PROCESS VS POPULISM: UNPACKING THE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST ADVOCATE CHAMISA
On 31 March 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling in the seemingly interminable battle over stewardship of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). In the case of MDC and Others vs Elias Mashavira and Others SC 56/20, the Supreme Court confirmed the ruling of the High Court against Advocate Nelson Chamisa, casting further doubt over the future of the main opposition. This post unpacks the judgement and its likely implications.
1. Background
On 8 May 2019, Justice Edith Mushore ruled that the appointment of Advocate Chamisa and Engineer Elias Mudzuri to the positions of vice president was contrary to the MDC constitution. The MDC was ordered to hold an extra-ordinary congress under the stewardship of Dr. Thokozani Khupe as Acting President. The MDC then exercised its right of appeal, allowing Advocate Chamisa to be elected party president in the intervening period.
2. Grounds of Appeal
Numerous grounds of appeal were cited and these have been detailed previously. In a nutshell, the MDC took issue with all findings of the High Court from the ruling that the vice presidents were improperly appointed to the requirement that it holds an extraordinary congress. The MDC insisted that a wrong version of its constitution had been used, incorrect interpretation of its reference to deputy presidents had been rendered and asserted that the application should have been dismissed.
3. Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed all of the MDC’s grounds of appeal. I previously contended that substantive criticism of the Mashavira judgment was not forthcoming because it did not exist. This has been affirmed by the Court. Advocate Chamisa’s lawyers even conceded that, after months of impugning the MDC constitution used in the High Court, it was actually the legitimate version! This left it to the Supreme Court to confirm all the findings of the High Court including the ruling that Advocate Chamisa had been improperly elevated to the positions of vice president and acting president. The order for an extra-ordinary congress with Dr. Khupe as Acting President was confirmed and this is to be done within three months of the court order. Further, there is the seismic order that all appointments and/or reassignments and actions by Advocate Chamisa in his capacity as Vice President, Acting President and substantive President are null, void and of no force or effect.
4. But Chamisa was already elected Party President
Yes and no. The Court referenced the Smith government’s declaration of UDI and subsequent court cases dealing with the question of incumbency as a matter of fact (de facto) as opposed to a matter of right/law (de jure). For some judges, even though the Smith government was not legitimate in terms of the law, its effective control of the territory necessitated acceptance of its legitimacy. To an extent, the Court similarly acknowledged Advocate Chamisa’s populist bona fides. In typical Justice Patel perspicacity, he writes that “…I am confronted by what I perceive to be the ineluctable exigencies of realpolitik.” The Court noted that Advocate Chamisa was elected unanimously at congress, unopposed. He not only has effective control of the Party but he has proven himself the most formidable opposition candidate at the polls. Thus, the Court conceded that Advocate Chamisa’s de facto leadership of the Party rendered the appeal academic as it had been overtaken by events.
However, and in a dramatic twist, Advocate Chamisa’s own populist bona fides were turned against him. The Advocate’s formidability as a candidate and viability of his party only served to heighten the Court’s scrutiny since “…it might someday be electorally elevated to become the ruling party in Zimbabwe.” The tenets of rule of law and good governance were found to be even more relevant in such circumstances. Thus, the congress which elected Advocate Chamisa was not in accordance with the High Court order. It was not under the stewardship of the Dr. Khupe as Acting President and is insufficient to discharge the obligations created by the High Court order. Almost like the UDI government in need of proper process before it can be recognised, his populist bona fides require constitutional process to attain de jure incumbency. Populism without process has turned out to be wholly inadequate for the party of excellence.
5. But the judgement is about MDC-T and not MDC Alliance
Not exactly. The judgement is germane to the MDC. MDC-T was a moniker developed to distinguish the Tsvangirayi faction from that of Welshman Ncube/Arthur Mutambra. Officially, they both remained MDC. Similarly, the MDC Alliance was a vehicle for elections used by seven political parties led by the MDC, hence the prefix to its title. The MDC Alliance was never a stand-alone party but a group of parties coalescing around the MDC for purposes of elections. At the conclusion of elections, some alliance members joined the MDC whilst others reverted to their own structures.
