MY concerns are that Zimbabwe’s problems are largely the work of the judiciary.
After the US presidential election the dispute over who had won had to be settled
first and the Democrats agreed to the verdict after the Supreme Court was called to adjudicate over the issue. I therefore do not see how President Mugabe could equate his case to President Bush’s.
In Zimbabwe we had a case of Mugabe being installed as president and the opposition immediately challenging his legitimacy. But the judiciary has taken a long vacation over this crucial issue of presidential legitimacy. I therefore blame this judicial arm for all the economic mess the country is facing. They could have hastened the court issue and made a ruling.
Today the MDC’s Morgan Tsva-ngirai would be the winning candidate, or Mugabe would have been the legitimate president under Zimbabwean law.
The judiciary was quick to bring the treason trial for hearing. It is quick to bring Tsvangirai to court for any charges levelled against him. But it was not as quick to demand a timeframe for the nullified victories in the parliamentary election. It will take a long time before anything that challenges this present regime can be heard before the courts.
The court challenge against Mugabe’s reelection is a national issue which should be resolved urgently. The evidence does not involve use of foreign currency, nor does it need gallons of petrol nor the use of Ari Ben Menashe.
How many people in Zanu PF have called for Tsvangirai’s head and not been charged with treason? How many wrong-doers in Zanu PF are serving as office bearers?
Today the civilised world is questioning Mugabe’s legitimacy because the judiciary is still compiling papers after more than a year of misrule. Mugabe can go on until 2008 but he will be recorded in the history of Zimbabwe as the person who stole power and ruled for six years.
Until the judiciary hears this case, no-one will honour this man as a true and legitimate president of the country. The rule of law is largely lacking in our system.
The public needs to know the criteria used by our judiciary in deciding which case comes first.
Evidence of a rigged presidential election is so overwhelming that even if Patrick Chinamasa or Jonathan Moyo were to preside over the case, they would delay the verdict until 2008.