Zimpapers Logo

Mashudu Netsianda and Hebert Zharare
LAWYERS in the Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s (AG) Office have once again come under fire from the bench in the wake of High Court Judge Francis Bere’s criticism of their casual approach to matters of national importance.

The criticism comes hard on the heels of a recent censure by Deputy Chief Justice Luke Malaba who slammed the AG’s Office for a laissez faire approach to issues of national interest.

Justice Bere said lawyers from the AG’s Office were failing to treat matters of public importance with the seriousness they deserve after they once again failed to file their heads of argument in a matter involving the Sexual Rights Centre and the police, hardly two weeks to the day they botched a similar case before a full Constitutional Court bench in Harare.

Read more:

• EDITORIAL COMMENT : Wake up call for AG’s Office timely
• Concourt hits out at lax AG
• Police, AG speak on bungled case

“I am really worried about the manner in which lawyers from the Civil Division in the AG’s Office conduct themselves especially when it comes to filing heads of argument on serious matters that affect the nation,” said Justice Bere.

The AG’s Office defied a directive issued two weeks ago by Justice Nicholas Mathonsi who ordered them to file heads on behalf of Home Affairs Minister Dr Ignatius Chombo, Police Commissioner-General Dr Augustine Chihuri and Chief Superintendent Fungai Dengu, the officer commanding police in Bulawayo Central District who were cited as respondents in the matter.

Sexual Rights Centre was seeking an order sanctioning a march by its members in commemoration of the International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers in December.

They also wanted an order declaring the prohibition of the march by the police a violation of their rights.

In its application through lawyers Phulu and Ncube Legal Practitioners, Sexual Rights Centre said police had no legal basis to bar its members from staging a march, arguing that the cops’ actions was a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Humphrey Melusi Ndondo, the organisation’s director, in his founding affidavit, said the march sought to bring to the fore the challenges faced by sex workers in the country as they go through their day to day business.

Justice Bere said he was now contemplating roping in the Law Society of Zimbabwe to assist the court by seconding a lawyer to file heads on behalf of the respondents.

“We are considering inviting a friend of the court via the Law Society of Zimbabwe to file the heads,” he said.

Justice Bere postponed the matter to October 6 and directed the registrar of the High Court to order the Civil Division in the AG’s Office to immediately file their heads of argument.

On September 15, Justice Malaba’s slammed the AG’s Office for taking a lackadaisical approach when representing Government in matters of national interest.

He made the remarks while sitting with eight other judges of the Constitutional Court in a matter in which a Harare woman, Ms Emelda Mhuriro, was contesting the constitutionality of Sections 18 (1) and (3) of the Labour Act that only allow female employees with at least one year service to go on fully-paid maternity leave thrice with one employer.

The laws give a limit of the maternity leave periods for women and also deny newly-employed women the right to maternity leave.

Ms Mhuriro is the general secretary of the Civil Service Employees’ Association.

A chief law officer in the AG’s Office invited the Concourt’s comments when she stood up and indicated that her office was not opposed to the striking down of the laws and that she had no submissions to make.

“My instructions are not to oppose this application and we will abide by the decision of the court in this matter,” the senior officer said.

The AG’s office never filed any responses in the matter and did not even file any heads of argument to assist the court in coming up with an appropriate decision in such a matter of public interest.

Justice Malaba quickly chipped in: “We are concerned that the office of the AG takes a position of not assisting the court at all in such a matter of public importance. It is a Constitutional matter that involves not only the applicant, but the nation at large. In fact, it is a matter of national importance.

“There is a law that is being challenged and you cannot simply take the case lightly and just say, ‘We are not opposed’.”

The judge added: “The matter has been taken very lightly. It has been taken for granted.”

The chief law officer, who could not stand the heat, made a U-turn and sought a postponement to allow her to take further instructions in light of the court’s concern.

The bench’s censure of the AG’s Office resonates with many who have raised concern with the AG’s Office in the wake of the botching of several cases where the State lost not on matters of law, but through wilful incompetence of State counsels.

Last Friday, Police Commissioner General Dr Augustine Chihuri has said the Attorney General’s Office has sometimes been found wanting when handling criminal cases, especially following recent violent protests.