SOUTH African President Jacob Zuma is to marry for a fifth time, it has been claimed.
The Sowetan newspaper reports that polygamous Zuma will marry Thobeka Mabhija at a private ceremony on January 4.
Zuma divorced his first wife Nkosazana-Dlamini in 1998 and his second wife Kate Mantsho died in 2000.
The 67-year-old Zulu traditionalist has gone on to marry two other women -- Sizakele Khumalo and Nompumelelo Ntuli who have attended official events together or individually since Zuma became President earlier this year.
A source told the Sowetan: “The wedding is on January 4. Only close family friends, relatives and locals are expected to attend.”
But a spokesman for Zuma would neither confirm nor deny the report.
Zizi Kodwa told reporters: “I don't know anything about the wedding. I am in Cape Town and Zuma is in Nkandla (Zuma’s rural home in kwaZulu Natal). I don't know what is happening in Nkandla.”
When Zuma was sworn in in May, all three wives were said to be present, but only his first wife Sizakele Khumalo accompanied him on stage.
He introduced her to the crowd but then added: "You will see other wives some other time."
Polygamy is still common in rural KwaZulu Natal, where Zuma comes from.
Many Zulus who are Christian have turned away from the practice, says political analyst Protas Madlala, but it persists in rural areas because of the low standard of education and enduring poverty there.
Traditionally, the whole family would live in the same compound, with each wife maintaining her own round house, or rondavel.
The first wife is usually expected to have some say in choosing the subsequent wives, to make sure the husband does not choose someone she will quarrel with.
"The man is expected to rotate his nightly visits," says Madlala. "Rural poverty definitely plays a part in keeping the tradition alive. Parents may depend on the bride prices that are paid, and may ask their children to go into it."
University graduate Mabhija was born in Durban in 1973.
She holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree and has worked for the Standard Bank and mobile phone company, Cell C.
Zuma has paid lobola for two other women -- Swazi Princess Sebentile Dlamini and Bongi Ngema, with whom he has a 3-year-old son.
He reportedly has 18 children.
NewZimbabwe.com
29 December 2009
23 December 2009
Zimbabwean Commissions
Harare, Zimbabwe, 22 October 2009
On October 5 this year (2009), I published here the list of Zimbabwe Media Commission appointees as agreed that day between Mugabe and Tsvangirai during their Monday meeting of that week in an article entitled: Scoop! - Zimbabwe Media Commission Names Released - Massive Victory For Tsvangirai.
The list that I published on October 5 2009 was:
Godfrey Majonga (former ZBC newsreader)
Matthew Takaona, former President of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and an ardent supporter of Morgan Tsvangirai
Henry Muradzikwa, who is also in the Tsvangirai camp
Chris Mutsvangwa of ZANU PF, a former ambassador to China
Chris Mhike
Hussain Sibanda
A Mrs Nyati, whose first name I could not immediately establish and
Millicent Mombeshora, a senior official at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.
Today, our scoop was confirmed when Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara announced, through the Secretary to The President and Cabinet, Misheck Sibanda, the new Commissioners to sit on the ZMC. They are:
Godfrey Majonga (former ZBC Newsreader, as Chairman of the Commission)
Matthew Takaona (former Zimbabwe Union of Journalists President)
Henry Muradzikwa
Ambassador Chris Mutsvangwa
Chris Mhike
Ms Nqobile Nyathi (Deputy Chair)
Millicent Mombeshora (Deputy to Gideon Gono at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe)
Lawton Hikwa
Ms Miriam Madziwa
The Commissioners were agreed to by the so-called Principals at the beginning of October, as I told you here on October 5.
The announcement today was an effort to give the impression that something has come out of the talks precipitated by Tsvangirai's partial "disengagement" at the end of October. In actual fact, the only issue was that Mugabe was taking his time to announce the names (Tsvangiai is not allowed to announce them because he is not "Head of State and Government, Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces and......")
As you can see from a comparison of my October 5 list and the list released today, this blog was right on the money. The only name to be dropped in the final list is that of Hussain Sibanda. Lawton Hikwa and Miriam Madziwa are the two new names introduced here.
So, we are proved right yet again!!
Apart from the Zimbabwe Media Commission, there was an announcement today on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC).
The Electoral Commission that will run Zimbabwe's elections in future is fairly important and Mugabe and Tsvangirai could not agree on a Chairman, with Mugabe rejecting all recommendations as not having enough experience and "character".
For the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Mugabe returned two Commissioners who were with the old ZEC that sat on election results for two months in 2008 as Mugabe cooked the books and stole votes from Simba Makoni in order to force a run-off. The two to be returned from that old Commission are Mrs Joyce Kazembe, who was Deputy Chair of that old Commission and Theophileus Gambe.
The rest of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission comprises:
Dr Petty Makoni
Sibongile Ndlovu
Bessie F. Nhandara
Daniel Chigaru
Geoff Feltoe
Mukhuli Nyathi
The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission:
Dr Ellen Sithole
Dr Kwanele Jirira
Mrs Neseni Nomathemba
Mr Elasto Mugwadi
Dr Joseph Kurebwa
Mr Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube
Mr Jacob Mudenda
Professor Carol Khombe
It is my fear that, especially for the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, the current environment may not allow them to be as thorough and relentless as they should be in terms of enforcing respect for human rights. They need to be able to prosecute all offenders on the basis of complaints from those who feel aggrieved.
But do they have the teeth? And will they be allowed to use them.
If not, then a very bad precedent would have been set and it would take another struggle to put together a Commission at the very least as effective and powerful as the South African and European Union ones.
Anyway, there you have confirmation of the reliability of our sources. You can expect this to continue and we will always be the first to bring you the news that politicians and our so-called leaders wish to put under a bushel.
From Denford Magora Blogspot
http://denfordmagora.blogspot.com/2009/12/right-again-our-media-commission-scoop.html
On October 5 this year (2009), I published here the list of Zimbabwe Media Commission appointees as agreed that day between Mugabe and Tsvangirai during their Monday meeting of that week in an article entitled: Scoop! - Zimbabwe Media Commission Names Released - Massive Victory For Tsvangirai.
The list that I published on October 5 2009 was:
Godfrey Majonga (former ZBC newsreader)
Matthew Takaona, former President of the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists and an ardent supporter of Morgan Tsvangirai
Henry Muradzikwa, who is also in the Tsvangirai camp
Chris Mutsvangwa of ZANU PF, a former ambassador to China
Chris Mhike
Hussain Sibanda
A Mrs Nyati, whose first name I could not immediately establish and
Millicent Mombeshora, a senior official at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.
Today, our scoop was confirmed when Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara announced, through the Secretary to The President and Cabinet, Misheck Sibanda, the new Commissioners to sit on the ZMC. They are:
Godfrey Majonga (former ZBC Newsreader, as Chairman of the Commission)
Matthew Takaona (former Zimbabwe Union of Journalists President)
Henry Muradzikwa
Ambassador Chris Mutsvangwa
Chris Mhike
Ms Nqobile Nyathi (Deputy Chair)
Millicent Mombeshora (Deputy to Gideon Gono at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe)
Lawton Hikwa
Ms Miriam Madziwa
The Commissioners were agreed to by the so-called Principals at the beginning of October, as I told you here on October 5.
The announcement today was an effort to give the impression that something has come out of the talks precipitated by Tsvangirai's partial "disengagement" at the end of October. In actual fact, the only issue was that Mugabe was taking his time to announce the names (Tsvangiai is not allowed to announce them because he is not "Head of State and Government, Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces and......")
As you can see from a comparison of my October 5 list and the list released today, this blog was right on the money. The only name to be dropped in the final list is that of Hussain Sibanda. Lawton Hikwa and Miriam Madziwa are the two new names introduced here.
So, we are proved right yet again!!
Apart from the Zimbabwe Media Commission, there was an announcement today on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC).
The Electoral Commission that will run Zimbabwe's elections in future is fairly important and Mugabe and Tsvangirai could not agree on a Chairman, with Mugabe rejecting all recommendations as not having enough experience and "character".
For the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Mugabe returned two Commissioners who were with the old ZEC that sat on election results for two months in 2008 as Mugabe cooked the books and stole votes from Simba Makoni in order to force a run-off. The two to be returned from that old Commission are Mrs Joyce Kazembe, who was Deputy Chair of that old Commission and Theophileus Gambe.
The rest of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission comprises:
Dr Petty Makoni
Sibongile Ndlovu
Bessie F. Nhandara
Daniel Chigaru
Geoff Feltoe
Mukhuli Nyathi
The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission:
Dr Ellen Sithole
Dr Kwanele Jirira
Mrs Neseni Nomathemba
Mr Elasto Mugwadi
Dr Joseph Kurebwa
Mr Japhet Ndabeni-Ncube
Mr Jacob Mudenda
Professor Carol Khombe
It is my fear that, especially for the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, the current environment may not allow them to be as thorough and relentless as they should be in terms of enforcing respect for human rights. They need to be able to prosecute all offenders on the basis of complaints from those who feel aggrieved.
But do they have the teeth? And will they be allowed to use them.
If not, then a very bad precedent would have been set and it would take another struggle to put together a Commission at the very least as effective and powerful as the South African and European Union ones.
