Mugabe’s power trip cut short by Gucci Grace

Business Day

23rd November 2017

Opinion

The long succession battle in Zanu-PF has come to a bitter and sudden end — with a twist very few Zimbabwean citizens would have dared to imagine.

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s ruler of nearly four decades, was forced to resign in shame on Tuesday after growing pressure from the public and his rejection by Zanu-PF, which removed him as party head on Sunday.

His wife, Grace, who had been under house arrest at their Harare mansion, was told by soldiers to “stay in the kitchen” as the military besieged their residence and moved to sideline the woman who thought she would be the next president.

The military, represented by army commander General Constantino Chiwenga, has emerged as the poster boys of the victory. As the dust begins to settle, it is clear the soldiers have pushed out Mugabe, ended Grace’s presidential ambitions and became the king makers of the Zanu-PF succession battle.

Mugabe’s allies, the group known as G40, had gone head to head in the race for the presidency with another faction, Lacoste, led by Emmerson Mnangagwa. Members of the G40 have either been forced into exile or detained by the military.

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) says it is concerned by the arrests and detention by the military of people during Operation Restore Legacy — the military-led offensive that sent tanks into Harare’s central business district.

“The ZLHR urges the Zimbabwe Defence Forces [ZDF] to follow the due process of law, to guarantee protection of all pretrial rights and safety of any detainees and to grant them immediate and unequivocal access to their lawyers, family members and medical practitioners of choice,” the organisation said in a statement.

“The ZDF must prevent any incidents of torture, or other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and prevent the occurrence of any enforced disappearances or incommunicado detention,” it said.

Some of the exiled G40 members, such as key Mugabe strategist Jonathan Moyo, have been tweeting their thoughts.

“There’ll never be anyone like Mugabe. I’m grateful for the opportunity to have served my country under and with him. I’m proud that I stood with and by this iconic leader during the trying moments of the last days of his presidency. Democracy requires politics to lead the gun,” Moyo tweeted as Mugabe resigned on Tuesday.

Like nearly 20 other former high-ranking party officials — including political commissar Saviour Kasukuwere, Mugabe’s nephew Patrick Zhuwao, vice-president Phelekezela Mphoko and finance minister Ignatius Chombo — Moyo has been expelled from Zanu-PF.

David Coltart, a former education minister and an official in the Movement for Democratic Change, says the demise of the G40 faction marks the end of the succession battle, which had become the top feature in the affairs of the ruling party.

He doubts that new Zanu-PF head Mnangagwa would reach out to the core leaders of the G40 faction.

“But, undoubtedly, he will try to woo some of its supporters on the periphery. He needs that bloc of support in the run-up to the election next year,” he says.

Mnangagwa may be able to command obedience within Zanu-PF as he strengthens control over the politics of survival and opportunism in the party, but he has a credibility deficit to address, especially outside of Zanu-PF, both in and outside of Zimbabwe

International Crisis Group Southern Africa director Piers Pigou says it will be interesting to see how Mnangagwa navigates the narrative that only the G40 “cabal” has been responsible for Zimbabwe’s mess.

“We all know culpability is much broader in this regard. Mnangagwa may be able to command obedience within Zanu-PF as he strengthens control over the politics of survival and opportunism in the party, but he has a credibility deficit to address, especially outside of Zanu-PF, both in and outside of Zimbabwe. It is a massive challenge, but also a tremendous opportunity,” Pigou says.

How it came about that the G40 faction, which earlier in November had come within an arm’s length of power, was driven out of the country can be explained in the missteps of Grace. She had taken on Mnangagwa, an army man before becoming a civilian in the government and moving up the party ranks.

Grace had been on a vicious warpath since she went on youth interface rallies — which were campaigning in disguise ahead of the 2018 elections. The rallies were public lynchings — first of officials seen to be close to Mnangagwa, and then Grace called for his dismissal from office for plotting to succeed Mugabe.

For Grace, Mnangagwa represented the last of the liberation fighters in Zanu-PF who could stand up to her — hence the vicious attacks, similar and consistent to those she aimed at vice-president Joice Mujuru in 2014, which led to her being routed from the party.

In some circles, it was seen as a fight between two generations — the older, represented by Mnangagwa, which had a stake in the country’s history, against a younger generation represented by Grace, which comprised upstarts and political novices.

The G40 generation lived lavishly, with an affinity for luxury vehicles such as Rolls-Royces and Maybachs. Their showing-off was despised by the citizens, who were hard-hit by economic hardship.

Grace was seen as the queen of profligacy — in her final days as first lady, she went on a property buying spree in Johannesburg and Harare.

She took ownership of a new Rolls-Royce and was reported to have had an interest in the establishment of a new airline that was primed to elbow out the $300m debt-riddled national airline, Air Zimbabwe. Her behaviour — beating up model Gabriella Engels in SA in August — further ensured her isolation.

She may have enjoyed some public hero worship and praise, but behind closed doors and in hushed tones, conversations featuring Grace were about how unrestrained she was and how Mugabe was probably having it hard at home.

Tshinga Dube, a military man of 22 years and a former cabinet minister who has fallen out of favour with Mugabe, says the elderly leader had lost the willpower to resist his wife and her demands.

“At 93-years-old, you don’t want to be fighting. You are old and tired and Mugabe simply didn’t have it in him to resist the demands of his greedy wife Grace and those of the people around her,” Dube says.

The axing of Mnangagwa on November 6, after a weekend in which Grace belittled Mnangagwa in an address and was booed at a rally, set off a chain of events that backfired on the G40 faction.

Mnangagwa was fired from the government and the party and was forced to flee into exile — after he had been warned of an assassination attempt.

He later bitterly pointed out in a statement that the security detail usually afforded former deputy presidents was immediately withdrawn for him, leaving him vulnerable and exposed as political tensions soared.

Last week, the Zimbabwean military stepped in to help one of their own.

Grace had hardly won herself any favours when she criticised and dressed down Chiwenga and dared soldiers to shoot her during her rallies.

“Mnangagwa was attacked separately, so were the army and the war veterans. They all have a similar liberation history and became allies because they had a common enemy, which was Grace,” says Arnold Tsunga, Africa director of the International Commission of Jurists.

“It was clear that if Mugabe had managed to deal with Mnangagwa, he [would be] coming after the army commander. So for Chiwenga’s part, moving in was a pre-emptive strike to protect his position.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe’s Mnangagwa promises jobs in ‘new democracy’

BBC

22nd November 2017

Zimbabwe’s incoming leader Emmerson Mnangagwa has hailed a “new and unfolding democracy” after returning from exile to replace Robert Mugabe. He also vowed to create jobs in a country where some estimates say 90% of people are unemployed.

“We want to grow our economy, we want peace, we want jobs, jobs, jobs,” he told a cheering crowd in Harare. Mr Mnangagwa, who fled to South Africa two weeks ago, is to be made the new president on Friday, state TV said. His dismissal led the ruling party and the military to intervene and force an end to Mr Mugabe’s 37-year long rule.

Mugabe has gone, but will Zimbabwe change?

He told supporters at the headquarters of the ruling Zanu-PF party that he had been the subject of several assassination plots and thanked the army for running the “process” of removing Mr Mugabe peacefully.

The news that 93-year-old Mr Mugabe was stepping down sparked wild celebrations across the country late into Tuesday night.

It came in the form of a letter read out in parliament on Tuesday, abruptly halting impeachment proceedings against him.

In it, Mr Mugabe said he was resigning to allow a smooth and peaceful transfer of power, and that his decision was voluntary.

A spokesman for the ruling Zanu-PF party said Mr Mnangagwa, 71, would serve the remainder of Mr Mugabe’s term until elections that are due to be held by September 2018.
Nicknamed the “crocodile” because of his political cunning, Mr Mnangagwa met South African President Jacob Zuma before leaving for Zimbabwe.

Thousands of party supporters waited for hours to welcome Mr Mnangagwa in his first public appearance since he emerged from hiding.
During his 20-minute speech, he corrected himself at least once for referring to Mr Mugabe as president rather than former president. His message was largely conciliatory.
But he also relished his stunning return to power and successful removal of Mr Mugabe. He brought up Grace Mugabe’s speech a fortnight ago, in which – meaning him – she said we must “deal with the snake by crushing its head”. A day later he was fired.

“I wonder which snake’s head was crushed?” he said to loud cheers.

Mr Mnangagwa’s firing by Mr Mugabe two weeks ago triggered an unprecedented political crisis in the country.
It had been seen by many as an attempt to clear the way for Grace Mugabe to succeed her husband as leader and riled the military leadership, which stepped in and put Mr Mugabe under house arrest.

Under the constitution, the role of successor would normally go to a serving vice-president, and one still remains in post – Phelekezela Mphoko.
However, Mr Mphoko – a key ally of Mrs Mugabe – has just been fired by Zanu-PF and is not believed to be in the country. In his absence, the party has nominated Mr Mnangagwa, the speaker of parliament confirmed.

Some have questioned whether the handover to Mr Mnangagwa will bring about real change in the country.
He was national security chief at a time when thousands of civilians died in post-independence conflict in the 1980s, though he denies having blood on his hands.

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai told the BBC he hoped that Zimbabwe was on a “new trajectory” that would include free and fair elections.
He said Mr Mugabe should be allowed to “go and rest for his last days”.

Prominent opposition politician David Coltart tweeted: “We have removed a tyrant but not yet a tyranny.”

African Union president Alpha Condé said he was “truly delighted” by the news, but expressed regret at the way Mr Mugabe’s rule had ended. “It is a shame that he is leaving through the back door and that he is forsaken by the parliament,” he said.

At 93, Mr Mugabe was – until his resignation – the world’s oldest leader. He once proclaimed that “only God” could remove him.
Lawmakers from the ruling party and opposition roared with glee when his resignation letter was read aloud in parliament on Wednesday.

Activist and political candidate Vimbaishe Musvaburi broke down in tears of joy while speaking to the BBC.

