Austin Zvoma got it horribly wrong

By Kudzai Rangarirai

I was shocked and surprised to read Mr Austin Zvoma’s opinion piece which appeared in some online publications and extensively quoted by the Sunday Mail relating to elections in Zimbabwe.

Mr Zvoma is the Clerk of Parliament; hence his opinion on such issues must be taken seriously as it has serious implications on the administration of Parliament. I am not sure about Mr Zvoma‘s legal qualifications, what is however clear is his incompetence in legal interpretation.

Many people will know Mr Zvoma’s political leaning, which is his democratic right, however one would expect that when he is offering professional advice, he should be impartial.

The sections 58 and 63 of the Constitution he refers to in his article are self-explanatory and any ordinary prudent adult of ordinary intelligence will be able to understand what they say.

Mr Zvoma purported to be simplifying the sections for the general public to understand the meaning of the said sections but in reality he was actually confusing the public. If he seriously believes that the contents of his article are true, then God help Zimbabwe!

For completeness let me briefly deal with the sections. Section 58 deals with elections and section 63 deals with the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament.

Section 58 states that: (1) A general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under section 63(7) or, as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63(4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, fix.

It is clear from the above that after the dissolution of Parliament, elections must be held within a period not exceeding 4 months. This is the maximum period we can stay without a Parliament. This means that after the dissolution of Parliament, you can hold elections after one, two months, three or four months.

Mr Zvoma erroneously thinks that during this period Parliament will be sitting. This is wrong.

Parliament would have been dissolved already hence his argument that people talking about the 4 months want to extend the life of Parliament is fatally flawed and seem to follow the discredited legal interpretations of a certain political science graduate whose dearth of legal knowledge is legendary.

Section 63(7) states that: Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), any prorogation or dissolution of Parliament shall be by proclamation in the Gazette and, in the case of a dissolution, shall take effect from the day preceding the day or first day, as the case may be, fixed by proclamation in accordance with section 58(1) for the holding of a general election.

Mr Zvoma’s legal blunder gets worse when he tries to interpret the above section. He bizarrely claims that the elections must be held a day after the dissolution of Parliament! The above section only informs us when dissolution takes effect. This means that once the dissolution is in effect, the four months period will start running and we must have elections within that 4 months window.

For completeness, the correct position is that Parliament will dissolve by operation of law on 29th June 2013 and thereafter elections must held within a period not exceeding 4 months. Hence elections can lawfully be held in July, August, September or October. There will be no Parliament during this period.

I understand the Clerk of Parliament has access to in-house legal Counsels and I wonder if he bothered to ask their opinion before embarking on this embarrassing public show of breath-taking incompetence.