|
Omuhle • omukhu@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: That is subjective
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:15:10 • Mhofu,
So you now measure violence by comparison to other African countries. Seeing as we will never match the genocide in Darfur can we then say a hundred people killed in Zimbabwe from politically motivated violence is a non-topic, sweep it under the carpet? I believe that even 1 person killed is 1 too many a price to pay for political entities to survive. We should not have this mentality that in Africa death is acceptable and we should step aside and conitue with our lives, waiting for our own death. We should aspire to a society where we can live in peace and have a police force for our protection and not abuse.
Alot of bad things going on in Zimbabwe are from the ZANU PF premise that they would rule for a thousand years on the basis of their liberation war credentials. They began to abuse the trust placed in them by the masses in 1980's elections. They abused the sacrifices of those who died for the country's independence and today we hear alot of them talking about eroding the gains of independence. What are those gains if not a good health system, a good education system, freedom of political, religious expression and so on? The very same things they are trodding all over in pursuit of power longevity.
As for the SADC tribunal case - I don't think there is much doubt on the outcome. If you are not aware of the case, the Dutch farmers were invited by Mugabe, after independence, they paid for the farms and they were farming until the chaos of the land invasions by Hunzvi and co. They did nothing wrong and the law that was passed on land redistribution should not have affected their farms. This is a point of honoour, if nothing else, and the case will be a pivotal issue for all investment in Africa. Is investment safe from the laws passed after they establish their businesse? I am not prejudiced but surely we must accept we made friends and then abused them in our own back yard. If you cannot accept your mistakes how do you move forward without making them again.
My statement is - ZANU PF came to power and assumed they would rule forever so long as Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe. They failed to keep up with the dynamics of what they had given the people such as education, freedom to choose their political leaders and what the people wanted for their livelihood this was further emphasised in the disastrous policies of ZANU PF such as the DRC jaunt, the War Vets Compensation fund (that was promptly misused by war vets on cabbages for donkeys and watches for dogs!) Now the people want change in the hope it will give them something new and ZANU PF attackes this change as a devisive creation of colonialists. Again they haven't bothered to refer back to the same people who are crying out for change. They don't bother to win the people over to their side as they did in 1980 and before. It is a personality cult around Mugabe and that is why it has failed, it will fail and after this it will be no more. Failure to be dynamic and keep up with the needs of the people. Today we all watch with bated breathe but again the responses from ZANU PF have nothing to do with the needs of the people. The printing of paper and calling it money, the riches gained over night from the RTGS, the farms lying derilict around the country instead of feeding people, the lock down of the countryside to stop people moving freely and the denial of space for political entities to offer alternative views that would have saved the country from this situation.
The truth is there is no solution to the problems we face that will see ZANU PF survive as a party, even as the opposition party. It all points to their demise. An example in mind is a constituency by-election that is conducted in free and fair circumstances without beatings and denial of voting rights or the need to line up behind your chief, with an impartial police force that brookes no nonsense and dishes out punishemnt to those engaged in violence, an election commission that does not confer with one party before announcing results and so on. Do you see ZANU PF retaining even a single seat when the people realise their shackles have been lifted? Of course people will vote with their hearts and not with their heads, just like they did in 1980. All the pain and sorrow of years gone by will be remembered, from Gukurahundi to Murambatsvina, from Mavhotera Papi to banking queues, From food and fuel shortages to watching kids return from school for failure to pay school fees. And they will speak out and say This Is Enough. We Need You To See Our Suffering in our votes.
Mhofeti • pasizw@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Legal brief : Zimbabwe
Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:07:41 • Omuhle, you mix issues my friend and as if that's not enough you go on to make hypothetical allegations. How do you know how Zanu PF will react to the SADC tribunal? What makes you think that the SADC tribunal determination will be in the farmers' favour? Zanu PF obviously can't react the way you say we all know they will if the judgement is in their favour, will they?
On the assertion that Zanu PF respects rule of law and constitution I say they do because of the following: Despite all the economic and political woes that Zimbabwe is facing IT IS STILL ONE OF THE SAFEST COUNTRIES IN AFRICA. Sources that have travelled far and wide in Africa will confirm this.
Omuhle • n/a
Subject: n/a
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:58:42 • My point exactly. You assert that ZANU PF respects rule of law and the constitution yet we've seen countless examples of them ignoring the rule of law. Tell me, are you not aware of the court challenge to the 2002 presidential election? Are you not aware of the SADC tribunal that is looking into the farmers claim that the constitution was violated. We all know that ZANU PF will say the SADC tribunal has no jurisdiction despite the fact they aer signatories to SADC statutes and charters.