“We are tired of this man, we are so glad he’s gone. We don’t want him anymore and yes, today, it’s victory,” she said.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

The last time Robert Mugabe faced impeachment in Parliament – 25th October 2000

Senator David Coltart

21st November 2017

Just over 17 years ago, on the 25th October 2000, I was present in the House of Assembly when the late (and great) Gibson Sibanda tabled the first impeachment motion against Robert Mugabe. The Speaker then was none other than Emmerson Mnangagwa who ensured that the petition just faded away. The Committee set up to investigate the allegations leveled against Robert Mugabe never sat.

Amongst others, both Patrick Chinamasa and Jonathan Moyo rubbished the petition as “frivolous and vexatious”. I suppose that Moyo would say the same now but Chinamasa has changed his tune.

How different would the lives of Zimbabweans have been if Mugabe had been impeached then, as he should have been. Whatever the case I think Mugabe is going to be given short shrift in the new impeachment proceedings started in Parliament today.

Here is an excerpt from my book “The Struggle Continues: 50 years of tyranny in Zimbabwe” which describes what happened.

“The Clemency Order made by Mugabe was the final straw for the MDC. The violence meted out against our members was bad enough, but the realisation that Mugabe was determined to ensure that none of the perpetrators faced justice deeply angered us all. The MDC national executive met on 16 October and I was mandated, as legal secretary, to draft a parliamentary petition to impeach Mugabe. We always knew that it was purely symbolic: while the constitution only required one third of MPs to initiate impeachment proceedings, it required two thirds to complete the process, something we knew would never happen. However, we were desperate to make a point that Mugabe’s conduct the entire year had been unacceptable. The constitution allowed three grounds for impeachment: wilful violation of the constitution, physical or mental incapacity, or gross misconduct. Citing Mugabe’s brazen support of the military who ignored court rulings in the 1999 Choto/ Chavunduka journalist case, his failure to uphold judgments in land cases, and his inflammatory speeches inciting violence, we argued that he had wilfully violated the constitution. The petition recorded some of his statements and listed 35 MDC members or supporters who had been murdered in 2000. To show that he was guilty of gross misconduct we focused on his “systematic abuse of the prerogative of mercy”, his decision to deploy Zimbabwean troops in the DRC and his “failure to deal with corruption”.

All 58 MDC MPs then signed the petition, which was presented to the speaker and tabled in parliament on 25 October. ZANU PF leader of the house Chinamasa was apoplectic when Sibanda spoke, but Mnangagwa kept his cool, advising that he would set up a committee, in terms of the constitution, to investigate the matter and report back to parliament. Mnangagwa’s sting was in the tail – he directed that the “document not be published and any media which publish it will be in contempt of law”. Chinamasa latched onto that and in a menacing tone made “it very clear that if there is any publication of this document in the newspapers I will move to hold those newspapers in contempt of this Parliament”.

The petition was never published in Hansard and while a committee was set up (which included me), it never met. We had posted the document on the internet before Mnangagwa’s ruling and the Daily News bravely published large extracts from it the next day. Mnangagwa subsequently ruled that the Daily News was in contempt of parliament but, probably fearing that contempt proceedings would bring unwanted public attention to the contents of the petition, no further action was taken against the newspaper. They had other more effective ways of silencing the newspaper altogether.

Although both Chinamasa and Jonathan Moyo described the petition as “frivolous and vexatious”, ZANU PF was deeply embarrassed by it. Mnangagwa went to the extreme length of ejecting the British and South African ambassadors who had come to listen, Richard Longworth and Jeremiah Ndou, from the Speakers’ Gallery on the flimsy grounds that they were there without his knowledge. As Sibanda tabled the petition ZANU PF organised hundreds of its supporters to stage a demonstration outside parliament. Mugabe later addressed thousands of supporters outside ZANU PF headquarters, furiously advising that government was “considering revoking the policy of reconciliation so that those involved in war crimes during Zimbabwe’s war of liberation stand trial”. As he was wont to do, Mugabe reverted to race – “Ian Smith and his fellow whites committed genocide” and would “stand trial for their crimes”. He went on to observe that “in Europe they (were) still hunting for those behind Nazi war crimes and Zimbabwe (could not) be an exception”. Chillingly, he concluded by generically focusing again on Mike Auret and me, saying, “They (i.e. whites) must take note that the Coltarts and Aurets and the rest of them will not be free from arrest.” While inflamed by the impeachment petition Mugabe didn’t mention it once. It was clear, though, that he held me responsible for it; as author he was in one sense correct, but in every other sense he was wrong because it reflected a deep-rooted fury within the MDC.”

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe’s strange crisis is a very modern kind of coup

The Guardian

By Jason Burke

21st November 2017

Historically, African takeovers have been seismic and violent, but now participants are more wary of international opinion

It looked like a coup from a movie: a convoy of armoured vehicles, the president under house arrest, and the general on the nation’s screens talking of “restoring stability” in the small hours of the morning.

But since the military takeover in Zimbabwe a week ago events have departed from the script. President Robert Mugabe has not been harmed and remains in power, at least theoretically. When he refused to resign on live television on Sunday night, there were no repercussions. To oust him, parliament are using a cumbersome process of impeachment.

There is a stark contrast with many other coups d’état in Africa over the years, which have often seen heavy fighting as the military tried to seize power, and sometimes the death of the incumbent leader.

