The Sunday Mail
National Constitutional Assembly leader Professor Lovemore Madhuku’s attempt to have the appointments of Vice-Presidents Emmerson Mnangagwa and Phelekezela Mphoko nullified escalated on Friday as he filed court papers to challenge their ministerial assignments.
Legal experts said the arguments raised were “off the mark” and far-fetched. The two VPs were sworn in on Friday, with VP Mnangagwa also retaining his Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs portfolio, and Ambassador Mphoko doubling as National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation Minister.
Prof Madhuku lodged his papers with the Constitutional Court, arguing that Section 103 of the Constitution did not allow serving VPs to hold any other public office. He also says President Mugabe cannot appoint two VPs because “he decided to work with one Vice President Dr Joice Mujuru last year after his election”.
“Once the President has decided to appoint one VP, as he did, he cannot change his mind and have two VPs during the same term of office . . . He can only appoint one replacement,” he said.
However, legal experts said the case, which is yet to be set down for hearing, lacked merit as Prof Madhuku’s intepretation of the law was way off the mark.
Expert Mr Terrence Hussein said: “I have looked at the draft application, and as for the merits, I think it misses the point. He has no grounds to challenge the appointments of the Vice-Presidents.
“His interpretation is over the top and not sustained by the law. No one should be worried about the application as it is not likely to succeed at all.”
Lawyer Mr Jonathan Samkange added: “The answer to this case is found in the part labelled the ‘Transitional Section’ in the Constitution. If you read part 4 of the said section, which is entitled ‘The President’ under subsection (2)which reads, ‘without delay the person elected as President in any election referred to in paragraph (1), must appoint not more than two Vice Presidents who hold office at his or her pleasure.’
“From there we go to Section 340 of the Constitution and the relevant part being sub Section (1) which reads, ‘except as otherwise provided in this constitution, a power under this Constitution to appoint a person to an office includes a similar power-…’ then skip to Sub-section (1) (F) which goes on to say ‘… subject to the Constitution to suspend or remove the person from office.’
So, it is clear that the President has the power to appoint and if he is aggrieved he can suspend or remove that person from office.
“What Madhuku is trying to do is to twist these provisions to suit his position. But that is not how the law operates and it is clear that the President acted properly.”
