Zimpapers Logo

described the draft as an “organically-flawed” regime change document that does not reflect the views of the people.

‘‘The regime change agenda unmistakably permeates the Draft Constitution targeting the entire system of Government, as we have known it. It’s an assault on our foundational values, religious and cultural mores. It is not building on those pillars but uprooting them, and introducing retrogressive alien systems inimical to the survival of the Zimbabwean state and way of life,” one expert charged.

This, he said, should be read in the context of US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Charles Ray’s assertion that the change the West wants in Zimbabwe was “not just about changing the roof of the house, but the foundation of the whole house and to rebuild it from the ground upwards”.

ALSO SEE

• MDC-T stalling new constitution

• Copac: Elitism vs majority views
• You can download a copy of the new draft constitution here
  

‘‘The regime change orientation is evident in the fact that while a constitution should be written for posterity, the draft is clearly targeted at the person of President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean state,” another expert quipped.

He identified the attack on the nation’s foundational pillars as four-pronged, saying it was couched under the Bill of Rights, system of Government, the executive and the Law.
The attack on mores, he said, was manifest in the way the drafters sought to entrench and institutionalise homosexuality under Section 4.6(3), and Section 4.11(6)(b) of the Bill of Rights contrary to the majority view in the National Report.

‘‘The Drafters used the words ‘natural difference or condition’ to camouflage homosexuality,” he said adding, ‘‘This one issue (homosexuality) was topical even before the outreach began, was topical during the outreach where it was rejected outright but here are the drafters trying to introduce it through the backdoor.”

The section also gives foreigners rights detrimental to national security and sovereignty.
Section 4.11(1)(d) grants freedom of expression to ‘‘everyone” instead of ‘‘citizens” as is standard practice, the same with the right to access information held by the State (Section 4.12(i).
This, the expert said, would make it difficult to regulate foreign media operating in Zimbabwe and even safeguard vital State secrets.
‘‘The use of the ambiguous word ‘everyone’ permeates the whole document, implying that the draft is not being written only for Zimbabweans but for outsiders as well.”

On the Executive, the expert said the regime change agenda was evident in the open attack on the person of President Mugabe and not the Office he holds.
‘‘The draft is personalised to attack President Mugabe. This constitution is being drafted to target an individual instead of being a guiding beacon for posterity,” he said.
The expert singled out the attempt to disqualify President Mugabe as a candidate on the basis of term limits.

‘‘Its clear this is a Mugabe constitution. Here is a constitution that is being drafted by three political parties seeking to disqualify the leader of one of the parties.”
Section 6.4(2) of the draft, which the lawyer called “the Mugabe clause”, says, ‘‘a person is disqualified for election as President if he or she has already held office as President for one or more periods, whether continuous or not, amounting to 10 years.”

Ironically, the National Report has no such provision.
Section 6.20 talks about ‘‘executive functions (not powers) of the President and Cabinet”, and this — the experts said — was not acceptable as it not only tried to equate the President to Cabinet but also relegates the President to the level of a minister in subsection 6.

The subsection reads, ‘‘where the President makes a written decision on a matter falling within the portfolio of another Cabinet member, the document embodying the President’s decision must be counter-signed by that other Cabinet member.”
Sections 6.20(3)(a), and 6.20(3)(b) of the Draft Constitution strip the Executive President of the traditional executive powers to appoint security chiefs and chairpersons of commissions and the right to veto proposed

legislation relegating him to the role of rubber-stamping Bills.
This, the legal expert said, leaves the President with mere clerical powers.
He also just “deploys troops” instead of declaring or ending wars.

Whereas the National Report makes it clear that the majority of Zimbabweans are for a unitary not federal system of government, the drafters introduced self-governing provincial governments with their own legislatures, which is contrary to the Unitary State imperative demanded during the outreach.
‘‘These provincial governments are at times given powers that, in some cases, supersede the national government.

‘‘There is also a naïve reference to international law which the Drafters want to be applicable in Zimbabwe yet there is amazing international lawlessness,” he said.
‘‘The Drafters did not write a Preamble to record the liberation history of the country, in particular, the sacrifices of the gallant sons and daughters of Zimbabwe who liberated our country from colonialism and colonial injustices. Within the preamble, issues like land and natural resources as our heritage which received the highest score of 84.15 percent during outreach would have been captured, so would have our traditions and culture which scored 69.23 percent.

‘‘Equally the history of the liberation of the country scored 64.15 percent deserved a place in the preamble but the Drafters did not write the preamble. Page 5 of the Founding Principles and Preamble in the National Report was completely ignored,” the expert said.
The legal experts cited other points of departure from the National Report as;

§ Weakening of the security sector by requiring that the appointments of commanders be approved by Parliament.
§ Failure to provide for the irreversibility of the land reform programme contrary to what is in the National Report as appears in items 1,2 and 3 and page 9 of 10 on Land in the National Report.

— Omitting a chapter on land, its compulsory acquisition and redistribution thereof.
— Leaving the land issue from the Bill of Rights contrary to the overwhelming views of the people contained in the National Report:
— Allowing dual citizenship: compare item 7 on Page 2 of 2 on Citizenship in the National Report against clause 3.3 of chapter 3 page 22 of Draft Constitution as read with the Drafter’s notes, page 1 of December 9 2011 Drafters letter to the Co-Chairs to the Draft Constitution.

‘‘In short, the Draft Constitution is meant to please the MDCs Western masters. It totally ignores the views of the people. It is not capable of being corrected. Drafting must start afresh on the authority of the views of the people captured in the National Report,” the expert said.