“I think it is partly a Zimbabwe thing and a lot to do with the personality of Robert Mugabe. He is known as a liberation hero and revered in most African states despite the huge damage he has done to his country, and the military here understood that to hurt him would incur the wrath of much of Africa,” said David Coltart, a senior opposition politician in Zimbabwe.

There have been more than 200 military coups since 1960 in Africa, many leading to seismic changes in the history of countries and regions as well as significant bloodshed. General Idi Amin seized power in Uganda from President Milton Obote in 1971, unleashing a reign of terror still remembered today. The coup d’état in 2012 by mutinying soldiers in Mali so destabilised the country that it allowed Islamic militants to seize much of its northern half, necessitating an intervention by French troops to restore order. Nigeria has seen eight military takeovers.

Leaders have also been assassinated while still in power. Laurent Kabila, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo was shot dead in 2001, for example.

The years of the cold war generated the highest frequency of coups, and much of the worst associated violence.

Yet this has moderated more recently and over the last 15 years there has been a “hardening anti-coup attitude”, according to Nic Cheeseman, professor of democracy at Birmingham University in the UK.

“Leaders don’t have much of an incentive to encourage free and fair elections but a coup threatens everybody, so it is much easier to get a consensus on anti-coup norms than democratic norms … People are getting smarter at avoiding criticism for coups,” Cheeseman said.

This has meant leaders of takeover are much more careful to manage domestic and international opinion than before. If a transfer of power is declared unconstitutional it can lead to a nation being suspended from the African Union (AU) and suffering significant consequences in terms of aid and investment.

Any new administration in Zimbabwe would have little chance of winning the massive funding required to restructure the collapsing economy if the international consensus was that it was illegal.

Both the AU and the regional South African Development Community (SADC) have been guarded in their statements about the situation in Zimbabwe, and have withheld any endorsement of the takeover.

On Tuesday the SADC meets in Angola to discuss the crisis there. The generals in Harare will be watching their conclusions carefully.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Has the military “comported to the dictates and mores of constitutionalism”? – statement by Senator David Coltart

Senator David Coltart

20th November 2017

Last night, amongst other things, Robert Mugabe said in his remarkable address, and I quote, “the Command element (the military) remained respectful, and comported to the dictates and mores of constitutionalism”. There is no doubt in my mind that Mugabe in that statement was trying to cleanse the military by stating that they had acted legally within the confines of the Constitution. Whether that was done under duress or as part of a deal in which they will protect Mugabe and his family in future I do not know. However it is of course patently false that the military has acted within the “dictates of constitutionalism”.

Firstly, section 213(2) of the Constitution states that Defence Forces may only be “deployed in Zimbabwe” with the authority of the President. That clearly has not happened and still is not happening. For all the ramblings in Mugabe’s speech not once did he state that the military have been deployed under his instructions and it is clear to everyone that they are not acting under his instructions. So the original deployment was illegal and their continued deployment is illegal.

Secondly, section 50(3) of the Constitution states that any person who has been detained “who is not brought to court within 48 hours (of such detention) must be released immediately unless their detention has earlier been extended by a competent court”. We know that at the very least Chombo, Kasukuwere and Jonathan Moyo were detained in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Aside from the fact that the military had no right to detain these civilians in the first place, they have still not been brought before a court or released over 5 days since they were first detained. One might ask Mugabe what aspect of this conduct comports “to the dictates and mores of constitutionalism”?
The only way the military can now respect constitutionalism is to return to their barracks, hand the criminal suspects they have in detention over to the police, and let Parliament do its job.

Now that Mugabe has refused to resign the impeachment process does not have to take a long time. Section 97 of the Constitution sets out a three stage process:

1. A simple majority of the total membership of Parliament must resolve that a question whether the President be removed from office be investigated;

2. On the passing of this resolution a joint committee of Parliament must be established comprising all parties represented in the House with the mandate of investigating the matter, which should allow Mugabe an opportunity to respond to the allegations;

3. If this committee recommends that the President be removed then a two thirds majority of the total membership of Parliament must vote to remove the President.

Section 97 does not state what time frame must be adopted. Indeed if Parliament chose to, it could move with the same unseemly haste as displayed at yesterday’s ZANU PF Central Committee meeting and go through these procedures within a few days. There is nothing in the Constitution which bars such speed, even though it may be argued that Parliamentarians have not adequately applied their minds to the matter. The point is that if we are concerned about constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law there is a quick way of securing the end of Mugabe’s rule, lawfully.

Once Mugabe has been impeached, then the provisions of section 14 of the 6th Schedule kick in to determine who becomes President. In terms of section 14(4) the moment Mugabe loses office, Vice President Mphoko becomes President until ZANU PF nominates a person in terms of section 14(5) to see out the remainder of Mugabe’s original term of office. Of course ZANU PF yesterday expelled Mphoko from the party but that has no bearing on his role as Vice President because in terms of the Constitution he can only be removed from office if he is either fired by Mugabe or he himself is impeached in terms of section 97.

