Back to Index

Tafataona Mahoso's attack on the Law Society of Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)
August 11, 2006

http://www.zlhr.org.zw/media/releases/aug_12_06.htm

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) has read with dismay the sentiments expressed by Tafataona Mahoso in The Sunday Mail on 5 August 2006 in his article entitled "Lawyers’ Body Fights for Return of Rhodesia". It is clear from this article that he has a limited understanding of the functions and relevance of the Law Society of Zimbabwe (LSZ).

To put the record straight, the LSZ is a statutory body established in 1981 by the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] ("the Act"). It is an autonomous and self-regulating body tasked with a mandate spelt out by Section 35 of the Act. This is: to promote the study of law; to contribute, undertake or make recommendations on legal training; to control the admission of members to the profession; to maintain a register of members; to regulate the profession; to promote justice, defend human rights, rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; and to generally control and manage the legal profession in Zimbabwe.

The Council of the LSZ is empowered by Section 26 of the Act to facilitate disciplinary tribunals for members who may have breached the code of conduct and/or brought the legal profession into disrepute. This means that even where a member has been cleared of any criminal conduct by a court of law, the Council has the right to enquire into the member’s conduct in so far as it may impact negatively on the reputation of the profession. Decisions by the LSZ Council may be appealed against to the High Court.

Dr. Mahoso errs and misleads the public when he asserts that the LSZ only has legal standing in court where the organization or its members’ rights are at stake. It is clear, and there is comparative regional and international precedent, that the LSZ also has legal standing on issues that affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the general public, despite the regrettable precedent recently set by the current Supreme Court.

Dr. Mahoso offers comical relief by presenting himself as the voice of the so-called disgruntled section of the legal profession and by conveniently ignoring or intentionally suppressing critical facts from his long-suffering readers.

Unlike the unfortunate situation currently afflicting the media profession in Zimbabwe, the Council of the LSZ is not imposed on the legal profession. Every year members of the LSZ attend a duly-constituted annual general meeting and vote Councillors of their choice into office. The elections are democratic and the present composition of the LSZ Council reflects the wishes of members of the legal profession. This has happened consistently since 1992 - the year that Dr. Mahoso has chosen to be the cut off date for purposes of his highly porous article. It is this elected body that then governs the affairs of the legal profession for the benefit of the profession, the rule of law and the efficient administration of justice.

Members of the legal profession know how to remove a member of the LSZ Council from office if s/he stops representing their interests. It is therefore fairly obvious that no reasonable, knowledgeable and efficient lawyer would wish to be "represented" by a man such as Dr. Mahoso - whose claim to fame to date has been to close independent newspapers, render journalists jobless and literally obliterate people’s rights to freedom of expression in Zimbabwe – when s/he could take adequate and effective steps her/himself in terms of the law to remedy an unwanted situation.

Dr. Mahoso, in regrettably inciting language but a tired argument, accuses the LSZ of harbouring intentions to bring back Rhodesia or a Western-controlled regime to this country. Many committed lawyers have fought courageous battles against the implementation by this very government of colonial legislation in policies that are dangerous to humanity and negatively affect people’s fundamental rights and freedoms. It is a matter of public record that a glut of colonial statutes were used as a "legal basis" for the implementation of Operation Murambatsvina and resulted in displacements, homelessness and loss of life and livelihoods for millions of innocent people who ordinarily look to the state for protection. Victims of Operation Murambatsvina are still homeless over a year after they were dumped. Dr. Mahoso needs to visit Hopley Farm to see for himself how the implementation of such colonial laws by the state has dehumanised Zimbabweans.

It is no secret that the government intentionally did not repeal select colonial laws after independence in order to be able to use them mercilessly against its own people. One example is the Miscellaneous Offences Act passed in the 1960s by the colonialists which is still used by those whom Dr. Mahoso seeks to defend time and time again as a pretext to arbitrarily arrest and detain innocent Zimbabweans.

ZLHR represents no less than 1000 people on average per year arrested and detained under this and other obnoxious pieces of colonial legislation. The Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, struck down many years after independence by the Supreme Court after sterling work done by members of the LSZ, was re-incarnated with more vicious provisions in the name of the Public Order and Security Act.

Thereafter thousands of Zimbabweans have not only been arbitrarily arrested and detained, but have also been deprived of their liberty and other fundamental rights since 2002 in a manner reminiscent of the Rhodesian era if not worse. Dr. Mahoso also conveniently overlooks his own tool, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which he and others have used mercilessly to suppress the collective rights of thousands of Zimbabweans to free speech, assembly and association. It is strikingly clear who the real culprits are in bringing Rhodesia back to Zimbabweans under the guise of pan-Africanism!

It is clear that Dr. Mahoso does not want the legal profession to be the leading opinion maker in legal matters. He would like politicians to draft the law, interpret it and ultimately enforce it. This would violate the settled principle of separation of powers which provides checks and balances in any free society. Separation of powers - which understandably is hated by dictators and their apologists - saves humanity from the unbridled power of the Executive.

The Council of the LSZ is obliged to speak out when human rights violations are perpetrated under the guise of enforcing the law, as when the Reserve Bank Governor unleashes the notorious and discredited Youth Brigade to effect "policing duties" against innocent Zimbabweans and instead plunder and loot people’s hard earned money and property. The LSZ Council has a duty to, and will, protest the promulgation of repressive pieces of legislation such as POSA, AIPPA, the Broadcasting Services Act, The Criminal Law (Codification) Act, Constitutional Amendment Act No. 17, and the Interception of Communications Bill, to name a few. The Council of the LSZ has a duty to, and will, protest the selective use of repressive legislation by government-controlled bodies such as Dr.

Mahoso’s Media and Information Commission to shut down media houses, stifle a free press, deprive Zimbabweans of full enjoyment of freedom of expression, and render journalists unemployed. More importantly the LSZ Council has a duty to, and will, continue to defend the authority of the Courts of Zimbabwe to preside over any dispute and will continue to frown at laws that are passed to oust or undermine the jurisdiction of the Courts. This it does and will do as duly elected representatives mandated and supported by a free legal profession.

The LSZ is an autonomous body. It is not an extension of the Executive and owes no allegiance, unlike Dr. Mahoso in his regulation of the media, to the Executive. A body like the LSZ should be a model for media practitioners and ZLHR has no doubt that given the choice on how to self-regulate in the media, people like Dr. Mahoso would be part of a tiny and insignificant minority.

The legal profession is acutely aware of, and not happy with, the drastic deterioration of national well-being and the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in Zimbabwe since approximately 1999. The country is in the midst of crisis on almost all fronts, resulting from the collapse of good governance, economic mismanagement and the dramatic deterioration in human rights and the rule of law. ZLHR supports and stands together with the LSZ and the majority of its members in the legal profession in Zimbabwe in continuing to provide an important voice and conscience in the defence of the rule of law, constitutionalism, the independence of the judiciary and the promotion and protection of human rights.

ZLHR further remains confident that Dr. Mahoso’s strategy to stir disharmony and disaffection in, and hatred for, the independent legal profession to achieve the chaos he has unleashed and achieved on the media profession will not work.

Visit the ZLHR fact sheet

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP