How Mugabe was dragged to court over 2016 madness
A Harare court dismissed a petition challenging Mugabe’s fitness to rule Zimbabwe.
Many people have been asking questions how and why Mugabe ended up in court.
Here is full story…
Tajamuka a youthful pressure group was at 0900 hours today, in the Constitutional Court to hear if President Robert Mugabe had breached the Constitution in several reckless statements he made in 2016.
Tajamuka leader Promise Mkwananzi says Mugabe could have breached the Supreme law of the land when he reacted angrily to the protests that brought the country to a standstill as citizens vent their anger against his iron fist rule.
Mkwananzi says it is refreshing that Mugabe can be taken to court, and describes that as a great victory for democracy. “We must use constitutional and other remedies at our disposal to hold our leaders answerable and accountable,” he says.
At the pick of the turmoil, President Mugabe attacked the country’s judiciary system for having had made judgments that uphold the constitution, giving citizens the right to express themselves and to protest in line with the highest law.
This also witnessed Mugabe unleashing his riot police on the streets to attack unarmed civilians, resulting in injuries and destruction of property valued at several thousands of dollars.
The attacks of the judiciary by Mugabe saw him get a backlash from legal practitioners who viewed the move as an act of madness, human rights groups also criticised the action, with the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) levelling the act to executive interference with the independence and integrity of the judicial arm of the state.
ZLHR said the move was contempt of court and was inconsistent with the Supreme Law of Zimbabwe.
Section 164 (1) of the Constitution provides that; ‘The courts are independent and are subject only to this Constitution and the law which they must apply impartially, expeditiously without fear, favour, or prejudice.’
Part (2) of the same section reads that the independence, impartiality and effectiveness of the courts are central to the rule of law and democratic governance.
In 2016 Mkwananzi also made court application to the same court citing Mugabe and Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa, the minister of Justice as first and second respondent respectively. In his founding affidavit he queried if the President had failed his constitutional mandate as required by section 90 (1) and (2) of which any deviation is equal to breach of constitution.