But even that should not pose a problem for ZANU PF because section 14 says that ZANU PF can nominate someone else “within ninety days” of Mugabe’s impeachment – in other words whilst there is a maximum time limit, there is no minimum time frame. So ZANU PF could literally notify the Speaker of Parliament of their nominee within minutes of the final vote taken to remove Mugabe from office, leaving Vice President Mphoko with the dubious record of holding office as President for the shortest time in history.
Ironically if Mugabe had resigned last night in the presence of the Generals that would have smacked of duress and whoever took over would have been tainted with that illegality. In other words any new President emerging from that process would be hard pressed to appear legitimate in the eyes of the world, and such an ascendancy to power could in my view have been challenged in court. It is still a moot point whether even an impeachment process will be legal in the context of the military having effectively suspended the operation of the Constitution. But that is something that law professors will no doubt argue about for years to come.

So much for the law. The impeachment process I have outlined above will leave Mnangagwa as President of Zimbabwe, which he will then have to govern. As we all know the problems are immense. Aside from anything else the Constitution has been flagrantly disregarded in many respects since it became law in 2013. If he wants to secure broad support both domestically and internationally he will have to move rapidly to observe the existing Constitution fully in letter and spirit. But that is for another day.

Senator David Coltart
Bulawayo
20th November 2017

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe in confusion as Robert Mugabe ignores latest deadline to leave

The Guardian

By Jason Burke

20th November 2017

Draft impeachment motion published by Zanu-PF party but support of opposition parties may be necessary after arrest or flight of some MPs

Robert Mugabe faces being stripped of his office by parliament if he does not resign as president within days, as the political crisis triggered by a military takeover in Zimbabwe moves into a second week.

The 93-year-old had been given a deadline of noon local time on Monday to resign as head of state or face impeachment when parliament reconvenes on Tuesday.

Mugabe ignored the deadline and instead called a cabinet meeting for 9am on Tuesday. A notice from his chief secretary said all ministers should attend.

Adding to the confusion, Constantin Chiwenga, the army chief who took power last week, held a press conference at which he described further consultations with “his excellency President Robert Mugabe” held in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Chiwenga said Emmerson Mnangagwa, the former vice-president whose firing two weeks ago triggered the military takeover, would return to Zimbabwe shortly and was in touch with the president.

“The nation will be advised of the result of talks between the two,” he said.

The general made no mention of the potential impeachment of Mugabe, who was stripped of his party offices by Zanu-PF on Sunday.

A draft impeachment motion published by Zanu-PF said the ageing leader was a “source of instability” who had shown disrespect for the rule of law and was to blame for an unprecedented economic tailspin over the past 15 years.

Although Zanu-PF has the required two-thirds majority in parliament necessary to remove Mugabe, the arrest or flight of some MPs may mean the support of opposition parties is needed for the impeachment motion to pass.

Lawmakers from Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), will hold a meeting on Tuesday to decide whether to join Zanu-PF to impeach Mugabe, according to officials.

David Coltart, the MDC’s secretary for legal affairs, said he supported the move in principle. “I have long felt he should have been impeached for what he has done of the last decades and for how he has violated the constitution,” he said.

Mugabe stunned the southern African country by failing to resign as expected in a televised speech on Sunday night. Instead, his rambling address offered no substantial concessions to the tens of thousands of people who have marched calling for his resignation, though it did exonerate the army commanders who led the military takeover last week.

The autocrat called for compatriots to avoid “bitterness or revengefulness, which would not make us any better … Zimbabweans,” and said he would preside over a special congress of the ruling Zanu-PF party scheduled for next month.

An array of senior commanders sat beside Mugabe as he made his speech. Constantino Chiwenga, the general who led the takeover, turned the president’s pages as he spoke.

Zimbabwe’s powerful war veterans have claimed Mugabe swapped speeches to avoid resigning during the televised address, and they repeated their call for him to go.

“We were disappointed yesterday in the midst of all those generals he appeared to swap [speeches],” Chris Mutsvangwa, who leads the war veterans, told a press conference on Monday morning.

He said the veterans would call for further protests – including a sit-in outside Mugabe’s Harare residence, where he is being held under house arrest – if the president did not heed calls to quit.

Crowds gathered to pray at lunchtime on Sunday in Harare in one impromptu protest, while students called for Mugabe’s resignation at a mass meeting at the city’s University of Zimbabwe campus.

It is unclear how long the procedure to impeach the president might take but it is likely to last several days. Both houses of the Zimbabwean parliament will have to sit at least twice, with the impeachment motion also going to a committee of senators. If it is passed, Mugabe, who as president is also commander-in-chief of the armed forces, would then be reduced to the status of any other citizen.

Mnangagwa, 75, was appointed interim leader of Zanu-PF on Sunday and is widely expected to take over from Mugabe as president. Mnangagwa, who is known as “the Crocodile”, orchestrated repeated crackdowns on Zimbabwe’s opposition under Mugabe’s rule.

“There is a real danger that [Mnangagwa] can take over Zanu-PF lock, stock and barrel and enjoy the absolute loyalty of the military, too. He’s younger and more energetic than Mugabe,” said the MDC’s Coltart. “There is no doubt he will impose a Chinese style of government, which is more favourable towards business, but he will curtail democratic freedoms.”

