By William Muchayi
Perennial wisdom dictates that it is an effort in futility to bite the hand that feeds you. Likewise, few shed tears over the naivety of the proverbial man who falls from a tree after cutting the branch he sat on against advice.
In as much as many find it unpalatable to stomach Nathaniel Manheru’s argument in his public spat with Nelson Chamisa vis-a-vis the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing employers to dismiss workers on notice without severance packages, it is equally futile to do so without digesting the facts surrounding the whole saga.
In Shona, vakuru vanoti shoko harivhikwi nechibhakera, the implication being that for any argument put across, there is always a counter argument to neutralise it and to dismiss the former on the feeble grounds that the one who raised it is irrelevant in the debate is equally foolish let alone an attempt to use force to silence one’s critic.
Indeed, brother Manheru is not a stranger in local media circles, for, apart from anything else, he is infamous for his bootlicking, acid tongue that vomits bile beside his unquenchable appetite for the mastery of English vocabulary much to the amazement of even the Queen.
Of course, this strange behaviour has a history which is the subject of another day. More to the point, Manheru takes no prisoners as he savages not only Chamisa and Chagonda( respondents) in the case under discussion, but, also Lovemore Madhuku (appellant) and Munyaradzi Gwisai who came to the defence of the sacked workers, with the latter simply dismissed as someone perched somewhere on the legal haystack.
In fact, Manheru simply bulldozes anyone on his way in his quest to protect the system that feeds him. What an arrogant bootlicker in Mugabe’s banana republic where everything falls apart! Underlying Manheru’s argument is the premise that Chamisa and Chagonda, both prominent members of the MDC-T, an offshoot of the labour movement, a party that claims to represent workers are at the centre of this controversial Supreme Court ruling that has opened the flood gates for unjustified retrenchments of workers by employers.
What a paradox, Manheru is mesmerised! In fact, it would have made sense if Zuva Petroleum was represented by none other than Jonathan Samkange, a well known Zanu PF sympathiser or Manase with Chamisa and Chagonda on the defence of the appellants.
Of particular interest in the whole saga is the fact that Manheru savages everyone in the drama, from the appellants, respondents, the court, Gwisai and the ZCTU represented by Japhet Moyo. This is predictable more so as the parrot hides skeletons in his cupboards but wishes to give the impression of a peacemaker.
How then did Manheru outwit Chamisa as instead of him being the devil’s messenger, the parrot turned into an ‘’angel’’ overnight? Firstly, by representing Zuva Petroleum against aggrieved workers, Chamisa and Chagonda as Manheru argues forgot that they had a conflict of interest in the soap opera as prominent figures in the MDC-T party, an offshoot of the labour movement that fights for Don Nyamande and Kingston Donga’s cause, hence, the paradox.
Chamisa the lawyer is still the same politician who will address workers at Sakubva stadium, urging them to fight for their rights against unscrupulous employers and how will the young man reconcile these two roles, Manheru argues?
Aren’t these words of wisdom from the devil? Secondly, as Manheru argues, in as much as Chamisa has an obligation to represent his clients in a court of law as per legal argument, the young politician fails to realise that this requirement is of little significance in politics.
In fact, one runs out of words as to how Chamisa would respond if asked by Mwale and Kitsiyatota to represent the two in court over the unresolved case of Tichaona Mabika. In any case, Chamisa was not held at gunpoint to represent Zuva Petroleum against the aggrieved workers, for, the young lawyer had several options before him.
Alternatively, the legislator could have recused himself from the case, but, against all odds decided to bite the hand that raised him, for, he is the child of the labour movement. Much to the delight of Manheru, the drama becomes more fascinating considering the fact that the MDC-T still touts itself as a workers’ party.
Thirdly, Manheru lampoons at Chamisa’s naivety when the legislator hails the Supreme Court judgment as ‘’ a landmark’’ ruling, for which the lawyer derives glory and delight in his legal victory. Aish, what a career threatening gaffe!
It implies that even today, Chamisa hasn’t even realised that his is betrayal of the highest magnitude, for, he can’t afford to celebrate the demise of Don Nyamande and Kingston Donga. In this case, Munyaradzi Gwisai and Japhet Moyo are justified in reprimanding the legislator, for, his actions have exposed the opposition to unnecessary attacks from both foes and friends and it will be an uphill task to manage the fallout from this drama.
For, how can Chamisa explain to the public and the opposition in particular the source of his delight at the ruling that has precipitated the dismissal of hundreds of employees by their employers without any severance packages? This case reminds readers of the Biti/Gono saga against Munyaradzi Kereke and where are we today?
How then can Chamisa’s logic be explained as he hails the Supreme Court ruling as a landmark judgment? Firstly, the legislator was bound by his legal obligation to represent his client whatever the conflict of interest.
Again, one wonders why he didn’t recuse himself from the case considering the fact that in as much as his client had the right to receive or reject his services, the young lawyer enjoyed the same right. Or, the decision was a result of the need to line one’s pockets whatever the outcome was to be.
In this case, it would be difficult to comprehend how people easily forget their roots for Chamisa is the child of the labour movement and it is these workers, Don Nyamande and Kingston Donga included who were behind his rise to prominence.
Alternatively, it could be argued that being an amateur lawyer, the young legislator underestimated the consequences of his decision to represent Zuva Petroleum against victimised workers. It will be interesting to get his views now on reflection a week after the ruling to find out if he learnt anything at all from the saga as time is the best teacher.
On the other hand, Chamisa could have foreseen all the repercussions being witnessed now but decided to go ahead with his decision to represent Zuva Petroleum against Nyamande and Dongo, thus, setting a precedent in future cases where a distinction has to be made between private and party business.
However, the major flaw in this latter argument is that whatever Chamisa does in private, just like any other politician will end up affecting the party as a whole, hence, Manheru attacking the MDC-T party for usurping the will of workers as opposed to criticising the legislator as an individual.
Politicians have to accept this reality and trend with caution in whatever they do even in their bedrooms. Given that the damage has already been done, what is left is just damage limitation and nothing further.
Even if Manheru epitomises the devil, it is foolish for the opposition to dismiss him even when he tells the truth. Inga wani zvakanzi vamwe vakaudzwa nezvehondo yange youya nemurwere wepfungwa.
As for Nelson Chamisa, vakuru vanoti ateya mariva murutsva haachatyi kusviba magaro. Now that the backlash reverberates from all corners of the country is normal and what would have been abnormal is for Zimbabweans to be quiet in these challenging times. Anyway, after all we are not perfect sezvo takabva mudumbu remukadzi!
William Muchayi is a pro-democracy activist and political analyst who can be contacted on [email protected]
