Mangoma was not assaulted by MDC youths: Mwonzora Mar 15, 2014 Opinion 0 Comments By Douglas Mwonzora Over the past few weeks, acres of space in the press and social media have been dedicated to trying to show that the MDC is an undemocratic and violent party that does not respect constitutionalism. Empirical evidence however shows that the contrary is in fact true about the MDC. On the 15th of February, 2014, Hon. Elton Mangoma was assaulted outside Harvest House. Strangely this was in spite of the passionate plea that had been made by MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai and the National Chairman, Lovemore Moyo, to all the people gathered outside Harvest House not to engage in acts of violence. The President had said that the issues relating to Hon. Mangoma would be dealt with through the relevant party organs. The security at Harvest House was specifically mobilised to ensure that no leader was harmed. After the incident at Harvest House, the MDC carried its investigations into the disturbances that had happened contrary to the President’s instruction. Fortunately there was video evidence that showed clearly how Hon. Mangoma was assaulted. The video footage shows an individual fighting with President Tsvangirai’s security aides in an attempt to access Hon. Mangoma. After being successfully repelled by the President’s aides the individual retreats only to go behind the security and managing to land about three punches on Hon. Mangoma’s face. Nobody in the MDC has managed to identify this individual. He does not belong to any of the MDC structures nor is he a member of the MDC. In a bid to get this individual arrested the MDC supplied the video clip to the Police Law and Order Section. To the MDC’s surprise, the Police do not appear to be interested in tracking this individual at all. This is despite the fact that this person’s face is clear from the video footage. No wonder some people have suggested that this individual may be a person who enjoys the protection of some state agents. The police however insisted on arresting MDC activists who are well known for their support for President Tsvangirai. Fortunately the courts of law have found that the evidence against these activists is extremely weak and proceeded to grant them bail. It is therefore shocking that the Police would label the MDC as violent yet they are in possession of a video which shows that someone else other that the MDC activists assaulted Hon. Mangoma. It is equally unfair for some people to use Hon. Mangoma’s assault to try to justify that the MDC is not tolerant. The next accusation is that the MDC lacks constitutionalism. However, it is clear from the various writings that the understanding of constitutionalism is varied. Constitutionalism means that a country has a written constitution which it follows to the latter. In the context of a political party it means that a party has a written constitution that it follows religiously. Needless to say the MDC has a written constitution. As a party, the MDC has always followed its constitution. In terms of the constitution, all senior leaders of the party including the President are democratically elected by congress. In this regard constitutionalism entails an insistence that a President shall only be elected or removed at congress and not through some boardroom arrangement. Insistence that a President must be removed outside congress at the same time professing to be a follower of constitutionalism is, with respect to speak with a double tongue. The National Council of the Party, which is the highest decision making body outside Congress ruled in September 2013 that any leadership changes will only be done at the Congress which is going to be held in 2016 unless the National Council or the President call for an earlier Congress in terms of the constitution of the Party. One individual or a group of individuals cannot vary that decision under the guise of constitutionalism! What is constitutional is for that individual to seek to convince the National Council or the President to convene an early Congress. One can never validly accuse the MDC as lacking constitutionalism on the basis of its insistence that it will hold its Congress when it is legally due in 2016. Another area of great conceptual difficulty for some of the critics is how a member of the National Standing Committee can be dealt with once there are allegations of indiscipline against him. In this regard one accusation against Hon. Mangoma is that after he wrote his paper and same was leaked to the press, the National Executive Committee of the party placed a ban on every official against discussing this issue with the press. It is alleged that despite that order, the Deputy Treasurer General acted in defiance of that order and granted interviews to radios and newspapers. In terms of Article 12 of the MDC constitution, disciplinary proceedings can only be commenced against a member of the National Standing Committee only where at least two thirds of the National Council has approved of that the charged. As soon as the National Council rules in favour of charging a member, that member is automatically suspended pending his appearance before a three member Independent Disciplinary Committee. This Committee is made up of senior lawyers outside the Party. In voting for or against charging a member, Article 12 does not say that the voting shall be by secret ballot. A valid vote took place in the National Council and there was no single dissention on whether or not the charges should be preferred. The official to bring the preliminary charges for purpose of the National Council decision is the National Chairperson who is clothed with disciplinary powers in terms of Article 9.3 of the MDC Constitution. It is not correct that the preliminary charges can be brought by the Secretary General as suggested by some. This is because the Secretary General’s powers are provided in Article 9.5 of the constitution. It is clear from the reading of Article 9.5 that the Secretary General does not have disciplinary powers. Another source of conceptual difficulty for the critics is their belief that before a person is suspended by the National Council he or she must argue his or her case before the National Council. This can’t be correct for a number of reasons. First, Article 12 does not provide for such a procedure. Second, the National Council is composed of more than 100 individuals and that group cannot sit to hear a case. Third, hearing the accused person before the National Council is to pre-empt the proceedings before the Independent Disciplinary Tribunal and actually renders the Tribunal irrelevant. Due process starts once the charges have been preferred. It does not start before. In this regard the accused person must be served with written charges. He or she will be given an opportunity to answer to these charges before the Independent Disciplinary Tribunal. He is entitled to legal representation by a lawyer of his choice. Through his lawyer he can mount any defence including attacking the manner in which his case was dealt with at any stage. He could also answer to the substance of the charges themselves. It is thus too early for anybody to criticise the MDC before the process starts before the Independent Disciplinary Tribunal. This can also be undemocratic as it may actually be seen as an attempt to force the Tribunal to a particular outcome. It is also unfair to the accused person as it may give an impression that the accused person wants to avoid court. The MDC is a tolerant and democratic party that has always adhered to its constitution. It has a right to reign in on any of its members. Democracy and justice can however be inconvenient to certain persons at times. Douglas Mwonzora is the spokesman for the MDC led by Morgan Tsvangirai
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 06:21:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015