The military has said it has no intention of taking permanent control of government but has indicated it does not want to leave Mugabe in office. The military commanders claim last week’s takeover was necessary to remove “criminals” close to the president, a reference to Grace Mugabe and her “G40” faction.

Grace Mugabe, 52, has not been seen since the takeover. Sources told the Guardian she was in her husband’s Harare residence when he was detained on Tuesday and had not moved since.

A spokesman for Theresa May urged a peaceful and swift resolution to the uncertain political situation. “We don’t yet know how developments in Zimbabwe are going to play out but what does appear clear is that Mugabe has lost the support of the people and of his party,” the UK prime minister’s spokesman said.

An analysis of social media by Brands Eye, a South Africa-based opinion analysis firm, shows that reactions online to the coup among Zimbabweans have been largely neutral, though the overall sentiment expressed towards the coup has been more positive than negative. The references to Mnangagwa and Chiwenga became more positive in the days after the coup, though there were more negative than positive references to both.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe’s parliament to vote on Mugabe impeachment

Gulf Times

20th November 2017

Members of Zimbabwe’s parliament will vote on whether to impeach President Robert Mugabe on Tuesday, the ruling Zanu-PF party said, after he failed to obey its ultimatum to step down.

“The party has instructed the chief whip to proceed with impeachment proceedings against [Robert Gabriel] Mugabe as it has not received the anticipated confirmation of his resignation from the speaker of parliament,” Zanu-PF said in a statement on Monday. “The motion of proceedings is expected to be tabled before parliament when it [sits] on Tuesday.”

The midday deadline set for President Robert Mugabe to resign passed on Monday with no word from the 93-year-old leader.

“We want all systems ready when we get into Parliament on Tuesday that is why we have asked all MPs to come and get familiar with the process,” Zanu-PF chief whip Lovemore Matuke told DPA.

Zanu PF central committee member Paul Mangwana said the process could take as little as 48 hours. However Lovemore Madhuku, a law professor at University of Zimbabwe, told DPA that the impeachment proceedings could last anywhere between 72 hours and several months. “There are three stages involved. The motion would be moved. Then a committee would be set to investigate the charges, and both the houses, the parliament and senate will vote,” Mangwana explained.

Earlier, Zanu-PF released details of its proposed motion against Mugabe.

“We are gravely concerned that the president has become the country’s source of instability by his indiscriminate and continuous dismissal of members of his cabinet – including two vice presidents in the past four years on allegations of plotting to assassinate him and forcibly
take over power,” the motion reads.

The expelled vice presidents referred to are Joice Mujuru and Emmerson Mnangagwa.

It also mentions Mugabe’s poor management of the economy and his abrogation of “his constitutional mandate to his wife” Grace.

David Coltart, a prominent opposition leader and former minister, said a two-thirds majority was needed to impeach the nonagenarian.

Douglas Mwonzora from Zimbabwe’s main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) also said the party would support Mugabe’s impeachment. “We have the numbers in parliament and will support any democratic process to have Mugabe impeached,” he said.

House arrest

Mugabe has been under house arrest since a military takeover last week. In a live televised address to the nation on Sunday night, the president of almost four decades had been expected to resign, but instead promised to lead a Zanu-PF party conference in December.

With the generals responsible seated next to him, Mugabe gave a lengthy speech acknowledging some problems with the economy and the Zanu-PF party – from which he was ousted earlier in the day – but made no mention of leaving office. Shocked Zimbabweans took to Twitter to express their outrage, and on Monday the powerful war veterans’ association held a press conference calling for mass protests on Wednesday.

“I hope that 37 years into [his] rule he doesn’t want another 37 seconds of rule,” said war veterans’ leader Chris Mutsvangwa.

On Sunday, Mugabe was sacked as Zanu-PF party leader and replaced by one-time comrade turned arch-rival Mnangagwa. “Arrogant Mugabe disregards Zanu-PF,” screamed Monday’s headline in local newspaper the Daily News.

In an unprecedented outpouring, tens of thousands of Zimbabweans had taken to the streets on Saturday to express support for the military and call on Mugabe to leave power immediately.

University students have joined calls for Mugabe to step down, with protests at the main university in Harare. The students are also demanding that a doctorate given to first lady Grace Mugabe be revoked.

“Mugabe should resign now because he has returned our education to Stone Age era. We also want our degree, which Grace stole,” said student leader Steven Tsikirai.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Much of our current euphoria in Zimbabwe is misplaced – statement by Senator David Coltart

Daily Maverick

19th November 2017

Opinion by David Coltart

The message to the Zimbabwe Defence Force must now be – thank you for cleaning up the mess you created but you must now return to your barracks as soon as possible and never again get involved in the electoral process.

As I have reflected about the amazing scenes across Zimbabwe on Saturday when people turned out in their hundreds of thousands I am left with much disquiet. I marched yesterday to celebrate the end of Robert Mugabe’s rule, not to thank the military for removing Mugabe. In all of our euphoria we must never become so intoxicated as to forget that it was the same Generals who allowed Mugabe to come to power in 2008 and 2013.

