The High Court on Friday blocked attempts by the Tendai Biti faction of the MDC to proceed with what they had hoped would be their hearing for MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai on charges of violating the party constitution.
In April this year Biti and his supporters convened a meeting at which they claimed to have suspended Tsvangirai and his entire standing committee.
Tsvangirai – represented by former youth chairperson Tamsanqa Mahlangu and 128 other party leaders – approached the High Court this week seeking to have the meeting held at the Mandel Training Centre on April 26 declared “illegal, null and void”.
The court has now granted them an interim relief pending finalisation of the main case.
Nehanda Radio understands the High Court heard the case the whole of last night and reached a decision today in the morning granting the interim order.
MDC-T National Organising Secretary Nelson Chamisa told Nehanda Radio:
“It’s a blow to Biti because they had wanted to proceed with their muppet show and portray as if they have some form of political muscle and legitimacy but the court has clearly said they have no legs to stand on. And our hope is that they don’t lose their mind as we go forward.”
Constitutional law expert and lawyer Lovemore Madhuku represented the Biti faction.
Last week an attempt by the MDC Renewal Team to conduct a hearing for Tsvangirai flopped with one of the lawyers initially cited as part of the tribunal angrily distancing himself from the charade.
MDC Team spokesman Jacob Mafume confirmed the postponement of the hearing citing what he called “various complex legal issues” but Nehanda Radio understands lawyer Dumisani Mthombeni was not happy that Biti’s faction dragged his name into the issue without consulting him.
Biti and his colleagues claimed to have put together a tribunal of three lawyers Dumisani Mthombeni, Tafadzwa Mugabe and Gift Nyandoro.
Mthombeni however wrote to Mafume registering his displeasure at being associated with the squabbles in the MDC factions.
“I found this to be extremely upsetting and equally unprofessional given the fact that, first and foremost, you never consulted me to inquire whether or not I was interested in presiding over such a process or if at all I wanted to be associated with it at any level,” he wrote.
“Secondly, you and your colleagues within your political party are well aware that I am not a member of your political party and have never associated with your political party at any stage,” he added.
More follows………….
