Embattled Zimbabwe People First leader, Dr Joice Mujuru has lost her Constitutional Court challenge against President Robert Mugabe on the introduction of bond notes.
In her court challenge, Dr Mujuru accused the president of unconstitutionality usurping the primary law making powers of parliament when he amended the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act to accommodate the introduction of bond notes.
She sought an order declaring President Mugabe of having failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations when he made statutory instrument 133 of 2016 when he has no constitutional authority to make statutory instruments or amend acts of parliament.
However, Mrs Fortunate Chimbaru appearing for the president said the constitutionality or lack thereof of the Presidential Powers Act is a question of interpretation, hence Dr Mujuru should have lodged her application in terms of section 85 of the constitution selling the invalidation of the act before resorting to make a direct Constitutional Court application.
Her sentiments were also echoed by Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who added that an allegation of the president having breached the constitution is a serious one which must be made only when there is proof that the president has omitted to carry out a constitutional obligation and breached certain fundamental rights.
Professor Lovemore Madhuku unsuccessfully sought to persuade the court that section 167 (2) of the constitution chosen by Dr Mujuru allows the Constitutional Court to determine whether parliament or the president fails to fulfill a constitutional obligation and that the argument by the respondents sought to push the court to avoid dealing with the merits of the case on a technicality.
The court by unanimous decision struck off Dr Mujuru's application from the roll with costs, finding it devoid of merit and also finding that Dr Mmujuru had not exhausted other available remedies before approaching the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile, High Court judge, Justice Tawanda Chitapi has told the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to desist from dragging the court into its internal politics after Acting Prosecutor Ray Goba refused to turn up to court to explain the contents of a letter which he wrote to the judge president.
Advocate Goba refused to avail himself to court and elected to make an application for Justice Chitapi's recusal where he cited the judge as a second respondent.
After hearing argument from counsels for the accused and the state, the court postponed the proceedings indefinitely for it to make its determination on the application for recusal.
About Article Author