We must never forget how the military and war veterans spearheaded the violence which followed the March 2008 elections to ensure that Mugabe got back into power. They were behind the abduction and murder of hundreds of MDC activists that year. Without their intervention Mugabe would never have won the run off election.

We must never forget how the military engineered the election victory of Mugabe in 2013. Although they did not engage in violence that year, I remember the long lines of soldiers (dressed in civilian clothes) in my constituency who voted early and often. At the time I commented how Mugabe was elected through the military discipline of our armed forces who played an integral role. We must never forget how soldiers were seconded to the bodies involved in the election. Once again Mugabe would never have been elected without their involvement.

So all the military have done this week is clean up their own mess. That is the truth and whilst we celebrate that they have done to remove Mugabe, it is also important that we all, especially the church and civic groups, remind the military that their role should NEVER be either to secure the election OR removal of any President. That job belongs to the electorate and no one else.

So our message to the military must now be – thank you for cleaning up the mess you created but you must now return to your barracks as soon as possible and never again get involved in the electoral process. The real danger of the current situation is that having got their new preferred candidate into State House, the military will want to keep him or her there, no matter what the electorate wills. We have a general election coming which must be held before the 22 July 2018. We, and the international community, must make it loud and clear to the military that they have no role to play in that election, other than assisting the police to keep the peace.

There is one other disturbing aspect of Saturday’s euphoria and that relates to the silence around those people who have been detained by the military. Because people like Jonathan Moyo are so detested by so many we have chosen to remain silent about them. But the fact is that the military has no business in deciding who is a criminal, or who is corrupt. That is the role of the prosecutorial authorities and the police – and no-one else. And even here the military are cleaning up the mess they have turned a blind eye to for the last 37 years. Corruption and criminal activity in Zimbabwe has not suddenly begun this year. The ZANU-PF regime has been riddled with corruption and criminals for decades and the military have done nothing about it. Indeed if the truth be told there has been much corruption and criminal behaviour within the military itself.

So we must all now demand that those detained by the military be released immediately. If there is strong evidence that those detained have committed crimes then they can be handed over to the police for investigation and prosecution. But once again the military have no constitutional right to arrest and detain civilians in the manner they have and are still doing. If we as citizens remain silent about this we will be complicit in setting a dreadful precedent for the future.

I hope that all Zimbabwean patriots would think about these things soberly. We must unite in demanding that the military now step back. If Mugabe refuses to resign then Parliament must play its role in impeaching Mugabe. We don’t need the military to do that. Then whatever civilian government which emerges from that process must be allowed to govern and prepare for the next election without any interference from the military. Anything less than this will mean that the real power in Zimbabwe, to determine who governs us, remains with the military, not the electorate.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

“An opportunity for Zimbabwe to embrace democracy” – op ed by David Coltart

The Telegraph

17th November 2017

Op ed by David Coltart

For the last eighteen months I have been warning of a gathering perfect storm in Zimbabwe – the unique convergence of several factors including Robert Mugabe’s frailty, his inability to hold his own party together, disunity in the opposition, a collapsing economy, a region distracted by its own domestic problems and an international community focused on Isil terrorism and Brexit. The de facto take over by the Zimbabwean military is its inevitable result.

The military have been at pains to argue that this is not a coup d’etat and that they are acting within the constitution. Their announcements still recognise Mugabe as president. They have reassured all concerned that their focus is on ZANU-PF – which they feel has been hijacked by a cabal around Grace Mugabe. It is clear that their intention is to ensure that former Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa takes over, and in so doing prevent a Mugabe dynasty.

Yet this is clearly a coup. Mugabe has been effectively under house arrest since Tuesday. The constitution makes it clear that troops can only be deployed “with the authority of the President”. The military have arrested Cabinet Ministers, a power solely reserved for the Attorney General and police. By law, this is treason writ large. But the main reason the Generals are so anxious that this not be described as a coup is because they know that both the African Union and Southern African Development Community will not recognise any government which emerges from a coup. Given the calamitous plunge of the Zimbabwean economy the Generals understand that they cannot keep a restive population at bay if they don’t stabilise the economy quickly; and to do that they need international support.

Undoubtedly they have calculated that there is such distaste for a Mugabe dynasty that the world will look the other way. There are indeed many who are quietly celebrating the Mugabes’ political demise. In my view that is foolhardy. Aside from the obvious illegality, which no democrat can rejoice in, there is a more fundamental concern. Some of the coup’s Generals participated in the genocide which occurred in the 1980s in Matabeleland, in the gross violence perpetrated against the opposition MDC in the last 17 years and the subversion of the 2013 general election. Accordingly there is a danger that the intention of the Generals is not to move Zimbabwe towards democracy, but to ensure that one of their own remains in control of ZANU PF and the country.

So while the end of Mugabe’s ruinous tenure is welcome, that must not blind Zimbabweans and the international community to the need to respect the constitution. Although the military action is a fait accompli, it must be made clear that their actions will not be ignored unless there is a rapid return to civilian rule and strict compliance with the constitution in the lead up to the elections scheduled for next year. If Mugabe is forced to resign from office, that should not automatically result in any successor being recognised as legitimate. A resignation induced by coercion is as illegal as a president being deposed.