Therefore, the MDC, and not the MDC Alliance, held its fifth elective Congress in Gweru where Advocate Chamisa was elected president. It was not an inaugural MDC Alliance Congress but the fifth iteration of the MDC’s elective congresses at which they celebrated 20 years of existence. This is the MDC that was before the Court which has to fulfil the judgement order. The Supreme Court made this abundantly clear by that stating without equivocation that Advocate Chamisa “…was unanimously elected as the President of the Party, i.e. the one that is presently before this Court, at its Congress convened in June 2019.” It is the party which elected Advocate Chamisa as president which is required to abide by the court's findings. Given that the alliance is something that collapsed into the party after elections, it is counter-intuitive to suggest it can be extricated and presented as the bona fide entity which held a congress 2019. Neither the facts nor the judgment sustain this claim.
6. But Khupe held her own congress
This is true. The Court noted that Dr. Khupe may be involved with a different political formation, but found that it does not amount to abandoning her rights and interests terms of the MDC constitution. Her activities are insufficient basis to cleanse the constitutional abrogation by the MDC and its functionaries. In the absence of a judicial determination regarding the circumstances that led to Advocate Chamisa’s elevation, her rights and interests in the party remained extant, her activities elsewhere notwithstanding.
More crucially, Khupe and Chamisa both held congresses, none of which meet the constitutional threshold. Khupe had the law on her side whilst Chamisa had the people. Both are necessary for constitutional conformity, hence the order to hold the constitutionally mandated extra-ordinary congress.
More crucially, Khupe and Chamisa both held congresses, none of which meet the constitutional threshold. Khupe had the law on her side whilst Chamisa had the people. Both are necessary for constitutional conformity, hence the order to hold the constitutionally mandated extra-ordinary congress.
7. What does it mean going forward
This judgement reinforces Dr. Khupe’s claim to the reigns of the MDC in real and material terms. She is the Acting President of the MDC at law. Matters to do with party assets, participation in the MDC Alliance as well as disbursements from the state all fall squarely under her stewardship. These are not trivial matters. It could mean an ability to recall members of parliament and local authorities, which comes with the capacity to whip elected representatives into conformity. Further, it enhances her ability to engage with regional and international actors as the only legally recognized leader of the main opposition. The swift moves by Morgan Komichi and Douglas Mwonzora to take assertive action and shape the political narrative suggest that those dismissing the judgement out of hand might be underestimating its utility.
Of course, Advocate Chamisa retains his public appeal. He can opt to use his numbers to trounce Dr. Khupe at the court-ordered extra-ordinary congress. But even as you are reading this, I suspect you share my doubt regarding the plausibility of such new found collegiality. The Advocate has done everything in his power to avoid any eventuality in which he is not at the helm of the Party, even temporarily. His experience running against Douglas Mwonzora in 2014 likely made him suspicious of electoral process which are not under his control. His loyalists' retorts at the courts were as swift as they were sharp, signally continued disdain with any adverse rulings from the courts. Without any substantive critique of the judgment, they have opted for insistence that the judgement is inconsequential since their new found titular home is under the banner of the MDC Alliance.
Insisting on the identity of MDC Alliance involves relinquishing that of the MDC – which may come with loss of real and material power (and possibly assets). It is conceivable that grounds will be found to mount a constitutional challenge. However, the political dividend from such a move would be minimal in circumstances where there is no impending congress or plebiscite at which electoral performance can countenance constitutional misfeasance. This could be remedied by taking the radical route: withdrawing all their elected representatives and using the subsequent by-elections as an overwhelming show of force to upstage the rising Khupe tide.
The most likely outcome is another split, with the MDC conforming with the Court order, MDC Alliance soldiering on behind Chamisa and ZANU PF weaponizing it by transferring charges of illegitimacy squarely to Chamisa. I previously presented this as a clash of constitutionalism against populism; a mild but alarming version of ZANU PF’s conviction that its electoral majority is a license to freedom from constitutional constraints. Following the court order would restore legal propriety and bring finality to this ceaseless yet needless confrontation which persists at the expense of consolidating the opposition movement.
The most likely outcome is another split, with the MDC conforming with the Court order, MDC Alliance soldiering on behind Chamisa and ZANU PF weaponizing it by transferring charges of illegitimacy squarely to Chamisa. I previously presented this as a clash of constitutionalism against populism; a mild but alarming version of ZANU PF’s conviction that its electoral majority is a license to freedom from constitutional constraints. Following the court order would restore legal propriety and bring finality to this ceaseless yet needless confrontation which persists at the expense of consolidating the opposition movement.
