Zimpapers Logo

Mr Moven Kufa and the Voice of Democracy Trust are contesting the appointments of Saviour Kasukuwere, Joseph Made, Walter Mzembi, Flora Bhuka, Sylvester Nguni (Zanu-PF) and Henry Madzorera, Sekai Holland and Giles Mutsekwa (MDC-T).

They want the High Court to nullify the appoi-ntments.
They cite Article 20.1.6(5) of Schedule 8 to the Constitution, which says: “There shall be thirty-one (31) ministers, with fifteen (15) nominated by Zanu-PF, thirteen (13) by MDC-T and three (3) by MDC-M.”

The parties appointed 21 from Zanu-PF, 16 from MDC-T and four from MDC.
MDC’s Mr Gibson Sibanda passed away earlier this year and so the party now has three ministers in Government as provided for in Schedule 8.
The eight, the litigants argue, were appointed after the constitutional quota had already been met and hence their appointments are null at law.

They claim President Mugabe and PM Tsvangirai flouted the constitutional provisions by exceeding the number stipulated in Zimbabwe’s supreme law.
Mr Kufa, in his affidavit, says Vice President John Nkomo was also appointed minister after the filling of the 15 posts, but no order is being sought against him because he has since been elevated.

In his opposing affidavit, the Government’s lawyer — Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana — dismissed the argument as that of a “layman”.

“While at first glance, it may actually appear as if the contention raised by applicants is correct, it is submitted that this is the view that a layperson not trained in law would readily entertain upon a perusal of the provision in question.

“Legally trained minds, however, should not readily jump to such a conclusion as they are trained to be more analytical and inquiring,” Mr Tomana said.

Mr Tomana stated that the Schedule 8 was merely a political statement agreed upon in the Global Political Agreement and not be a justicia-ble document.

“Alternatively, even if it may be considered to be justiciable to some extent, as it is part of the Constitution, the courts should be extremely wary of providing remedies for any contravention of its provisions.

“The provisions have their own dispute resolution mechanisms in the body of the main agreement from which the provisions were extracted.

“As such, it is prudent for the courts to refuse to prescribe any remedies for what is purely a political matter and arrangement,” said the AG.

Mr Tomana submitted that the correct interpretation of the law was that the President shall appoint “at least” the number of the ministers mentioned in Schedule 8.
As such, the AG says, the Constitution did not place a cap on the number of Cabinet appointments but only a minimum.

The Government also queried the status of the applicant with the AG stating he was not sure if Mr Kufa was a citizen and a taxpayer — the qualification for one to mount such a challenge.
The court application is yet to be set down for hearing at the High Court.