However we cannot avoid the need for a practical solution to the legal and political quandary Zimbabwe is now placed in. That solution will be found in the formation of a transitional civilian government and the holding of elections next year which fully comply with the letter and spirit of the constitution. This includes the state controlled media being opened up to all parties, all Zimbabwean citizens being enabled to register and vote (including citizens in the diaspora) and the Electoral Commission being run by non-partisan technocrats.

Anything less than this will simply perpetuate Zimbabwe’s problems. The current situation provides an opportunity for our country to embrace democracy, which in turn is the key prerequisite for long term stability and economic development. Britain has an important role to play in this regard. It has the economic strength and historical interest to rally financial support to stabilise the Zimbabwean economy and assist in attracting desperately needed investment. But it needs to exercise this leverage judiciously. It must act in concert with regional powers, particularly South Africa, to insist on an irreversible process towards free and fair elections.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe faces a grave constitutional crisis – op ed by David Coltart

Daily Maverick

16th November 2017

By David Coltart

Zimbabwe faces a grave constitutional crisis. For all the ambiguity in General Constantine Chiwenga’s statement this week it challenges President Robert Mugabe either to turn his back on his wife and other members of the G40 faction or to face the wrath of the military. In reality however it provides Mugabe with little choice – because the thought of Mugabe turning his back on his wife at his age, and in his state of dependence, is unthinkable.

It would also be a grave mistake to think that this comes from a small or weak faction of the military. It is a significant fact that the Commander of the Army, General Philip Sibanda sat next to Chiwenga and reporters at the press conference have said that there were about 90 senior officers present. It appears that the only significant officers not present were Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri and Airforce Commander Perence Shiri (who I am told is ill). The presence of General Sibanda in particular demonstrates that at the very least a significant portion of the military oppose what is going on within ZANU-PF, and consequently the decisions taken recently by President Mugabe.

So although General Chiwenga did not overtly threaten a coup, and although he swore allegiance to President Mugabe, in reality the military have demanded that Mugabe reverse his various decisions or else there will be consequences. It is hard to see Mugabe backing down on the decisions he has taken, and therein lies the growing crisis – or the vortex of the perfect storm I have been speaking and writing about for 18 months.

A critical question to be asked is what stance democratic forces and leaders of the opposition in Zimbabwe should adopt? There is a grave danger that some may delight in the crisis and rub their hands in glee at the dilemma President Mugabe has been placed in. That would be wrong in my view. Zimbabwe simply cannot afford to have a de jure or de facto coup; once any change of power in any nation comes through a means other than the strict fulfilment of the constitution, in letter and spirit, a dangerous precedent is set which is hard to reverse. It is important therefore that the opposition speaks with one unequivocal voice that the military needs to stay out of politics and be confined to barracks.

However that will not deal with the crisis our nation faces, made worse now by this statement of discontent by the military. What then is the constitutional way out of this mess?

I believe it is found in Sections 96 and 97 of the constitution. If President Mugabe finds that his position has become untenable then he can resign in terms of section 96. Of course that is highly unlikely, and in that case the only remaining lawful and constitutional method is for President Mugabe to be removed from office in terms of section 97 of the constitution.

Section 97 states that where a simple majority of the Senate and National Assembly believe that the president should be removed from office because of serious misconduct, his failure to uphold the constitution or his inability to perform the functions of office they are entitled to set up a committee representing all the parties in parliament to investigate the president’s removal. If that committee recommends that the president be removed from office, then a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Assembly may vote to remove the president from office. If two-thirds vote in favour then the president ceases to hold office.

If that were to happen in this instance then section 14(4) and (5) of the Sixth Schedule will apply in selecting the president’s replacement. These sections mandate that the person who was last acting president shall take office for a period of 90 days while, in this case, ZANU-PF selects a replacement from its own ranks to see out the term of office. That person would then be president until the next election scheduled to be held next year.

In my view if President Mugabe refuses to accede to the military’s demands this is the only lawful means for those within ZANU-PF, who are annoyed by President Mugabe’s recent decisions, to address the situation.

The opposition of course will play a vital role in this if it indicates that it will support any resolution brought by ZANU-PF members to remove President Mugabe from office. It seems to me that it will be relatively easy to get the initial simple majority in parliament to start the impeachment process. Furthermore I suspect that if all MDC T, MDC and independent MPs and senators joined forces with disaffected ZANU PF MPs and senators (who quietly support both Mnangagwa or even Joice Mujuru) it may be possible for them to achieve the required two-thirds majority to remove President Mugabe from office.

Beyond this it would be unwise for the opposition to support any threat, veiled or otherwise, to violate the constitution. That is a perilous path which our beloved Zimbabwe cannot afford to follow. DM

David Coltart, MDC Senator, has been a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe since his return to the country in 1983. He was first elected to represent the Bulawayo South House of Assembly constituency in June 2000, and was re-elected in March 2005. In March 2008 he was elected as a senator to represent the Khumalo Senatorial constituency in Bulawayo. Senator Coltart was sworn in as Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture in February 2009

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment