Constitutional experts yesterday said the threats by fired Zanu-PF secretary for administration Didymus Mutasa to seek the nullification of the party’s congress resolutions were quite sound at law, but expressed fear that the court’s decision over the matter would be made on political grounds.
Mutasa on Monday issued an implicit statement indicating that disgruntled Zanu-PF members were preparing to mount a court challenge on the legality of the holding of the party’s congress and endorsement of constitutional amendments that scrapped the election of national office bearers.
United Kingdom-based law lecturer Alex Magaisa said the challenge being touted by aggrieved Zanu-PF members are sound at law.
It is plain that the procedure was not followed and that this is a contravention of Zanu-PF’s own constitution.
If they mount a legal challenge, I think they would have strong grounds, Magaisa said. There is a procedure to be followed when amending the constitution.
That procedure exists for a good reason. It is so that the constitution is not amended at the mere whim of individuals or a faction.
Mutasa alleges that Zanu-PF did not follow article 30 of the party’s constitution as read with section 253 which stipulate the process and procedures of making amendments to the charter.