Thank you David. Insightful, though a mouthful of big legal terms which our small minds cant chew and digest. tadzidza zvakawanda.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the feedback. I will try tone down the legalese in future
DeleteBring it as it is. We will google the big words up
DeleteD.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download Now
Delete>>>>> Download Full
D.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download LINK
>>>>> Download Now
D.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download Full
>>>>> Download LINK sR
Insighftul...most people are being ignorant of the serious ramifications of this ruling as a result of populism
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, I couldn't agree with you more
DeleteInteresting... very interesting indeed. If only the MDCs would stop lashing out, sit and THINK long and hard before getting on with their power games they would actually get somewhere. Chamisa has been exposed for what he is, feeble and immature (this has absolutely nothing to do with his age). He just isn't smart or astute enough to take us where we need to and a lot of this is because of Biti. Kusimbisana zvenhema. We need sober and mature leadership that actually uses their brains. Zanu PF is there for the taking..
ReplyDeleteWell you are not stopped by anyone as a mature person contest and take us where ever you want the people of Zimbabwe wants.. Don't get vaccumed by the propaganda of zanu pf, be strong and stay strong..
DeleteA very good read and insightful
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteAn insightful, honest and balanced read...thanks
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteInsightful and well articulated.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback my brother. Much appreciated.
DeleteVery insightful. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteA very impressive analysis of the judgment David. True, it has a seismic effect.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteSaka iwe wat would be your advice to sekuru vangu chamisa if i was to hire you as my uncle's lawyer, plus yes tone down that lawer language
DeleteInteresting view, we have seen other views totally different to this one. Interesting indeed
ReplyDeleteBalanced and factual
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteIt was a fair jugdement now I understand
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteThank you David for this. Unfortunately Zim is so polarized that people have stopped to view issues objectively.
Deletewhy not write a whole journal article cz apa wanyora wangu
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated. I will definitely consider that
DeleteInsightful. 🙏🙏
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteA fair read. A frightening one if it really is the situation where NC lost legitimacy when he had proved to be the meaningful alternative as conceded Mugabe
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteNomattef how much NC n hs goons tried to confuse things ths was always the position of the legal outcome
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteOn point HeadBoy
ReplyDeleteHahaha. Thanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
Deletethis is eye opening
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteThank you. I hope this will find competition in a version arguing as soundly against the judgement. Without the latter, then the populism will truly have overtaken the legal minds behind the personalities.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated and interesting thoughts.
DeleteGood analysis from my learned brother. Its so pleasing to have people who still believe in objectivity out there without fear of being crucified. If we can have 10 people of your caliber our country can be will be back on track no sooner than later. Why would one violate his/or her own constitution will-nil and later claim victim???
ReplyDeleteInteresting reading
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteA legal analytical profundity that cannot be ignored nor wished away! Thank you David.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteHofisi u never disappoint chibaba.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteMDC has been ransacked and mangled. What is there to lose anyway. A few assets, The Tsvangirai legacy and a fancy title. Politics is ultimately, not about appointments, but about masses. He who has the masses takes all. Even a monkey with people's support, is better than a big party title. And he has the people. I say its time Chamisa started afresh, a new brand, with young people of his own age.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated. That cold be a very interesting alternative
DeleteThank you David for a balanced analysis.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteA sober and sound analysis. A party full of lawyers must know better. The abomination at the time Tsvangirai’s was still warm has to be atoned for. This article requires a wider audience. Well articulated Sir Hofisi.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteInformative read
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteBalanced truth,politics z overtaken by fluid events even this judgement was passed during unnormal times
ReplyDeleteNc has 3 options either continue with Alliance but the legitimacy tag z after him,start new with Alliance n loose some assets,or go back to the old MDC with Khupe n fight it out n clear out the procedure issue,,,,due process wasn't followed after MT as there were too many events at play,,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. Thanks so much for taking the time to read and provide feedback. Much appreciated.
DeleteThe problem was created by MT himself and the National Council of the party when two Deputy or Vice Presidents were created. He made it worse by failing to resign in time even when it was clear that his health was getting worse.
DeleteOn the other hand, Khupe lost politically by ignoring MT for 8 months and failing to get grass roots support. She also made it worse by forming her own party and siding with ED thru Polad. She will surely win the party assets and the debts as well but she will not win the hearts of the people. NC will emerge from this as a victim and that will energize his structures. There is no winner take it all from this.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDyW9lQNvX5cAwEqrfVmVew
ReplyDeleteGreat channel my brother! Keep up the good work!
Deletewell articulated, good honest and insightful read
ReplyDeleteThank you so much - much appreciated
DeleteAn issue you seem to be dodging is that of the legality of the two erstwhile formations. Both the MDC-T & MDC Alliance are legal entities recognized under the Political parties Act as seperate entities to the extent that constitutionally mandated bodies such as ZEC and parliament are under no illusion. The de jure standi of the MDC Alliance is thus a matter of fact which cannot be ecclectically ignored nor questioned only when it is convinient. To further suggest that the Alliance is a coalition of entities around the MDC-T while averring that Khupe is the legitimate leader of the MDC-T is futile in that, given Khupe's distancing from the Alliance it is implied that the MDC Alliance was at inception independent of the MDC-T in its legitimate composition. That Khupe went on to contest an election under the banner of the MDC-T as the then legitimate leader as is confirmed now is testament to the fact that from the onset, the mandate, scope and composition of the 2 formations is unrelated. Any attempt to find synchronicity between the two is quite insincere.
ReplyDeleteA retrospective application of this judgment must therefore assume a holistic fashion. It is purely fraudulent to suggest that Khupe can assume right of control to the extent of recalling elected officials under a leadership which she not only had no part, but was in contest. The appropriation of such powers would imply a recalibration of the 2018 harmonized election result to enter Khupe's name in the stead of Chamisa. Will that extend to the calling of a fresh election?
MDC Alliance ended after the election. It folded into MDC, which held a Congress and must not do so again in terms of the Court order.
DeleteVery insightful, David. I could go on and on.#Rule of Law at the fore.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteSober, factual and impartial! Zvazviri
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article is full of legal holes and will not stand legal scrutiny. Trying to conflate MDC A with MDC T or MDC makes the article fall flat on its face and is the height of jurisprudence dishonesty
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBalanced piece. Constitutionalism by political parties is very important in helping to propergate it at a national level.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteSober analysis. Indeed populism will always attempt to state its relevance over law.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteWow! You've really unpacked the ruling for the layperson to grasp. Am really amazed by the rabid defence coming from the esteemed lawyers within the Alliance despite the massive repercussions of the ruling!
ReplyDeleteTinashe Hofisi, I would appreciate it very much if you write a similar article on Process versus Guns and a Coup. Will the case of Mphoko versus ED ever see its day in court? Does this mean the use of guns justifies neglect of due process?
ReplyDeleteThe problem you have there is that ED was never appointed Acting President after Mugabe resigned. If that had happened there would indeed be a problem
Deletethank you for this... it shed light on some grey areas... thums=bs up!!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteFurther, it enhances her ability to engage with regional and international actors as the only legally recognized leader of the main opposition. This wont happen I can bet with my last figure. Infact if anything this shows judicial interference from the highest offices in the land. This will make Khuphe look like a sellout as usual. She doesnt have the political capital
ReplyDeleteShe will look like a sellout to Chamisa's supporters yes, no doubt. But regional and international actors are receptive to female African leaders, especially the treatment of Joyce Banda in Malawi and Joyce Mujuru in ZANU PF.
Deleteenlightening and well articulated Doc
ReplyDeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
DeleteYour legal analysis tries to sanitise and simplify a complex matter. I say " complex" in the sense that even the court recognised when they agreed with the key argument of Advocate Mpofu for Chamisa that the matter was now for all intents and purposes moot. Lots of developments has happened and the onus in my view was in the court of Khupe to have launched an urgent court application when Chamisa took over before the elections, an application that in my view would have been granted.
ReplyDeleteBut Khupe like any politician understood that in a political party , legitimacy, whether defacto or dejure comes from the people. She chose not to on the basic understanding that political power and legitimacy does not come from courts but from the people. So with an impending election, she chose to go to the people and not to the courts. The people spoke and she received 45 000 votes and many commentators argue that this might have been in part because she was using MDC-T which had been used by Tsvangirai in the previous elections.
So the Madzimbamuto judgement about defacto and dejure legitimacy was irrelevant to this case. If a political choice is made in as free Zimbabwe and not an illegal UDI under Smith, de jure and defacto legitimacy goes hand in hand. It comes from the people. Its surprising that the Court attempted to make a distinction as if Zimbabwe was Rhodesia under UDI. The people resolved the MDC leadership battle in dejure and defacto terms through the 2018 election in favor of Chamisa.
This is similar to 1980 election. At Lanchaster, ZANU and ZAPU negotiated together under the banner of the PF. When it came to the elections, there was agreement in principle to contest as one party under one leadership under the banner of the PF. What the problem was, in Mugabe's own words was " the leadership and the method of choosing the leadership" When they failed to agree on this, ZANU after the elimination of Tongogara who was in favor of the PF contesting as one, decided that the people had to decide the leader through their votes. And this is what happened. This shows that political leadership and legitimacy comes from the people through their votes whether that legitimacy is dejure or defacto.
But you are right on one aspect. Once the court had found that the matter before it was now moot- it should have been end of story. Judicial activism is dangerous. Look at what happened with the UK Supreme Court ruling on prorogation of Parliament. They made a unanimous decision and set a new precedent that overturned the centuries old tradition that matters between the PM and the Queen are not justiciable. And the media celebrated that ruling but the silent majority, the people who ultimately matter in dejure and defacto legitimacy gave Boris the greatest victory since Thatcher.
So you are right that our captured courts( especially looking at Chiwenga and Marry Mubaiwa issue) tailored this judgement to create chaos in MDC. What ultimately they want is to have a pliant MDC leadership that will join POLAD. While they have the advantage that the judgement of the people will only come in 2023, it will cause chaos and tarnish the image of the judiciary.
Of course Khupe, Mwonzora and Komochi will try to grab MDC assets if there are any. But ultimately recalling MPs, Senators etc. I think they will recall non-elective representatives like Proportional Representative MPs. But if Khupe does it today, how will it legally stand when she actually fielded MPs against the same people? That is why at the end of the day, the case must have ended once the courts agreed that it was moot and has been overtaken by events that are difficult practically to unring the bell. NC must be resolute and long term focused. Even if the Khupe, Komichi and Mwonzora group takes over and purges elected officials, 2023 is not far away and like Boris the verdict of the people and history to Khupe, Mwonzora and Komichi will be unforgiving.
Thank you that was historically sound and well thought out. It is the party ticket on which you were elected that recalls you from parliament. So if Khupe is in charge of the party with levers over the Alliance she can recall those members and the MDC-T party can recall those elected on its own ticket.
DeleteYou are correct that power comes from the people - but once you decide to have a written constitution, things become more complex, as we are discovering.
I like it that you seem to worry more about the "image of the judiciary" being tarnished but not that of NC, who aspires to be next president. But there's something worse: the insinuation around legitimacy that so long as you have the people on your side (populism) court rulings don't matter in politics. Extremely dangerous for a party which purports to be fighting for democracy based on the rule of law, not rule by mob. How is that different from the crimes Zanu pf is accused of?
DeleteIf Khupe had the law on her side as you state, so how does her Congress not meet the constitutional exigencies in your own words? If Khupe's congress was legal as you allude, then it means that the MDC-T under Khupe is the real MDC. It thus means it chose not to be in the MDC Alliance therefore the MDC Alliance Agreement that Khupe, Mwonzora and Komichi have been waving does not exist for want of consummation? Isn't it so?Whatever Chamisa did was not MDC because in your own words he did not have the law on his side
ReplyDeleteYou raise a very powerful and interesting point actually. Here is my view: both Khupe and Chamisa held Congresses claiming to be the legitimate party. The Court has said indirectly said none of them were good enough. Remember, Khupe's party was not before the Court, but the judgement suggests that party might be different from the original only because the structures, assets and supporters remained with Chamisa, hence the need to address the constitutional violation. I think your point is that they should have been left to their own devices but the Court sought to remedy an injustice.
DeleteYou seem to be one sided in your learned views. You stop short of calling a spade by its resl name. Firstly did you botyer to think why the Bhasikiti case was treated differently to this Mashavira case. The courts in their wisdom or lack of it dismissed Bhasikhiti so that he van seek remedies in party processes but it was not good enough for Mashavira to do the same? Secondly why did Khupe or Mashavira not challenge or took so long to challenge Morgan's appointments?
DeleteYou went on to mention the UDI case law but in stopped in the middle. Of course you know the Ndlovhu ruling on this UDI govt I would assume? Moot...any comment on that?
And as this is political, cant you see how the courts are being used to fight Chamisa who is obviously more popular than the coup master ED? And you seem to mention the MDC constitution as if its the only one that matters. Why have you been so silent about our national constitution being trampled on by Zanu Pf? Ever heard od Devolution? Ever heard of a coup in Zimbabwe and what does the law say about a coup and its plotters? Ever heard of a Zanu Pf constitution? Who was in your biased viee supposed to take over from Mugabe?
Enjoyed reading both you guys arguments, the original article left me richer in my vocabulary. If I was a jury I’m not sure what verdict I would bring.
ReplyDeleteVery inciting,, Thank you Adv Hofisi.
ReplyDeleteJust to add: The document that gives life to Chamisa's institution is the MDC constitution which the MDC Alliance presented as the legal document and admitted had not been changed since MT. The continual use of the constitution means the entity did not change. I would rather say, it re-branded just like any institution would.
Maybe you are right Brian. But the MDC should have announced the re-branding and told us the congress was the inaugural MDC Alliance Congress. The problem is that they told us the Alliance was over, and the Alliance agreement supports such a position
DeleteThanks so much! Much appreciated
ReplyDeleteThanks Hofisi for the the succinct analysis as usual. As the say, things dont just go wrong,they often start wrong. I worry about the political posturing that politicians opt for even when they have to forego the opportunity to do things right. One day everyone in all the MDC formations will agree that all this could have been avoided had the MDC leadership opted to be guided by their own Constitution. This is critical considering a fact highlighted by the Court: “…it [MDC] might someday be electorally elevated to become the ruling party in Zimbabwe.”
ReplyDeleteThis is where we worry when parties subvert Constitution tenets by abusing "the people". Eventually Constitution is amended to give us a life president "because the people have spoken". What a horde of charlatans! Keep debating guys, we are learning a lot.
DeleteThis is true - too many own goals.
DeleteI am now confused Mr. Hofisi. (1) Is there connection between the previously known MDC T and MDC Alliance? (2) Does MDC Alliance own Harvest House which was formerly owned by the previously known MDC T? If MDC Alliance is now owning Harvest House, how or why? Your answers to the foregoing questions would help me understand more about this own going subject.
ReplyDeleteSorry sir, I do not have this information. I am also curious regarding the ownership of Harvest or MRT House. MDC-T and MDC Alliance are both variants of the MDC for election purposes, one a moniker and the other a non-compete agreement.
DeleteYour analysis is another version of the court judgement which is supporting the court ruling. I can encourage you and others to read Magaisa's analysis which is more factual. Otherwise I can see polarised analysis.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading my post. I have read Magaisa's post and I quite like it. Thank you for the recommendation.
DeleteInteresting analysis, very informative and well-articulated. Zimbabwe has the brains, sadly, all the great minds are scattered all over the world because of poor politics in Zimbabwe.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for such kind words
DeleteYou think it's practically possible to go back to 2016 structures,it's just an academic judgement.Possibly targeting to detail&cause confusion within the movement.
ReplyDeleteThey have the state machinery to abuse and they are doing exactly that.
Thank you for reading my post - I appreciate your feedback
DeleteGiven that we accept that there were 2 MDCs, the Ncube and the Tsvangirai why then did the court conclude that the MDCA congress was the MDCT congress not MDC Ncube?
ReplyDeleteThe Ncube MDC ended and joined Chamisa's MDC, which is the one which held a Congress in Gweru.
Deletethank you. So balanced.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone, Are you into trading or just wish to give it a try, please becareful on the platform you choose to invest on and the manager you choose to manage your account because that’s where failure starts from be wise. After reading so much comment i had to give trading tips a try, I have to come to the conclusion that binary options pays massively but the masses has refused to show us the right way to earn That’s why I have to give trading tips the accolades because they have been so helpful to traders . For a free masterclass strategy kindly contact (paytondyian699@gmail.com) for a free masterclass strategy. He'll give you a free tutors on how you can earn and recover your losses in trading for free..or Whatsapp +1 562 384 7738
ReplyDeleteD.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download Now
ReplyDelete>>>>> Download Full
D.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download LINK
>>>>> Download Now
D.Tinashe Hofisi: Reflections: Process Vs Populism: Unpacking The Supreme Court Ruling Against Advocate Chamisa >>>>> Download Full
>>>>> Download LINK v3