition to the above, Mnangagwa needs to demilitarise the country, as there is no basis for deployment of the army across the country.
While the Constitution allows for the deployment of the army under the instructions of their Commander-in-Chief through s213, the basis of such deployment is clearly confined to instances where they assist the police to restore peace and when there is a need to defend the country. None of these grounds are present for the military to be as visible as it currently. It gives the appearance of a militarised State and this of course allows the argument of intimidation and militarised government.
In addition, the army cannot be seen to be partisan. This is, especially, relevant because in previous elections, the military was very vocal in indicating that they would not accept certain leaders, even if elected.
That cannot be repeated because s211 of the Constitution clearly states that the Defence Forces must be non-partisan and subordinate to civilian authority.
Speaking of nonpartisan conduct, traditional leaders are required by s281 of the Constitution to act in a non-partisan and fair manner. They are also required to act consistently with the Constitution.
Recently, we have seen a dangerous interaction between chiefs and Zanu PF, and victimisation of Chief Nhlanhla Ndiweni who is tagged with the opposition.
Some of chiefs aligned to Mnangagwa have gone as far as declaring that they would mobilise support for the ruling party. This was a response to the cars sourced by the Mnangagwa administration for chiefs across the country.
The unconstitutional remarks and conduct of the chiefs needs to be addressed, because their mandate is non-partisan.
The Constitution can not be good if the Public Order and Security Act (Posa) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act remain in place even after being combined into the replica MOPA Bill.
These have been extensively used by Mnangagwa to block the right to protest and the right to assemble for political purposes.
Posa criminalises public meetings that are not sanctioned. This violates not only the right to protest in s59, but the right to freely assemble in s58 of the Constitution.
Section 25 of Posa requires groups to give notice of a gathering subject to the approval of the police. Failure to provide such notice attracts a one-year jail sentence and or a fine.
Section 26(9) allows the police, as the regulating authority, to prohibit a protest or gathering on the grounds that it is likely to cause the disruption of traffic and public disorder amongst other things.
This provision basically makes it impossible to have a protest or gathering in Zimbabwe, since rallies inherently cause disruption of traffic. These additional grounds for limiting a protest are unconstitutional, hence, they have been overturned and ignored in judgments that allowed protests to take place after police had refused to grant permission.
The clause requiring permission or approval being sought or granted by the police is reminiscent of emergency laws created by Ian Smith to stifle gatherings and limit freedom of expression.
In a constitutional democracy where the Constitution simply requires that there be a peaceful gathering, further, limitations of the right in the manner set out in Posa are unlawful in that frustrates the enjoyment of fundamental rights.
Section 27(1) provides for blanket bans on protests, which can be made for up to one month at a time. This too is unconstitutional.
The Mnangagwa administration must ensure that ancillary rights like the right to protest, assemble and participate in politics are not frustrated by draconian legislation.
This calls for the amendment of such laws to bring them in alignment with the Constitution.
On more than two occasions Mnangagwa has ignored the constitution and failed to come up with a cabinet as prescribed by the constitution.
The few incidents highlighted above clearly tell that Mnangagwa would by the last person to speak about the constitution.