Prof Moyo unashamed eloquent charlatan

By Psychology Maziwisa 

Professor Jonathan Moyo’s High Court application which was correctly dismissed with costs on 9 March 2010 could be called several things but serious is not one of them. Himself not a serious legislator, Moyo is nothing but an eloquent charlatan. 

There is a well recognized principle at law against wasting much needed courts’ time with trivial matters (diminimus non curat lex).

His application to nullify Lovemore Moyo’s election as Speaker of Parliament did not only raise a fundamentally negligible matter it was the kind of application only a bored, counter-productive legislator bend on derailing the gains of a new political dispensation could bring. 

For the avoidance of coming across as meddling into political affairs and, therefore, blurring the distinction between the executive, legislature and judiciary, Judge Bharat Patel wisely elected to put it on record that he did not think the application carried any malicious intent.

Of course it was malicious. Palpably so. Why else would a legislator who is well alive to the numerical disparities in the very House of Assembly he belongs be bothered even for a second to bring a clearly tired application before a court of law, seeking to rescind an otherwise unchangeable outcome?

Even if Moyo’s application were to be brought before the most supreme international tribunal and that tribunal sanctioned a new procedurally correct election chances of the 2008 election fundamentally changing are minimal. That is the line of reasoning Patel should have followed.

The judgment was correct but the route used to arrive at it not so correct. He has exposed himself to criticism and given Moyo an opportunity to open his mouth much to the consternation of every progressive Zimbabwean. 

The Supreme Court will predictably come to the same conclusion but will do so for different reasons. If Patel was not going to dismiss Moyo’s empty application on trivial grounds or refer it back to the Clerk of Parliament he should at the very least have dealt with the hollow application on consideration of all the surrounding circumstances obtaining at the time, including the political background. 

In President of the Republic Of South Africa v SARFU, Chaskalson JP, the then Judge President of the South African Constitutional Court , alluded to the political background of South Africa before passing a landmark, unanimous and legally sound judgment.

He explained: ‘The recent history of South African Rugby appears from the record and particularly from the undisputed aspects of the President’s affidavits. Like many other sports in South Africa , it has been a history of racial exclusion.’

One of the results of this racism, the judge said, was that ‘support for SA rugby teams was generally to be found only amongst white people and open hostility to racially exclusive SA teams was felt by black people. This pattern of exclusion and hostility seemed to have diminished during the rugby world cup which was held in SA during 1995.

President Mandela gave his wholehearted support to the SA side and illustrated this by wearing the Captain’s jersey. This event was welcomed by many both as a symbol for racial reconciliation in SA and as a harbinger of a new racially inclusive ethos in SA rugby.’ 

Although the actual election of Speaker was marked with chaos and disorder and the parliamentarians could have acted more in accordance with the rules of parliament, chaos alone and even the display of one ballot paper is not sufficient ground to nullify what clearly was a foregone election.

Even if Biti’s vote were to be disregarded and himself punished in accordance with whatever parliamentary rules might be available in those sort of instances the likelihood of the general result changing was not and still is not there. Zimbabwe does not allow for floor crossing. 

More crucially, ours is a fragile political situation. Zimbabwe is in a transitional, unity arrangement one that favors unity more than it favours disunity especially if that disunity is occasioned by extremely trivial matters. Prof Moyo needs to start dealing with the real issues and mere chaos in parliament is not one of them.

Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating to fund our operations.