| |
Back to Index
The Deputy PM of Zimbabwe issue: Mutambara speaks
Arthur Mutambara
February
07, 2011
Arthur
G.O. Mutambara's position regarding office of the Deputy Prime
Minister
On 11 February 2009, I took oath to serve my country in the office
of Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) of the Republic of Zimbabwe. It is
a commitment I took with due consideration to the broader and inclusive
interests and aspirations of our country.
11 February 2009 was the culmination of a protracted set of political
events which sought to resolve deep seated social, economic and
political problems afflicting our nation. President Robert Mugabe,
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and I had signed the Global
Political Agreement (GPA) on 15 September 2008, and the swearing
in ceremony on 11 February 2009 marked the consummation of Zimbabwe's
Inclusive
Government. It was neither an accident nor an act of benevolence
from any person that Arthur Mutambara, and not anybody else, took
the oath of office as one of the two Deputy Prime Ministers of this
country.
The office of Deputy Prime Minister is a creature of the Constitution
of Zimbabwe by virtue of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment
Number 19 Act. Accordingly, it is an office of state. As an office
of state, it exists to serve the people of Zimbabwe regardless of
race, tribe, sex, political party affiliation or religion. For the
avoidance of doubt, the office of the DPM does not serve one political
party.
Arthur Mutambara, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe
and Arthur Mutambara, the President of a political party in Zimbabwe
are two different persons. The former is governed by the national
interest and collective non-partisan aspirations, while the latter
is a functionary of political party idiosyncrasies.
When I took the decision not to contest for the position of President
of my political Party, I was very conscious of the distinction between
an office of state and a political party position. Everybody in
my Party is, and has always been, aware of this distinction. In
fact this was discussed, understood and agreed. The idea was to
elect a new leadership which will concentrate on building the Party
and prepare for the next elections, and not change leadership in
order to bicker over current offices of state.
I would never have taken the oath to serve this country in the office
of Deputy Prime Minister, if I had not committed myself to serve
this country faithfully for the entire duration of the Inclusive
Government. While no single Zimbabwean is indispensable, there are
specific national projects, programs and coordinative activities
that I am spearheading in my capacity as DPM, and it will be detrimental
to the national interest for me to abandon them midstream. I would
be remiss in the execution of my national obligation and duties,
if I did so.
I have no intention whatsoever to leave the position of Deputy Prime
Minister in the Inclusive Government. I will not abdicate from my
national responsibilities in order to satisfy narrow party-political
aspirations. In our national Constitution, there is no facility
for a political party to recall a sitting DPM. In the GPA, while
there is provision to reshuffle Ministers after consultation among
the three Principals, there is no provision to remove a GPA principal.
Neither is there an instrument to remove a sitting DPM, more so
when he or she is also a Principal.
In terms of Parliament,
according to the Constitution of Zimbabwe as changed by Amendment
Number 19 Act, I am an ex-officio Member of Parliament which
means that I am a member of that august House by virtue of my being
a DPM. I am not a Constituency based MP elected on a party ticket.
Consequently, no political party can recall me from Parliament.
I will cease to be an MP the moment I stop being DPM, and not the
reverse. That is the law.
This brings me to an issue currently dominating the public domain,
namely the so-called "re-deployment" of Arthur Mutambara.
This "re-deployment" has been put in the public domain
by some members of my party led by Professor Welshman Ncube. The
public is aware that the legality of a meeting of my Party held
on 8 and 9 January 2011 has been put in issue. Bona-fide members
of our Party have asked the High Court of Zimbabwe to determine
whether or not the meeting of 8 and 9 January 2011 was legally valid.
This means that the High Court is now seized with the issue of whether
or not Professor Welshman Ncube is validly in office as President
of my Party.
The rule of law enjoins us to respect the rights of persons to approach
the courts for the resolution of legitimate disputes. I am aware
of the argument that before the courts rule on the matter, there
must be an assumption that the meeting of 8 and 9 January 2011 was
legitimate. This is a flawed legal position. The argument presupposes
there is a presumption of validity of the said meeting, and yet
this presumption only applies to Legislative Acts and Ministerial
Instruments, and not to actions of private organizations and individuals,
such as political parties and their members. Moreover, where a matter
has been placed before a superior court of unlimited jurisdiction
such as our High Court, it is important that the decisions of the
courts are not pre-empted, in particular by the Executive arm of
Government, for that would undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
More importantly, we cannot have major decisions affecting matters
of state and national interest, such as recalling a DPM (assuming
that it was possible), being based on outcomes of a meeting whose
legitimacy is being challenged within our national legal system.
We should all be disciples of the rule of law.
Consequently, until the High Court makes its ruling in this matter,
I, Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara, the Deputy Prime Minister of
the Republic of Zimbabwe, and one of the three Signatories (Principals)
to the Global Political Agreement which led to the formation of
the Inclusive Government, will not recognize Professor Welshman
Ncube as the president of the Party I belong to, the MDC, the Party
that signed the GPA with MDC-T and ZANU-PF. Neither will I recognize
the team that he heads as the leadership of the Party, MDC. Accordingly,
not only is there no constitutional or legal basis for the "re-deployment,"
there is also neither moral nor political foundation to it.
It must be understood that today, 7th February 2011, is the first
time since the 8th of January 2011 that I am speaking about these
matters surrounding the contested leadership changes in my Party.
When I spoke on the 8th of January 2011 at the meeting whose outcome
is being challenged in the courts, I only gave opening remarks before
there was any purported leadership change. I urged those at the
gathering to address two pertinent issues: (1) The boycott by critical
senior Party Leaders such as the National Chairperson (Official
Convener of the Congress), Women Wing Chairperson, Youth Wing Chairperson,
a significant number of National Council Members, and a large number
of Congress delegates, and (2) The detailed petition of genuine
grievances presented by these disgruntled leaders. I spoke of the
need for political accommodation, tolerance and amicable resolution
of the raging conflicts. I clearly indicated that the survival of
the Party and the legitimacy of the meeting of 8 and 9 January 2011
depended on how the Party, in particular those vying for leadership
positions will attend to these challenges. I have not spoken since.
Even that afternoon of the 8th of January 2011 after individuals
assumed positions of leadership I never said a word of endorsement
or condemnation. I was silent until today, because I was hoping
that those claiming party leadership would be creative and magnanimous,
and follow through and heal the Party as I had suggested. The opposite
has happened. Those who are claiming leadership started victimizing
the aggrieved leaders and party cadres (seizing party assets from
them, removing them from national programs such as COPAC, etc),
there were and continue to be attacks back and forth in the media,
and of course there is the legal challenge to the legitimacy of
the meeting itself. Furthermore, the Party is disintegrating with
groups leaving to join other parties, as witnessed recently in Chitungwiza.
This is the sad state of the MDC Party. It means that beyond establishing
legitimacy through the courts, those claiming leadership of the
MDC have to embark on political processes to establish their political
and moral legitimacy among Party members and the nation at large.
Until all this is done, they cannot effectively represent the Party
and neither can they speak authoritatively on its behalf.
I thought I should clearly spell out my position on matters pertaining
to my occupancy of the position of Deputy Prime Minister in the
Inclusive Government in Zimbabwe, and explain the political and
legal issues that have been subject to public debate.
I Thank You
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
|