We also saw the president failing to take legal action to prevent destruction of life and property during elections and there are many more such cases of failing to observe rule of law. Gukurahundi, which deprived me of my parents, was carried out by the 5th brigade which reported to the prime minister alone. I doubt the legality of that situation. I also doubt if the unity accord which ushered in executive powers is a national accord as it only involves 2 parties and I am a separate entity in seeking justice for my kin. Can you tell me if I took this case to the supreme court they would kick it out on the basis that the unity accord forgave all sins and gave immunity to Perence Shiri and co? Oops, I forgot the supreme court is made up of judges who seem to owe their presence to ZANU PF.
xuggi • srunds@operamail.com
Subject: Opposition is legally blind
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:39:02 • The problem is that the opposition in zim is actually naive and inexperienced. They dont know the difference between a legal and a political position. This is were sekuru beats them. They are so full of anger and emotion yet they speak no substance. I hear their talk in bars and elsewere.They use hearsay and bartalk to make legal and political aguements. They need to learn their ropes in junior positions in the inclusive (not unity) government before they are given the chance to rule this country. This is the remnant of The Great Mutapa empire not some mickey mouse country.
Fuzhe
Supertee • n/a
Subject: Omuhle on Legality
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:01:35 • Thanks for your response Omuhle. The arguments you are raising again demostrate the fact that you are mixing up issues. I am not trying to lie to you but merely stating what the law says. Like it or not that is the naked reality . You raised a lot of political and moral claims that are very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt at law as the law requires hard evidence or proof.
You queried ... If ZANU PF knew all along there would be talks why did we need a run-off?
The answer is simple, it was a legal requirement that had to be fulfilled because there was no clear winner as required by the constitution. The talks are a political issue with no legal force at present until the necessary amendments are done. The constitution does not really care whether there will be talks or not, all it requires is that the law is observed as stipulated. Any deviations from that stipulation will be a violation of the constitution and hence null and void.
I agree with you that Zanu PF needed a legal position so that they could negotiate from a stronger position. So they played by the law and MDC was gullible and shoot itself in the foot by withdrawing.
From that point of view it can be argued that MDC aided the Zanu PF strategy. Also if Zanu PF had ignored the run-off, MDC would have had a field day by mounting an effective and successful constitutional court case that could have seen Zanu PF out of power for being in breach of the constitution.
The DRC issue again was legal because Zimbabwe was invited by a sister country to defend its territory against aggressors. Zimbabwe did not unilaterally force itself on this matter but was duly invited along with other countries. Contrast this with Iraq and tell me who was in violation of international law?
The land issue also demonstrates how Zanu PF played by the law. They knew that after the the defeat of 2000 referendum they could not legally acquire the land, so they aimed at attaining the two thirds majority in parliament in order to amend the constitution to give legal force to the land acquisition. Had they not done this, the acquisition would have been illegal.
I cannot commend on the other issues you raised about Gono, Zvayi etc because that is hearsay and very difficult to prove. Omuhle you are very bitter person and I can understand that but your frustrations are more of a political nature that is very difficult to enforce at law.
Ask any constitutional expert worth thei title and they will confirm the constitutional issues that I have raised. As to whether you buy it or not, well that is for you to decide. Mine was just to highlight what the law says.
I could go on and on but time is not on my side.
I rest my case
Supertee
Omuhle • n/a
Subject: n/a
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:14:08 • Nice try Supertee but I don't buy it still. How can you point to observance of the law at this junction? Didn't we see war vets and ZANU PF supporters chasing MDC supporters during the run off campaigning? We all saw the pictures on telly, with monitors watching in their blue vests at the show grounds. Where was observance of rule of law then? Don't lie to us, your excuse that it is abiding by the law of the land is just an excuse to try and push the point that Mugabe is presidnet as a matter of law yet we know there were alot of laws overlooked in leading up to this position. If ZANU PF knew all along there would be talks why did we need a run-off? Simple, so Mugabe could have a legal position to negotiate talks with, otherwise he would be entering talks with Tsvangirayi as the winner of the election (even if he had not gained a majority) so Mugabe needed something to counter that.
As for the assertion that you want to form a unity govt with the MDC in spirit with the agreement I say that again is a load of tripe. If Mugabe beleives he won the elections and he can form govt on his own and from his own people then he can go ahead but the truth is alot of people overlooked his largesse but are not prepared to do so anymore. The AU and SADC are waiting in the sidelines and they will take a tougher stance. At the same time he knows the country is broke and cannot source any more funds to help us out. Not because of sanctions mind you, but rather because of the lack of production in the country. Today we hear Caesar Zvayi and Sharuko are rewarded with E-class Mercs by Gono and yet the planting season is at hand and we could have used that forex to buy planting seed. There are no ideas coming out of ZANU PF apart from how to extend their longevity, nothing is been done to alleviate the queues at banks or the many shortages. All they are discussing is how to extend their rule. IO don't see what will change with them in charge.
So don't go muddying the waters and preaching legality in what is clearly a political situation. Where was legality when Mugabe co-opted the land distribution bill into the constitution referendum? No wonder why the people rejected it. Where was legality when he left people unchecked on farms killing innocent people and driving down production and food security? Where was legality when he sent the army to the Congo and let the chiefs get paid with Congolese mining concessions while widows were left weeping for their husbands who died in foreign lands? What about the violence unleashed on people in the 2nd round of the election?
Please......You think we were born yesterday!
carr • caroline_makamache@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Something must be wrong
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:27:54 • where are Tsvangirai's advisor's and wht do they intend to do about this. to be honest, our President may be old but he still has a lot of tricks up his sleave.
i think if MDC does not have a back up plan to whatever it is they want to do, they are going to be left behind standing right where they stated off. they need to wake up and act fast, lest they be standing in the middle of everything surrounded by nothing...
Wise Man • N/A
Subject: SuperT
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:48:28 • I would say this is your best contribution on this site so far.
Supertee • n/a
Subject: Legal Brief
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:54:31 • Here we go again, people confusing between political and legal issues Wiseman and Omuhle you are simply confusing legal matters and political issues here. This article although very brief succinctly sums up the supreme law of Zimbabwe in the context of current negotiations. Trying to reduce this article to the politics of Zanu PF and MDC illustrates a lack of understanding of the laws of the country and is fundamentally flawed.
Omuhle please note that it really does not matter what threats individuals may make, the supreme law reigns supreme. If the law say the president appoints a person to certain positions then that stands until such a time that section or clause of the constitution is repealed and amended.
Wiseman you queried, I quote ...why is the President not appointing cabinet and why is he prepared to concede some Ministries to the MDC if he does not necessarily have to agree with them?
My response to your query is that yes indeed the president, at law, can appoint a cabinet that excludes the MDCs because he won (legally) the presidential run-off that was boycotted by Tsvangirai based on political and not legal grounds. This is premised on the Zimbabwean constitution which stipulates that whoever wins the presidency forms the government.
This means that legally Tsvangirai’s withdrawal is not recognised because it was based on political considerations that are not recognised by the supreme law of Zimbabwe. However, due to the fact that the nation is seriously divided along political lines, it was inevitable that parties had to put the aspirations of the nation ahead of personal interests and negotiate for a political settlement. The outcome of course is the inclusive government agreement between the three parties.
Yes the president is complaining that a cabinet is needed to contact government business but this does not mean he cannot act alone and appoint his government. On the contrary he can indeed appoint a legal cabinet based on the current constitution. He is only holding back in the spirit of the inclusive government political agreement to which he is party.
We can only hope that the president will not resort to appointing a single party government which will further polarise the nation. The legal position on the current agreement is that it is non existent until the necessary constitutional amendment has been done to create the news positions otherwise the agreement would not be enforceable at law.
Lastly I would like to point out that there is a lot of confusion being manufactured in the media some of which are presenting legally ridiculous and fundamentally flawed issues related to the inclusive government agreement. Let us be wary of such media organisations because they are pursuing self-serving trivial pursuits which have no legal force.
Readers, please note that my contribution is on legal and not political issues.
I rest my case.
Supertee.
Omuhle • n/a
Subject: n/a
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:30:24 • Wiseman, this is an attempt by ZANOIDS to hoodwink us into buying thier tripe. This is clearly not the case or else Chihuri would not have threatened to resign. We know what is going on. They are clutching at straws and hoping to catch the watching public off guard. Who is this Veritas and who is Zimguardian? Everything else seems to have the name of the journo except the really contentuous and subjective issues.
Wise Man • N/A
Subject: This article
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:52:51 • I will also say, if this legal brief is anywhere near the truth, why is the President not appointing cabinet and why is he prepared to concede some Ministries to the MDC if he does not necessarily have to agree with them? He has been complaining for long that we need cabinet, and yet you say he is free to act alone and do it. I hope you are not talking about what you want to happen, rather than what is the true position. Dont confuse us.
Mhofeti • pasizw@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Legal brief : Zimbabwe
Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:21:09 • If this legal brief is anywhere near the truth, I feel sorry for Melusi because his wish for Gono and Chihuri may not be granted after all.
|