Anyway, there you have confirmation of the reliability of our sources. You can expect this to continue and we will always be the first to bring you the news that politicians and our so-called leaders wish to put under a bushel.
From Denford Magora Blogspot
http://denfordmagora.blogspot.com/2009/12/right-again-our-media-commission-scoop.html
01 December 2009
Pro Welshman Ncube Interview
Interview: Welshman Ncube on GNU talks
30/11/2009 00:00:00
by Violet Gonda
The secretary general of the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC WELSHMAN NCUBE was a guest on SW Radio Africa’s Hot Seat programme. A key negotiator in the talks that gave birth to Zimbabwe’s power sharing government, Ncube tells VIOLET GONDA of the difficulties in finding consensus on issues threatening the pact:
Broadcast: November 27, 2009
GONDA: My guest on the Hot Seat programme today is Professor Welshman Ncube, the Minister of Industry and Commerce and one of the negotiators from the MDC-M. Welcome on the programme Professor Ncube.
NCUBE: Thank you.
GONDA: Now let me start with the latest developments. You are back discussing issues that you had negotiated on before, why is this happening again?
NCUBE: Well it’s self-evident, we’re back to negotiations because there is a fair amount of unhappiness about either the implementation of the original Agreement itself or the implementation of the decision of the SADC Summit of 26th to 27th January this year which directly gave birth to the inclusive government or because certain maybe unforeseen circumstances have arisen which have affected the capacity of the parties to continue to work together and lastly maybe, just because political parties and their nature - they never stop grandstanding and trying to make political capital out of every situation.
GONDA: So can you tell us what has been agreed on so far?
NCUBE: Well regrettably I can’t tell you that because there is agreement that we should not begin to negotiate through the media and one of the resolutions that have been taken by the negotiators is to simply indicate that we are talking, the talks are continuing, we have an agreed agenda which we need to go through without talking to each other or doing reinterpretations which might lead to further complications through the media.
GONDA: But can you tell us which issues the parties are still divided on?
NCUBE: Well, I wouldn’t say the issues where parties are still divided on because we are going through the agenda. What I can tell you is that the same issues that everyone knows have been raised by the parties. Those are the issues which remain on the agenda, issues as I have said, which arise from the SADC Communiqué of 26th to 27th of January this year.
And those issues, you’ll recall that communiqué asked the parties, or directed the parties to go and agree on a formula for the appointment of provincial governors. Those governors remain unappointed and therefore they’re self-evidently an issue.
Then again that communiqué requested or directed the inclusive government to deal with the dispute around the appointment of the Reserve Bank governor and the Attorney General. That issue regrettably over the last nine months has either not been dealt with or no agreement on how to deal with it has been arrived at.
The communiqué also directed that the inclusive government must be constituted by the swearing in of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and the swearing in of all the Ministers and Deputy Ministers by the 13th of February.
We all know that one of the Deputy Ministers nominated by MDC-T has not been sworn in and therefore, even though that SADC Summit resolution has been substantially complied with, it has not been completely and fully complied with because one Deputy Minister remains un-sworn in, clearly therefore that is an issue arising out of that communiqué.
And since the formation of the inclusive government, different parties are unhappy about different aspects of implementation of the GPA. There’s unhappiness about implementation around the provisions that we agreed on sanctions, there’s unhappiness about the agreement relating to the media in what you might call a two-fold manner – there is the question of the external radio stations such as yours where the provisions relating to encouraging and ensuring that these radio stations should be encouraged to come and broadcast from home rather than externally where it is believed they are influenced by, funded by and also pursuing the agenda of foreign interests.
Then there is the issue of the continued polarisation in the media, in particular that whereas the parties and Zimbabweans have tried to move out of their pre-inclusive government trenches, the media has remained firmly, firmly entrenched in those trenches and sniping away at the political party or parties that are perceived to be the enemies of that section of the media.
So all round there’s unhappiness about the media, some are unhappy about the public media, the way it has continued to report, some are unhappy about the private media which equally has taken sides and promote as much hate speech regrettably as is promoted by the public media, so that issue has also to be dealt with.
Then there are issues relating to alleged operations of parallel government, indeed by both sides, there are accusations and counter accusations, as you know that this side or that side operate a parallel government not accountable to and not controlled by the inclusive government.
Then you have the issues about continued failure to adhere to the rule of law, selective prosecutions of people on the basis of their political opinions or their belonging to particular political parties. So these are some of the issues which we all know have been in the public arena or public domain for quite some time and in respect of which this or that party is unhappy about and we have therefore to review these issues and find a formula to solve them.
GONDA: I would want to talk a bit more about the external radio stations but just to go back to some of these outstanding issues you mentioned, we know where the MDC-T stands on the outstanding issues, for example they want a review of the appointments of the Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, the Attorney General Johannes Tomana and governors among other issues and we know that Zanu PF is saying it wants the sanctions removed and external radio stations shut down but what about the MDC-M, your party, can you spell out your own view about what you believe are the outstanding issues?
NCUBE: Well certainly there’s no entity called MDC-M, but having said that…
GONDA: What do you mean, there’s no entity called the MDC-M? MDC-Mutambara, is that not your party?
NCUBE: Never! There is no party registered by that name. There might be persistence in the media and elsewhere in calling us by that name, but we are not MDC-M.
GONDA: So what is your name?
NCUBE: We are the MDC full stop. We have never, we contested the elections by that name, we have always used that name but that’s not the core issue. I say it because if I don’t then I will be conceding to being called by a name which we have never fielded.
As I say, that’s not a core issue. Your question is about what are our issues – first we have always said the issues which SADC require to be resolved must be resolved and consequently therefore all the issues which arise out of the communiqué as I have indicated them to you, are issues which we say must be resolved and have always said must be resolved because we are parties to the discussions of that communiqué.
We are directly affected by those issues, the appointment of provincial governors is a matter of concern to us which is our issue too because if you are to have an inclusive government each of the parties must be represented at all the levels of government and provincial governance is one of those levels. So that is our issue and we have repeatedly said so.
We have equally, equally insisted that the issue of the media as I have summarised to you is an issue which requires to be addressed. In fact on that issue we have been most adversely affected. One of the other parties, two parties, complains about the public media, the other about the private media, we complain about both and we are the only party which do not control, which do not have any media under our captivity, the others have this or that media under their captivity and we clearly therefore do not accept that Zimbabwe deserves a media that is under captivity in one form or the other.
Clearly therefore too, we have an interest in the observance of the rule of law, we have an interest in ensuring that the GPA is implemented as we agreed, that no one party, no one section of society is subjected to the law and others are not. So those are issues which are of interest to us. What you might perceive as a difference is that we have not yet mastered the art of grandstanding and we don’t always stand at the roof tops and shout about these issues.
GONDA: You know in terms of the media coverage you complain that your party has been adversely affected and that there’s this unfair media coverage but isn’t this to some extent because your party is viewed with suspicion and also because you lost dismally in the last elections and that out of the four ministers in government, only one was elected?
NCUBE: Well Violet, that’s illogical. The question of who this party deploys to government is an exclusive prerogative of this party. It cannot be said because this one was elected, this was unelected - we have an obligation to deploy this or that person. On the contrary we have deployed Moses Mzila Ndlovu, David Coltart, Tapela - all of whom were elected.
We have deployed only so-called unelected people who are the senior leaders of the party and even that for good cause. You are not going to go around buying our members of parliament who work with you and expect us to then deploy them into government. And we did that quite deliberately, as we were being asked to deploy people who were already working for another political party.
We are not imbeciles, we will not do that and we’ll never do that. We will deploy people who will stand by, defend the party, die for the party and will not deploy turncoats who can be bought overnight.
So it’s quite simple as far as we are concerned, and the principal issue is you cannot disagree with Tsvangirai and his party. All of us exist to serve them, if you don’t serve them you will be perceived in a negative way, if you jump at the top of the highest mountain and say Tsvangirai is God, you will be worshipped by the media and civil society – that is the bottom line and indeed you should be worried if you are a true democrat.
You should be worried and indeed not just be worried, you should be truly afraid because you have a culture, you have a party, you have a civil society which is a mirror image of Zanu PF in its behaviour, in its treatment of dissenting voices - because you believe that the positions you have taken are an eternal truth. Who dares challenge an eternal truth?
And did Zanu PF not believe that its socialist thing, its nationalist thing, its land thing are eternal truths? And therefore who dared challenge them? And its exactly the same thing and this is what is actually frustrating, kuti a people who are supposed to be champions of democracy because they think they’re on the right side of history and right side of justice and therefore there can no longer be any right to contest their position … you are constructing Zanu PF.
GONDA: What about the issue of Gono and Tomana? Where does your party stand on that?
NCUBE: Look, those are communiqué issues. The communiqué of SADC said the inclusive government must resolve them and therefore as I have said all communiqué issues are our issues too. We don’t stand with MDC-T, we don’t stand with Zanu PF.
Our position is clear, we have nothing personally against Gono, we have nothing personally against Tomana and we are not obsessed about the matter but we believe in principle that once you had a GPA signed on September 15, any senior appointments that had to be made should have been made consistently with the provisions of the GPA, which required the parties to agree and clearly therefore those appointments were made after agreement.
We believe that they should be made within the letter of the GPA and should be made within the spirit of the GPA but we have nothing personal against any of those individuals. Ours is a matter of principle, a matter of procedure -- that an appointment that is required to be made in a particular way was not made in a particular way.
GONDA: So obviously this is a point of departure between you and the other MDC?
NCUBE: I’ve no idea; I don’t speak for them so I don’t know what their position is.
GONDA: Let me go back to the issue of the media. What really is the issue at hand here when it comes to the radio stations, is it because we are broadcasting externally into Zimbabwe or that we do not come under the influence of the state machinery?
NCUBE: My understanding is that in the GPA there is an agreement that those who broadcast into Zimbabwe and are supposedly Zimbabwean media should therefore broadcast from Zimbabwe as a matter of principle. That’s what was agreed so that the primary radio stations in Zimbabwe are not an extension of foreign governments or foreign interests, which appears to be the case in the state of some of the external radio stations.
GONDA: Appears in whose eyes? Appears in whose eyes that they are an extension of foreign interests?
NCUBE: Well if you have a radio station which is an arm of a particular foreign government as is the case of at least one of the foreign radio stations which is in fact funded by a foreign government as part of its own national radio station but dedicated to broadcasting into Zimbabwe. Surely you would agree, surely you must agree that everything else being equal, that is undesirable?
That is not to suggest that there were no justifications or circumstances which justified getting to the position where you had foreign governments providing a framework or a support to the establishment of radio stations to broadcast into Zimbabwe because you had a closed media environment but ...
GONDA: But surely …
NCUBE: … if I may finish … you would agree that if you were to correct the internal problems in Zimbabwe, just like any other country it will be desirable to have what is called Zimbabwe media to have stations dedicated to broadcasting about Zimbabwe, broadcasting from Zimbabwe. There’s a difference between a station in any other part of the world reporting on Zimbabwe from time to time but where you have a radio station dedicated into broadcasting about and exclusively, almost exclusively on Zimbabwe, everybody’s agreed, indeed in the GPA this is not a matter for debate, the parties agreed that this is undesirable and that as a general principle we ought to have Zimbabwean media broadcast from Zimbabwe and we acknowledge in the GPA that there are circumstances which gave rise to this.
GONDA: Can you be more specific about this? SW Radio Africa is not pursuing the agenda of any foreign government and is not an extension of foreign interests. And also how can you make the shutting down of external radio stations a priority when you are failing to open up the media environment in Zimbabwe?
NCUBE: Firstly, I have not alleged that your radio station is an arm of any foreign government. At the worst it is a radio station which operates externally to Zimbabwe or from Zimbabwe. It is a radio station which will be funded by, I believe, the money which is external to Zimbabwe and I have not suggested and I would think that everyone would acknowledge that your radio station is not a radio station which is an arm of a foreign government.
Then secondly, I have not insisted, as far as I understand myself that anyone should be shut down. I have said in the Global Political Agreement there is an agreement that we will liberalise the media so that those who are operating from outside Zimbabwe will be free to come into Zimbabwe and broadcast without let or hindrance from Zimbabwe.
Indeed, the relevant clause says – in anticipation of a free media environment the parties thereby agree that the external radio stations should be encouraged to return to Zimbabwe and to broadcast from Zimbabwe.
GONDA: So why are the ...
NCUBE: So clearly, therefore, we have not yet got to a state where you can say the legislative framework has allowed that to happen and clearly, therefore, it is a matter which needs to be addressed.
GONDA: So you see, this is perhaps where the confusion is, why are you then as the negotiators and even as the political parties even talking about the external radio stations right now when there is no free media environment, when the airwaves have not been opened up? Surely, shouldn’t that come first? Opening up the airwaves, setting up the media commission and then the journalists or the radio stations that are operating from abroad can then decide whether they want to go back into the country?
NCUBE: SADC resolved in Maputo, that the grievances of each and of all the parties must be addressed and resolved concurrently and not sequentially and hence if a party has said we are unhappy with the continued operations of the external radio stations, well none of the parties have the power to veto it because SADC said if you do not put on the table the grievances of all the parties, then you would not make progress.
Clearly, therefore, we have to put that issue of external radio stations on the agenda because one of the parties flagged it at SADC as an issue over which it is unhappy. And so consequently it is an issue, which we have to address and find a formula in respect of which everyone will be happy about it.
It is not for us to prejudge the issue by saying your issue is invalid and we should not put it on the table because the other party will also say ‘fine, we will say your issues are equally invalid and we’ll veto their putting them on the table’ and we will not get anywhere if that is the attitude.
If you ask me personally and you ask me as the representative of the MDC, I will tell you that there are certain things which would make it easier for us to deal with this issue if they were to happen internally to Zimbabwe, but I will not go so far as to say these must therefore be pre-conditions. If you do, then you will have in fact validated Zanu PF’s contention that the issues which were put by them on the agenda originally are all often being said; ‘ah they are issues for implementation last, you must implement all the other issues that we, as the MDC collectively this time, were concerned about: Have a full restoration of the rule of law, have full media freedom, have full this or that.’
All those were issues which were placed by us on the agenda and Zanu PF complains that ‘you want a full realisation and full benefit of your issues while you are saying; ‘oh our issues depend on the implementation of your issues’, so therefore we will get a situation where all your issues are implemented and ours remain unimplemented and there is this or that excuse for their lack of implementation.’
That is the challenge and that is what they have flagged over the last couple of months and it behoves us to find a formula to ensure that they are satisfied that if the other issues are implemented, we will not simply walk away and say – we have got what we want in respect of issues, it’s your problem that you haven’t got what you wanted.
GONDA: But don’t you realise that you can or you may discuss the issue of the external radio stations until you are blue in the face but nothing is going to happen because the creation of some of these radio stations such as ours had nothing to do with politicians and you have no authority to ask for the radio stations to close down?
And secondly, we all know that this is a Zanu PF pre-condition – the closing down of these external radio stations. You can’t close down things you don’t like, isn’t that what it all means, isn’t this what democracy is about?
NCUBE: We all recognise that we have no power to legislate for something which is happening from London or from America and we all realise that we cannot, therefore, compel anybody to shut down a radio station one way or the other which is why in the GPA we talk of encouraging. We could not and we did not say they must shut down or must be shut down by anyone because we clearly have no such physical or legal power to do it, it’s self-evident and in this interview I have repeatedly used the word encourage.
GONDA: Yes but Zanu PF doesn’t use that word. Robert Mugabe has on many times been on record as saying that the radio stations should be shut down, he does not say encourage.
NCUBE: Violet, I don’t care what people in their parties say, I care about what we agreed and what we agreed is in the GPA and I’m just giving it to you. I’m no spokesperson for Zanu PF or any other party for that matter, therefore, I have no mandate nor the will nor the desire to explain what they say.
GONDA: You know it’s been suggested that your team from the MDC is sympathetic towards Zanu PF and is doing the bidding for Zanu PF and that you are viewed as a spoiler. How do you react to that?
NCUBE: I’m tempted not to dignify that rubbish with an answer. You have just been saying right now - passionately defending your right of your freedom of expression, freedom of the media to exist and to hold views and to allow people to propagate their views through their media as freely as they want to, and you were very passionate just a few minutes ago. Surely you must be equally passionate about our right as a party to hold views which are different from MDC-T and which are different from yours, and which are different from civil society, and which are different from those of Zanu PF.
We don’t exist for the purpose of agreeing with this or that particular party. And therefore when we disagree with the favourite party of some interest, you can label us whatever you wish and we wouldn’t care a hoot. We take our position on the basis of our party policies and on the basis of our principles and we hold no brief for Zanu PF.
We disagree in a lot of ways, too many ways with Zanu PF to be even considered as a party, which bids for Zanu PF. Just as much as we disagree with the practices of the MDC-T, and we fundamentally disagree with them in many ways, it’s our right to do so. The fact that we do disagree with them does not make us Zanu PF.
GONDA: Did you deliberately leave the country to avoid the talks?
NCUBE: First again that is a nonsensical, idiotic allegation. What the heck do I have an interest in avoiding the talks? What is it that I have to gain by avoiding the talks when in fact, when in fact we were the party which was saying before these talks were started and were called that the parties need to sit down and talk?
You look at each and every comment, every statement that we made prior to the SADC Ministerial visit, prior to the SADC Troika Summit in Maputo, president Mutambara consistently, consistently called upon MDC-T, called upon Zanu PF to sit down and talk. We are the ones who called upon Morgan Tsvangirai to come back to the country so that this matter can be resolved by Zimbabweans across the table and if you look at our oral and written submissions to the SADC Ministerial Troika, we recommended this dialogue and these talks, it is emphatically calling for the talks.
Indeed, more than any of the other parties, we did that. You will recall the MDC-T were saying there is no reason for any talks, all you need is to implement the GPA without any discussion. So even on the basis of the fact, it is nonsensical to say that the party which called for, which campaigned for, and which argued for the dialogue suddenly wants to avoid the dialogue.
Secondly, the meetings which we travelled to attend were meetings which were predetermined long before, long before the talks were agreed and before the timeframe was set by SADC. I went to the ATC Council of Ministers in Brussels which was agreed upon six months ago that it will take place on those dates which we committed ourselves that we will attend to ensure that we have appointments of the new Secretary General, we have the budget for next year, we have programmes for next year and that we as a country have an interest in ensuring that all those things take place and that is the meeting I went to attend.
Mrs [Priscilla Misihairabwi] Mushonga went to attend the meeting of the ADB Bank, which we were requested as Chair of COMESA to go and attend that meeting, and to make a presentation on behalf of COMESA as the current chairs of COMESA. So if some imbecile somewhere thinks that attending those meetings is avoiding the talks, it is not my problem.
Thirdly, and finally, the 15 days we are talking about, we as a party were available for the talks. When we returned from Maputo we said we were available for the talks and others were not available. I then travelled to Egypt with President Mugabe to the Africa/China Summit on that weekend immediately, or rather on the Sunday immediately after the Maputo Summit, and we came back on the Monday and we offered ourselves for the talks, we said we can talk on Tuesday, we can talk on Wednesday, we can talk on Thursday, we can talk on Friday, we can talk on the Saturday and the Sunday and there were no takers for our offer, others were busy.
On the Monday, that’s when we were then away, and the Tuesday and the Wednesday – three days. We returned on Thursday and offered to be at the negotiating table on the Friday, on the Saturday, on the Sunday, on the Monday and we even offered to say let’s get out of Harare and have a retreat so that we will have uninterrupted negotiations with a view to concluding the talks as expeditiously as possible. Again there were no takers.
For instance, the Minister of Finance [Tendai Biti] said he was working on his budget, he could not be out of Harare although he was available during those days for talks in Harare. The Zanu PF team said they were not available during that period and, therefore, only an idiot can suggest that representatives of a party who were available out of the 15 days that we are talking about, were available except in respect of four of those days, you can then say they avoided the talks.
GONDA: So what is going to happen if you don’t meet the SADC mandated deadline? I understand it’s the 6th of [December] … (interrupted)
NCUBE: There is no such thing. That is a creation of those who grandstand and who are masters of deception. There never was a SADC deadline. Those that want to believe there was, it is their problem, not mine. SADC provided a framework and said, and this is a decision of SADC and it has no deadline and I’ll summarise it to you …
GONDA: Before you summarise it to us, Morgan Tsvangirai, after the SADC Summit in Mozambique, he came out and told journalists that Robert Mugabe had been given a 30 day deadline, so are you saying he lied?
NCUBE: I’m not the spokesperson for MDC-T or for Morgan Tsvangirai, you are free to go and ask him …
GONDA: But you are saying there was no deadline.
NCUBE: There was no deadline and I don’t know whether he said that or he didn’t say that, I’m hearing it from you and as far as I’m concerned there wasn’t. My understanding and my party’s understanding of the SADC resolutions was that the parties must meet immediately and after 15 days, the facilitator will review the progress they have made and render such assistance as might be necessary to render.
And after a further 15 days, the facilitator shall report to the SADC chair on progress or lack of it and then the SADC might then consider what further assistance or what further action, if any, is required and in my vocabulary, those are not deadlines, that is a framework.
GONDA: The MDC-T has issued several statements and in most of the statements they’ve talked about a SADC deadline and I was actually going to ask you who pushed for the 15 to 30 day timeline?
NCUBE: First, as I say I’m not a spokesperson of anybody except the party that I represent. As I understand it, there was no deadline pushed for or the timeframe, which was pushed for by anyone. The Ministerial Report, the Foreign Ministerial Troika Report contained the provision relating to the 30 day period or 30 day framework, that was already in the Report to say that the parties must talk and SADC must then review within 30 days the progress thereof.
What was then added on the floor of the Summit was the 15 day period, and that 15 day period was proposed by President Zuma and accepted by everybody else who was present at the meeting.
GONDA: Right, and so President Zuma has actually appointed a new team tasked with evaluating the negotiation process, so in your view how significant is the shift in persons?
NCUBE: Previously the dialogue was facilitated by the South African President who was at that time President [Thabo] Mbeki and there’s a new President in South Africa and he’s facilitating the dialogue. In fact if there’s a team to evaluate, there never was a team before to evaluate. That’s a new development.
Previously, there was a facilitation team and this was not an evaluation team. This was a team, which basically chaired the dialogue among and between the parties. You had Reverend Chikane, you had then Minister Mufamadi you had Advocate Mojangu – these were the facilitation team, they sat with the negotiators, chaired the meeting when they were required to be chaired and then when we requested that we wanted to talk on our own without them being present, we will tell them so.
That is what used to happen and they were not an evaluation team. I have no idea what the terms of reference of the new team is.
GONDA: Finally, Professor Ncube, why are the talks being held in total secrecy because many people are saying obviously you cannot give all details but surely there has to be some kind of a brief, or the occasional press conference so that at least Zimbabweans know what is being discussed about their future?
NCUBE: Well, I think Zimbabweans know what is being discussed. The contentious issues, the unresolved issues and the outstanding issues are known. What we have said we will not do is give a briefing of ‘we have an agreement on this, we are still negotiating on this’ because first there can be no agreement on one issue without an agreement on the others because all the parties have said while they may make a concession on item ”A”, that concession is valid only on the assumption that they will be able to get concessions on items “C” or “D”.
Therefore, without going through the entire agenda there is in fact no agreement on anything. So it is pointless to say you are announcing that we have an agreement on how to take the issue of sanctions when you have no agreement on how to take the issue of the rule of law because whatever concessions people are making on one issue might be conditional on the other issues being resolved, so it is pointless.
Secondly, by its very nature, if you start to brief the media and to issue statements on the substance there will always be different points of emphasis which will only create contradictions and we might then end up negotiating what we have said in the media … is this correct, is this the best way of saying it? It doesn’t help in our respectful view.
GONDA: I’m afraid we’ve run out of time and we have to end here but thank you very much for talking on the programme Hot Seat. That was Professor Welshman Ncube one of the negotiators from the MDC and the Minister of Industry and Commerce, thank you very much.
NCUBE: Thank you.
NewZimbabwe.com
30/11/2009 00:00:00
by Violet Gonda
The secretary general of the Arthur Mutambara-led MDC WELSHMAN NCUBE was a guest on SW Radio Africa’s Hot Seat programme. A key negotiator in the talks that gave birth to Zimbabwe’s power sharing government, Ncube tells VIOLET GONDA of the difficulties in finding consensus on issues threatening the pact:
Broadcast: November 27, 2009
GONDA: My guest on the Hot Seat programme today is Professor Welshman Ncube, the Minister of Industry and Commerce and one of the negotiators from the MDC-M. Welcome on the programme Professor Ncube.
NCUBE: Thank you.
GONDA: Now let me start with the latest developments. You are back discussing issues that you had negotiated on before, why is this happening again?
NCUBE: Well it’s self-evident, we’re back to negotiations because there is a fair amount of unhappiness about either the implementation of the original Agreement itself or the implementation of the decision of the SADC Summit of 26th to 27th January this year which directly gave birth to the inclusive government or because certain maybe unforeseen circumstances have arisen which have affected the capacity of the parties to continue to work together and lastly maybe, just because political parties and their nature - they never stop grandstanding and trying to make political capital out of every situation.
GONDA: So can you tell us what has been agreed on so far?
NCUBE: Well regrettably I can’t tell you that because there is agreement that we should not begin to negotiate through the media and one of the resolutions that have been taken by the negotiators is to simply indicate that we are talking, the talks are continuing, we have an agreed agenda which we need to go through without talking to each other or doing reinterpretations which might lead to further complications through the media.
GONDA: But can you tell us which issues the parties are still divided on?
NCUBE: Well, I wouldn’t say the issues where parties are still divided on because we are going through the agenda. What I can tell you is that the same issues that everyone knows have been raised by the parties. Those are the issues which remain on the agenda, issues as I have said, which arise from the SADC Communiqué of 26th to 27th of January this year.
And those issues, you’ll recall that communiqué asked the parties, or directed the parties to go and agree on a formula for the appointment of provincial governors. Those governors remain unappointed and therefore they’re self-evidently an issue.
Then again that communiqué requested or directed the inclusive government to deal with the dispute around the appointment of the Reserve Bank governor and the Attorney General. That issue regrettably over the last nine months has either not been dealt with or no agreement on how to deal with it has been arrived at.
The communiqué also directed that the inclusive government must be constituted by the swearing in of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and the swearing in of all the Ministers and Deputy Ministers by the 13th of February.
We all know that one of the Deputy Ministers nominated by MDC-T has not been sworn in and therefore, even though that SADC Summit resolution has been substantially complied with, it has not been completely and fully complied with because one Deputy Minister remains un-sworn in, clearly therefore that is an issue arising out of that communiqué.
And since the formation of the inclusive government, different parties are unhappy about different aspects of implementation of the GPA. There’s unhappiness about implementation around the provisions that we agreed on sanctions, there’s unhappiness about the agreement relating to the media in what you might call a two-fold manner – there is the question of the external radio stations such as yours where the provisions relating to encouraging and ensuring that these radio stations should be encouraged to come and broadcast from home rather than externally where it is believed they are influenced by, funded by and also pursuing the agenda of foreign interests.
Then there is the issue of the continued polarisation in the media, in particular that whereas the parties and Zimbabweans have tried to move out of their pre-inclusive government trenches, the media has remained firmly, firmly entrenched in those trenches and sniping away at the political party or parties that are perceived to be the enemies of that section of the media.
So all round there’s unhappiness about the media, some are unhappy about the public media, the way it has continued to report, some are unhappy about the private media which equally has taken sides and promote as much hate speech regrettably as is promoted by the public media, so that issue has also to be dealt with.
Then there are issues relating to alleged operations of parallel government, indeed by both sides, there are accusations and counter accusations, as you know that this side or that side operate a parallel government not accountable to and not controlled by the inclusive government.
Then you have the issues about continued failure to adhere to the rule of law, selective prosecutions of people on the basis of their political opinions or their belonging to particular political parties. So these are some of the issues which we all know have been in the public arena or public domain for quite some time and in respect of which this or that party is unhappy about and we have therefore to review these issues and find a formula to solve them.
GONDA: I would want to talk a bit more about the external radio stations but just to go back to some of these outstanding issues you mentioned, we know where the MDC-T stands on the outstanding issues, for example they want a review of the appointments of the Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, the Attorney General Johannes Tomana and governors among other issues and we know that Zanu PF is saying it wants the sanctions removed and external radio stations shut down but what about the MDC-M, your party, can you spell out your own view about what you believe are the outstanding issues?
NCUBE: Well certainly there’s no entity called MDC-M, but having said that…
GONDA: What do you mean, there’s no entity called the MDC-M? MDC-Mutambara, is that not your party?
NCUBE: Never! There is no party registered by that name. There might be persistence in the media and elsewhere in calling us by that name, but we are not MDC-M.
GONDA: So what is your name?
NCUBE: We are the MDC full stop. We have never, we contested the elections by that name, we have always used that name but that’s not the core issue. I say it because if I don’t then I will be conceding to being called by a name which we have never fielded.
As I say, that’s not a core issue. Your question is about what are our issues – first we have always said the issues which SADC require to be resolved must be resolved and consequently therefore all the issues which arise out of the communiqué as I have indicated them to you, are issues which we say must be resolved and have always said must be resolved because we are parties to the discussions of that communiqué.
We are directly affected by those issues, the appointment of provincial governors is a matter of concern to us which is our issue too because if you are to have an inclusive government each of the parties must be represented at all the levels of government and provincial governance is one of those levels. So that is our issue and we have repeatedly said so.
We have equally, equally insisted that the issue of the media as I have summarised to you is an issue which requires to be addressed. In fact on that issue we have been most adversely affected. One of the other parties, two parties, complains about the public media, the other about the private media, we complain about both and we are the only party which do not control, which do not have any media under our captivity, the others have this or that media under their captivity and we clearly therefore do not accept that Zimbabwe deserves a media that is under captivity in one form or the other.
Clearly therefore too, we have an interest in the observance of the rule of law, we have an interest in ensuring that the GPA is implemented as we agreed, that no one party, no one section of society is subjected to the law and others are not. So those are issues which are of interest to us. What you might perceive as a difference is that we have not yet mastered the art of grandstanding and we don’t always stand at the roof tops and shout about these issues.
GONDA: You know in terms of the media coverage you complain that your party has been adversely affected and that there’s this unfair media coverage but isn’t this to some extent because your party is viewed with suspicion and also because you lost dismally in the last elections and that out of the four ministers in government, only one was elected?
NCUBE: Well Violet, that’s illogical. The question of who this party deploys to government is an exclusive prerogative of this party. It cannot be said because this one was elected, this was unelected - we have an obligation to deploy this or that person. On the contrary we have deployed Moses Mzila Ndlovu, David Coltart, Tapela - all of whom were elected.
We have deployed only so-called unelected people who are the senior leaders of the party and even that for good cause. You are not going to go around buying our members of parliament who work with you and expect us to then deploy them into government. And we did that quite deliberately, as we were being asked to deploy people who were already working for another political party.
We are not imbeciles, we will not do that and we’ll never do that. We will deploy people who will stand by, defend the party, die for the party and will not deploy turncoats who can be bought overnight.
So it’s quite simple as far as we are concerned, and the principal issue is you cannot disagree with Tsvangirai and his party. All of us exist to serve them, if you don’t serve them you will be perceived in a negative way, if you jump at the top of the highest mountain and say Tsvangirai is God, you will be worshipped by the media and civil society – that is the bottom line and indeed you should be worried if you are a true democrat.
You should be worried and indeed not just be worried, you should be truly afraid because you have a culture, you have a party, you have a civil society which is a mirror image of Zanu PF in its behaviour, in its treatment of dissenting voices - because you believe that the positions you have taken are an eternal truth. Who dares challenge an eternal truth?
And did Zanu PF not believe that its socialist thing, its nationalist thing, its land thing are eternal truths? And therefore who dared challenge them? And its exactly the same thing and this is what is actually frustrating, kuti a people who are supposed to be champions of democracy because they think they’re on the right side of history and right side of justice and therefore there can no longer be any right to contest their position … you are constructing Zanu PF.
GONDA: What about the issue of Gono and Tomana? Where does your party stand on that?
NCUBE: Look, those are communiqué issues. The communiqué of SADC said the inclusive government must resolve them and therefore as I have said all communiqué issues are our issues too. We don’t stand with MDC-T, we don’t stand with Zanu PF.
Our position is clear, we have nothing personally against Gono, we have nothing personally against Tomana and we are not obsessed about the matter but we believe in principle that once you had a GPA signed on September 15, any senior appointments that had to be made should have been made consistently with the provisions of the GPA, which required the parties to agree and clearly therefore those appointments were made after agreement.
We believe that they should be made within the letter of the GPA and should be made within the spirit of the GPA but we have nothing personal against any of those individuals. Ours is a matter of principle, a matter of procedure -- that an appointment that is required to be made in a particular way was not made in a particular way.
GONDA: So obviously this is a point of departure between you and the other MDC?
NCUBE: I’ve no idea; I don’t speak for them so I don’t know what their position is.
GONDA: Let me go back to the issue of the media. What really is the issue at hand here when it comes to the radio stations, is it because we are broadcasting externally into Zimbabwe or that we do not come under the influence of the state machinery?
NCUBE: My understanding is that in the GPA there is an agreement that those who broadcast into Zimbabwe and are supposedly Zimbabwean media should therefore broadcast from Zimbabwe as a matter of principle. That’s what was agreed so that the primary radio stations in Zimbabwe are not an extension of foreign governments or foreign interests, which appears to be the case in the state of some of the external radio stations.
GONDA: Appears in whose eyes? Appears in whose eyes that they are an extension of foreign interests?
NCUBE: Well if you have a radio station which is an arm of a particular foreign government as is the case of at least one of the foreign radio stations which is in fact funded by a foreign government as part of its own national radio station but dedicated to broadcasting into Zimbabwe. Surely you would agree, surely you must agree that everything else being equal, that is undesirable?
That is not to suggest that there were no justifications or circumstances which justified getting to the position where you had foreign governments providing a framework or a support to the establishment of radio stations to broadcast into Zimbabwe because you had a closed media environment but ...
GONDA: But surely …
NCUBE: … if I may finish … you would agree that if you were to correct the internal problems in Zimbabwe, just like any other country it will be desirable to have what is called Zimbabwe media to have stations dedicated to broadcasting about Zimbabwe, broadcasting from Zimbabwe. There’s a difference between a station in any other part of the world reporting on Zimbabwe from time to time but where you have a radio station dedicated into broadcasting about and exclusively, almost exclusively on Zimbabwe, everybody’s agreed, indeed in the GPA this is not a matter for debate, the parties agreed that this is undesirable and that as a general principle we ought to have Zimbabwean media broadcast from Zimbabwe and we acknowledge in the GPA that there are circumstances which gave rise to this.
GONDA: Can you be more specific about this? SW Radio Africa is not pursuing the agenda of any foreign government and is not an extension of foreign interests. And also how can you make the shutting down of external radio stations a priority when you are failing to open up the media environment in Zimbabwe?
NCUBE: Firstly, I have not alleged that your radio station is an arm of any foreign government. At the worst it is a radio station which operates externally to Zimbabwe or from Zimbabwe. It is a radio station which will be funded by, I believe, the money which is external to Zimbabwe and I have not suggested and I would think that everyone would acknowledge that your radio station is not a radio station which is an arm of a foreign government.
Then secondly, I have not insisted, as far as I understand myself that anyone should be shut down. I have said in the Global Political Agreement there is an agreement that we will liberalise the media so that those who are operating from outside Zimbabwe will be free to come into Zimbabwe and broadcast without let or hindrance from Zimbabwe.
Indeed, the relevant clause says – in anticipation of a free media environment the parties thereby agree that the external radio stations should be encouraged to return to Zimbabwe and to broadcast from Zimbabwe.
GONDA: So why are the ...
NCUBE: So clearly, therefore, we have not yet got to a state where you can say the legislative framework has allowed that to happen and clearly, therefore, it is a matter which needs to be addressed.
GONDA: So you see, this is perhaps where the confusion is, why are you then as the negotiators and even as the political parties even talking about the external radio stations right now when there is no free media environment, when the airwaves have not been opened up? Surely, shouldn’t that come first? Opening up the airwaves, setting up the media commission and then the journalists or the radio stations that are operating from abroad can then decide whether they want to go back into the country?
NCUBE: SADC resolved in Maputo, that the grievances of each and of all the parties must be addressed and resolved concurrently and not sequentially and hence if a party has said we are unhappy with the continued operations of the external radio stations, well none of the parties have the power to veto it because SADC said if you do not put on the table the grievances of all the parties, then you would not make progress.
Clearly, therefore, we have to put that issue of external radio stations on the agenda because one of the parties flagged it at SADC as an issue over which it is unhappy. And so consequently it is an issue, which we have to address and find a formula in respect of which everyone will be happy about it.
It is not for us to prejudge the issue by saying your issue is invalid and we should not put it on the table because the other party will also say ‘fine, we will say your issues are equally invalid and we’ll veto their putting them on the table’ and we will not get anywhere if that is the attitude.
If you ask me personally and you ask me as the representative of the MDC, I will tell you that there are certain things which would make it easier for us to deal with this issue if they were to happen internally to Zimbabwe, but I will not go so far as to say these must therefore be pre-conditions. If you do, then you will have in fact validated Zanu PF’s contention that the issues which were put by them on the agenda originally are all often being said; ‘ah they are issues for implementation last, you must implement all the other issues that we, as the MDC collectively this time, were concerned about: Have a full restoration of the rule of law, have full media freedom, have full this or that.’
All those were issues which were placed by us on the agenda and Zanu PF complains that ‘you want a full realisation and full benefit of your issues while you are saying; ‘oh our issues depend on the implementation of your issues’, so therefore we will get a situation where all your issues are implemented and ours remain unimplemented and there is this or that excuse for their lack of implementation.’
That is the challenge and that is what they have flagged over the last couple of months and it behoves us to find a formula to ensure that they are satisfied that if the other issues are implemented, we will not simply walk away and say – we have got what we want in respect of issues, it’s your problem that you haven’t got what you wanted.
GONDA: But don’t you realise that you can or you may discuss the issue of the external radio stations until you are blue in the face but nothing is going to happen because the creation of some of these radio stations such as ours had nothing to do with politicians and you have no authority to ask for the radio stations to close down?
And secondly, we all know that this is a Zanu PF pre-condition – the closing down of these external radio stations. You can’t close down things you don’t like, isn’t that what it all means, isn’t this what democracy is about?
NCUBE: We all recognise that we have no power to legislate for something which is happening from London or from America and we all realise that we cannot, therefore, compel anybody to shut down a radio station one way or the other which is why in the GPA we talk of encouraging. We could not and we did not say they must shut down or must be shut down by anyone because we clearly have no such physical or legal power to do it, it’s self-evident and in this interview I have repeatedly used the word encourage.
GONDA: Yes but Zanu PF doesn’t use that word. Robert Mugabe has on many times been on record as saying that the radio stations should be shut down, he does not say encourage.
NCUBE: Violet, I don’t care what people in their parties say, I care about what we agreed and what we agreed is in the GPA and I’m just giving it to you. I’m no spokesperson for Zanu PF or any other party for that matter, therefore, I have no mandate nor the will nor the desire to explain what they say.
GONDA: You know it’s been suggested that your team from the MDC is sympathetic towards Zanu PF and is doing the bidding for Zanu PF and that you are viewed as a spoiler. How do you react to that?
NCUBE: I’m tempted not to dignify that rubbish with an answer. You have just been saying right now - passionately defending your right of your freedom of expression, freedom of the media to exist and to hold views and to allow people to propagate their views through their media as freely as they want to, and you were very passionate just a few minutes ago. Surely you must be equally passionate about our right as a party to hold views which are different from MDC-T and which are different from yours, and which are different from civil society, and which are different from those of Zanu PF.
We don’t exist for the purpose of agreeing with this or that particular party. And therefore when we disagree with the favourite party of some interest, you can label us whatever you wish and we wouldn’t care a hoot. We take our position on the basis of our party policies and on the basis of our principles and we hold no brief for Zanu PF.
We disagree in a lot of ways, too many ways with Zanu PF to be even considered as a party, which bids for Zanu PF. Just as much as we disagree with the practices of the MDC-T, and we fundamentally disagree with them in many ways, it’s our right to do so. The fact that we do disagree with them does not make us Zanu PF.
GONDA: Did you deliberately leave the country to avoid the talks?
NCUBE: First again that is a nonsensical, idiotic allegation. What the heck do I have an interest in avoiding the talks? What is it that I have to gain by avoiding the talks when in fact, when in fact we were the party which was saying before these talks were started and were called that the parties need to sit down and talk?
You look at each and every comment, every statement that we made prior to the SADC Ministerial visit, prior to the SADC Troika Summit in Maputo, president Mutambara consistently, consistently called upon MDC-T, called upon Zanu PF to sit down and talk. We are the ones who called upon Morgan Tsvangirai to come back to the country so that this matter can be resolved by Zimbabweans across the table and if you look at our oral and written submissions to the SADC Ministerial Troika, we recommended this dialogue and these talks, it is emphatically calling for the talks.
Indeed, more than any of the other parties, we did that. You will recall the MDC-T were saying there is no reason for any talks, all you need is to implement the GPA without any discussion. So even on the basis of the fact, it is nonsensical to say that the party which called for, which campaigned for, and which argued for the dialogue suddenly wants to avoid the dialogue.
Secondly, the meetings which we travelled to attend were meetings which were predetermined long before, long before the talks were agreed and before the timeframe was set by SADC. I went to the ATC Council of Ministers in Brussels which was agreed upon six months ago that it will take place on those dates which we committed ourselves that we will attend to ensure that we have appointments of the new Secretary General, we have the budget for next year, we have programmes for next year and that we as a country have an interest in ensuring that all those things take place and that is the meeting I went to attend.
Mrs [Priscilla Misihairabwi] Mushonga went to attend the meeting of the ADB Bank, which we were requested as Chair of COMESA to go and attend that meeting, and to make a presentation on behalf of COMESA as the current chairs of COMESA. So if some imbecile somewhere thinks that attending those meetings is avoiding the talks, it is not my problem.
Thirdly, and finally, the 15 days we are talking about, we as a party were available for the talks. When we returned from Maputo we said we were available for the talks and others were not available. I then travelled to Egypt with President Mugabe to the Africa/China Summit on that weekend immediately, or rather on the Sunday immediately after the Maputo Summit, and we came back on the Monday and we offered ourselves for the talks, we said we can talk on Tuesday, we can talk on Wednesday, we can talk on Thursday, we can talk on Friday, we can talk on the Saturday and the Sunday and there were no takers for our offer, others were busy.
On the Monday, that’s when we were then away, and the Tuesday and the Wednesday – three days. We returned on Thursday and offered to be at the negotiating table on the Friday, on the Saturday, on the Sunday, on the Monday and we even offered to say let’s get out of Harare and have a retreat so that we will have uninterrupted negotiations with a view to concluding the talks as expeditiously as possible. Again there were no takers.
For instance, the Minister of Finance [Tendai Biti] said he was working on his budget, he could not be out of Harare although he was available during those days for talks in Harare. The Zanu PF team said they were not available during that period and, therefore, only an idiot can suggest that representatives of a party who were available out of the 15 days that we are talking about, were available except in respect of four of those days, you can then say they avoided the talks.
GONDA: So what is going to happen if you don’t meet the SADC mandated deadline? I understand it’s the 6th of [December] … (interrupted)
NCUBE: There is no such thing. That is a creation of those who grandstand and who are masters of deception. There never was a SADC deadline. Those that want to believe there was, it is their problem, not mine. SADC provided a framework and said, and this is a decision of SADC and it has no deadline and I’ll summarise it to you …
GONDA: Before you summarise it to us, Morgan Tsvangirai, after the SADC Summit in Mozambique, he came out and told journalists that Robert Mugabe had been given a 30 day deadline, so are you saying he lied?
NCUBE: I’m not the spokesperson for MDC-T or for Morgan Tsvangirai, you are free to go and ask him …
GONDA: But you are saying there was no deadline.
NCUBE: There was no deadline and I don’t know whether he said that or he didn’t say that, I’m hearing it from you and as far as I’m concerned there wasn’t. My understanding and my party’s understanding of the SADC resolutions was that the parties must meet immediately and after 15 days, the facilitator will review the progress they have made and render such assistance as might be necessary to render.
And after a further 15 days, the facilitator shall report to the SADC chair on progress or lack of it and then the SADC might then consider what further assistance or what further action, if any, is required and in my vocabulary, those are not deadlines, that is a framework.
GONDA: The MDC-T has issued several statements and in most of the statements they’ve talked about a SADC deadline and I was actually going to ask you who pushed for the 15 to 30 day timeline?
NCUBE: First, as I say I’m not a spokesperson of anybody except the party that I represent. As I understand it, there was no deadline pushed for or the timeframe, which was pushed for by anyone. The Ministerial Report, the Foreign Ministerial Troika Report contained the provision relating to the 30 day period or 30 day framework, that was already in the Report to say that the parties must talk and SADC must then review within 30 days the progress thereof.
What was then added on the floor of the Summit was the 15 day period, and that 15 day period was proposed by President Zuma and accepted by everybody else who was present at the meeting.
GONDA: Right, and so President Zuma has actually appointed a new team tasked with evaluating the negotiation process, so in your view how significant is the shift in persons?
NCUBE: Previously the dialogue was facilitated by the South African President who was at that time President [Thabo] Mbeki and there’s a new President in South Africa and he’s facilitating the dialogue. In fact if there’s a team to evaluate, there never was a team before to evaluate. That’s a new development.
Previously, there was a facilitation team and this was not an evaluation team. This was a team, which basically chaired the dialogue among and between the parties. You had Reverend Chikane, you had then Minister Mufamadi you had Advocate Mojangu – these were the facilitation team, they sat with the negotiators, chaired the meeting when they were required to be chaired and then when we requested that we wanted to talk on our own without them being present, we will tell them so.
That is what used to happen and they were not an evaluation team. I have no idea what the terms of reference of the new team is.
GONDA: Finally, Professor Ncube, why are the talks being held in total secrecy because many people are saying obviously you cannot give all details but surely there has to be some kind of a brief, or the occasional press conference so that at least Zimbabweans know what is being discussed about their future?
NCUBE: Well, I think Zimbabweans know what is being discussed. The contentious issues, the unresolved issues and the outstanding issues are known. What we have said we will not do is give a briefing of ‘we have an agreement on this, we are still negotiating on this’ because first there can be no agreement on one issue without an agreement on the others because all the parties have said while they may make a concession on item ”A”, that concession is valid only on the assumption that they will be able to get concessions on items “C” or “D”.
Therefore, without going through the entire agenda there is in fact no agreement on anything. So it is pointless to say you are announcing that we have an agreement on how to take the issue of sanctions when you have no agreement on how to take the issue of the rule of law because whatever concessions people are making on one issue might be conditional on the other issues being resolved, so it is pointless.
Secondly, by its very nature, if you start to brief the media and to issue statements on the substance there will always be different points of emphasis which will only create contradictions and we might then end up negotiating what we have said in the media … is this correct, is this the best way of saying it? It doesn’t help in our respectful view.
GONDA: I’m afraid we’ve run out of time and we have to end here but thank you very much for talking on the programme Hot Seat. That was Professor Welshman Ncube one of the negotiators from the MDC and the Minister of Industry and Commerce, thank you very much.
NCUBE: Thank you.
NewZimbabwe.com
27 November 2009
MDC vs MDC Continues
”Zanu and the Mutambara group simply do not know what to do. If they agree to do what the region wants, they are dead in the water.” - Eddie Cross writing on his blog on November 21, 2009, asserting that the MDC led by Arthur Mutambara (MDC M) is deliberately delaying the finalisation of the power sharing talks.
This is an outrageously false comment about the MDC M which bears no relation to the facts.
We all in MDC M want the GPA implemented urgently and fully. We fully supported what the region asked for. I personally had a lengthy discussion with President Kabila’s principal advisor Ilunga Ngandu on November 3, 2009, impressing on him the need to attend to all of the outstanding issues. My colleagues have done the same.
I have been present in Cabinet and know what has been said by all of us there. Arthur Mutambara’s statement made when the disengagement started is a matter of public record. Indeed it was Mutambara who clearly articulated for the first time that the SADC communiqué issued in the January 2009 could not be ignored, something Zanu PF was trying to do.
And as for the allegations that MDC M are responsible for the delays since Maputo consider the following:
• That the MDC M returned home direct from the SADC Summit meeting held in Maputo, Mozambique on October 29, 2009, while the MDC-T went via South Africa and were not available in Zimbabwe until after the weekend. In the meantime, over the same weekend, the MDC M negotiators had to leave Zimbabwe to attend a prior engagement namely the Africa China Summit, in Sharm-el Sheick in Egypt.
• That the MDC M came back from Egypt on Monday night November 2, 2009, and were available for negotiations on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, up until Sunday, November 15, 2009. Regrettably, both Zanu PF and MDC-T were not available, primarily because the latter had to attend to the funeral of the late John Nyamande the MDC T MP for Makoni West.
• On Monday, November 16, 2009, the MDC M negotiators had to attend to government business in Brussels and in Tunis from Monday, November 16, 2009, to Thursday, November 19, 2009. They returned home on Thursday and they had been available for dialogue and they are still available for dialogue. They, in-fact, suggested that the negotiators have a retreat to concentrate on the negotiations from Friday, November 20, 2009, to Monday, November 23, 2009. Regrettably, MDC-T negotiators have been unavailable until today Monday, November 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outstanding issues are not MDC T’s concern alone but those of the MDC M (we too want our Governor sworn in etc) and largely of the people of Zimbabwe. Many commentators have expressed concern regarding the MDC M’s involvement in the talks and the GPA since July last year. They have expressed frustration with the fact that the MDC M controls the balance of power and bemoan the “Proportional Representation system-type result” of the March 2008 election which has led to this. They bemoan that a little party like the MDC M which only secured some 8% of the vote should exercise this disproportionate power.
The irony is that it is one of the BENEFITS of a PR system that little parties often hold the balance of power and in so doing prevent the tyranny of the majority – Zimbabwe has had a Westminster system for so long that it just does not know how to handle a “PR type result” which was produced by the Westminster system last year.
A Westminster System, i.e non PR system, does not usually produce this type of result. As we know to our detriment in Zimbabwe during the last 40 years, the Westminster system has allowed single parties to dominate Parliament and the country, often after obtaining a slim majority, with catastrophic consequences. But thank God the Westminster system threw up the PR type result it did last year – otherwise we would never have reached any type of agreement and the country would have continued its slide down towards Somalia.
I understand the frustration felt by some of my political friends in the MDC T when the MDC M has adopted an independent view in the talks. I have on occasions not agreed myself with some the stances adopted by my colleagues who have negotiated on behalf of the MDC M. But the fact remains that it has been as a result of those independent stances that deadlock in the talks has often been broken. It has often been as result of those independent stances that SADC leaders have realised that MDC T positions have had some merit and they have broken away from slavishly following the Zanu PF line.
One day people will begin to understand the critically important role that the MDC M has played since March 2008 in preventing Zimbabwe from being totally destroyed.
It has managed to bridge the vast gulf between Zanu PF and MDC T and in doing so saved the country from complete and utter destruction. It continues to play this role – and this has been no better illustrated than in what has happened in the last few weeks. Aside from the institutional role the MDC M plays, Welshman Ncube’s close personal relationship with President Zuma (remember their children are married to each other – which makes Eddie Cross’ assertion that the MDC M is unhappy with what Zuma has pushed through all the more absurd) has played a key role in stiffening Zuma’s position to ensure that the GPA is fully implemented.
The statements issued last week by the MDC T and my old friend Eddie Cross are divisive. It just does not help our current situation to further divide. Scoring cheap political points does not help our nation.
The statements issued last week are not only false but, more seriously, are destructive to the fragile process we are all in. Now is the time for statesmanship and conciliation if we are to move Zimbabwe ahead.
Senator David Coltart (Khumalo) is the Minister of Education and a senior official of the MDC M
NewZimbabwe.com
This is an outrageously false comment about the MDC M which bears no relation to the facts.
We all in MDC M want the GPA implemented urgently and fully. We fully supported what the region asked for. I personally had a lengthy discussion with President Kabila’s principal advisor Ilunga Ngandu on November 3, 2009, impressing on him the need to attend to all of the outstanding issues. My colleagues have done the same.
I have been present in Cabinet and know what has been said by all of us there. Arthur Mutambara’s statement made when the disengagement started is a matter of public record. Indeed it was Mutambara who clearly articulated for the first time that the SADC communiqué issued in the January 2009 could not be ignored, something Zanu PF was trying to do.
And as for the allegations that MDC M are responsible for the delays since Maputo consider the following:
• That the MDC M returned home direct from the SADC Summit meeting held in Maputo, Mozambique on October 29, 2009, while the MDC-T went via South Africa and were not available in Zimbabwe until after the weekend. In the meantime, over the same weekend, the MDC M negotiators had to leave Zimbabwe to attend a prior engagement namely the Africa China Summit, in Sharm-el Sheick in Egypt.
• That the MDC M came back from Egypt on Monday night November 2, 2009, and were available for negotiations on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, up until Sunday, November 15, 2009. Regrettably, both Zanu PF and MDC-T were not available, primarily because the latter had to attend to the funeral of the late John Nyamande the MDC T MP for Makoni West.
• On Monday, November 16, 2009, the MDC M negotiators had to attend to government business in Brussels and in Tunis from Monday, November 16, 2009, to Thursday, November 19, 2009. They returned home on Thursday and they had been available for dialogue and they are still available for dialogue. They, in-fact, suggested that the negotiators have a retreat to concentrate on the negotiations from Friday, November 20, 2009, to Monday, November 23, 2009. Regrettably, MDC-T negotiators have been unavailable until today Monday, November 23, 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outstanding issues are not MDC T’s concern alone but those of the MDC M (we too want our Governor sworn in etc) and largely of the people of Zimbabwe. Many commentators have expressed concern regarding the MDC M’s involvement in the talks and the GPA since July last year. They have expressed frustration with the fact that the MDC M controls the balance of power and bemoan the “Proportional Representation system-type result” of the March 2008 election which has led to this. They bemoan that a little party like the MDC M which only secured some 8% of the vote should exercise this disproportionate power.
The irony is that it is one of the BENEFITS of a PR system that little parties often hold the balance of power and in so doing prevent the tyranny of the majority – Zimbabwe has had a Westminster system for so long that it just does not know how to handle a “PR type result” which was produced by the Westminster system last year.
A Westminster System, i.e non PR system, does not usually produce this type of result. As we know to our detriment in Zimbabwe during the last 40 years, the Westminster system has allowed single parties to dominate Parliament and the country, often after obtaining a slim majority, with catastrophic consequences. But thank God the Westminster system threw up the PR type result it did last year – otherwise we would never have reached any type of agreement and the country would have continued its slide down towards Somalia.
I understand the frustration felt by some of my political friends in the MDC T when the MDC M has adopted an independent view in the talks. I have on occasions not agreed myself with some the stances adopted by my colleagues who have negotiated on behalf of the MDC M. But the fact remains that it has been as a result of those independent stances that deadlock in the talks has often been broken. It has often been as result of those independent stances that SADC leaders have realised that MDC T positions have had some merit and they have broken away from slavishly following the Zanu PF line.
One day people will begin to understand the critically important role that the MDC M has played since March 2008 in preventing Zimbabwe from being totally destroyed.
It has managed to bridge the vast gulf between Zanu PF and MDC T and in doing so saved the country from complete and utter destruction. It continues to play this role – and this has been no better illustrated than in what has happened in the last few weeks. Aside from the institutional role the MDC M plays, Welshman Ncube’s close personal relationship with President Zuma (remember their children are married to each other – which makes Eddie Cross’ assertion that the MDC M is unhappy with what Zuma has pushed through all the more absurd) has played a key role in stiffening Zuma’s position to ensure that the GPA is fully implemented.
The statements issued last week by the MDC T and my old friend Eddie Cross are divisive. It just does not help our current situation to further divide. Scoring cheap political points does not help our nation.
The statements issued last week are not only false but, more seriously, are destructive to the fragile process we are all in. Now is the time for statesmanship and conciliation if we are to move Zimbabwe ahead.
Senator David Coltart (Khumalo) is the Minister of Education and a senior official of the MDC M
NewZimbabwe.com
23 November 2009
MDC vs MDC
Rival MDC factions in Zimbabwe’s power sharing government were locked in bitter exchanges on Friday as a SADC deadline for the resumption of dialogue over contested issues plaguing the government passed.
Regional leaders meeting in the Mozambican capital Maputo on November 5 urged President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF and the two rival MDC factions led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara to “engage in dialogue with immediate effect within fifteen days, and not beyond thirty days”.
The first of those deadlines passed on Friday, with Tsvangirai’s MDC blaming the delays in initiating dialogue on a lack of “sincerity and faithfulness to resolve the outstanding issues” by Zanu PF and the Mutambara-led MDC.
The party accused its ruling coalition rivals of “dragging feet”, adding: “For two weeks, Zimbabweans have waited in vain for the political gridlock to be unlocked.”
In a statement, the Tsvangirai MDC (MDC-T) also launched an unprecedented attack on Mutambara’s MDC (MDC-M) which it contemptuously referred to as a “political outfit”, and “political formation”, without identifying the party by name.
The statement targeted the MDC-M’s negotiators Industry and Commerce Minister Welshman Ncube and Regional Integration and International Cooperation Minister Priscilla Misihairabwi for attack, referring to them as “unelected negotiators who by some chance have found themselves in government … stalling the resolution of Zimbabwe’s political crisis.”
The unsigned statement issued by the MDC-T's information and publicity department said: “Professor Welshman Ncube and Hon Priscillah (sic) Misihairabwi Mushonga have chosen to prioritise flying to world capitals at the expense of resolving critical issues that will deliver real change to the people of Zimbabwe.
“The MDC expects urgent resolution of issues that have stalled the work of the inclusive government. We expect that all parties, especially those that have chosen to ignore the important time-frames, targets and deadlines set by SADC, should urgently meet and clear the deck of the outstanding issues that have poisoned the people’s collective journey of hope spawned by the formation of the inclusive government in February 2009.”
A furious Ncube on Friday night accused MDC-T of a “perennial inclination to indulge in politics of deceit”.
Ncube said he along with Misihairabwi had availed themselves several times since November 5 but it had not been possible to restart the dialogue because of the “unavailability” of the MDC-T’s negotiators – Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma.
Ncube gave the following statement to New Zimbabwe.com: “The facts are that we left Maputo on Thursday (Nov. 5) night and came to Zimbabwe, while they (MDC-T negotiators) went to South Africa.
“We were in Zimbabwe until Saturday, but they didn’t come back until Sunday. By then, myself and Priscilla were already in the ministerial delegation going to Egypt for the Africa-China summit.
“We were there (Egypt) on Saturday and Sunday, returning home on Monday night.
“We made ourselves available for the dialogue and indicated we were available from Tuesday until Sunday. They (MDC-T) said they were mourning their MP (John Nyamande) and attending funerals, and would not be available until Friday.
“Zanu PF said that they were available on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday but would not be available on the weekend. We cancelled all our other engagements from that period from Tuesday to Sunday, waited for the dialogue, but they were not ready or non-available.
“On Monday this week, I left for Brussels to attend a council of ministers meeting for the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP). It is mandatory for all member countries to be represented at ministerial level, and my attendance was confirmed two months ago.
“Priscilla went to Tunis for a meeting of the African Development Bank where she was required to be present. She returned on Tuesday, and I came back yesterday (Thursday).
“Before coming back, I spoke to MDC-T people and Zanu PF people and indicated that we would be available for the negotiations beginning on Thursday night.
“We suggested to them that in order to expedite the talks, we must all have a retreat out of town and use Friday, Saturday and Sunday to do nothing but dialogue.
“Zanu PF said they were available for the weekend but MDC-T were not. Biti said he was busy with his budget speech and can’t leave Harare. In any case, they (MDC-T) said they would not be available all of this weekend until Monday.
“Right now, we are available, tomorrow we are available, the same for Sunday -- anytime they say they are ready, we are ready.
“Those are the facts. For someone to issue the statement they issued simply demonstrates their perennial inclination to indulge in politics of deceit. The hysteria and arrogance underlying the statement is so despicable that we dismiss it with the maximum possible contempt you can think of.
“You have a bunch of people who have behaved for a long time like spoilt brats and think the whole world must stand and salute them every time they utter their nonsense. We will not worship them now, tomorrow or ever and they can go to hell a 1000 times.”
Tsvangirai’s MDC wants to be given its allocation of provincial governors and ambassadors. The party also says it wants President Robert Mugabe to annul his unilateral appointment of Attorney General Johannes Tomana and Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, which he has already refused to do.
South African President Jacob Zuma, urged by SADC to “remain seized with the developments on the implementation of the GPA [Global Political Agreement]” is set to speak to the Zimbabwe leaders next week – either by phone or by sending an envoy to Zimbabwe, sources said.
NewZimbabwe.com
Regional leaders meeting in the Mozambican capital Maputo on November 5 urged President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF and the two rival MDC factions led by Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara to “engage in dialogue with immediate effect within fifteen days, and not beyond thirty days”.
The first of those deadlines passed on Friday, with Tsvangirai’s MDC blaming the delays in initiating dialogue on a lack of “sincerity and faithfulness to resolve the outstanding issues” by Zanu PF and the Mutambara-led MDC.
The party accused its ruling coalition rivals of “dragging feet”, adding: “For two weeks, Zimbabweans have waited in vain for the political gridlock to be unlocked.”
In a statement, the Tsvangirai MDC (MDC-T) also launched an unprecedented attack on Mutambara’s MDC (MDC-M) which it contemptuously referred to as a “political outfit”, and “political formation”, without identifying the party by name.
The statement targeted the MDC-M’s negotiators Industry and Commerce Minister Welshman Ncube and Regional Integration and International Cooperation Minister Priscilla Misihairabwi for attack, referring to them as “unelected negotiators who by some chance have found themselves in government … stalling the resolution of Zimbabwe’s political crisis.”
The unsigned statement issued by the MDC-T's information and publicity department said: “Professor Welshman Ncube and Hon Priscillah (sic) Misihairabwi Mushonga have chosen to prioritise flying to world capitals at the expense of resolving critical issues that will deliver real change to the people of Zimbabwe.
“The MDC expects urgent resolution of issues that have stalled the work of the inclusive government. We expect that all parties, especially those that have chosen to ignore the important time-frames, targets and deadlines set by SADC, should urgently meet and clear the deck of the outstanding issues that have poisoned the people’s collective journey of hope spawned by the formation of the inclusive government in February 2009.”
A furious Ncube on Friday night accused MDC-T of a “perennial inclination to indulge in politics of deceit”.
Ncube said he along with Misihairabwi had availed themselves several times since November 5 but it had not been possible to restart the dialogue because of the “unavailability” of the MDC-T’s negotiators – Tendai Biti and Elton Mangoma.
Ncube gave the following statement to New Zimbabwe.com: “The facts are that we left Maputo on Thursday (Nov. 5) night and came to Zimbabwe, while they (MDC-T negotiators) went to South Africa.
“We were in Zimbabwe until Saturday, but they didn’t come back until Sunday. By then, myself and Priscilla were already in the ministerial delegation going to Egypt for the Africa-China summit.
“We were there (Egypt) on Saturday and Sunday, returning home on Monday night.
“We made ourselves available for the dialogue and indicated we were available from Tuesday until Sunday. They (MDC-T) said they were mourning their MP (John Nyamande) and attending funerals, and would not be available until Friday.
“Zanu PF said that they were available on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday but would not be available on the weekend. We cancelled all our other engagements from that period from Tuesday to Sunday, waited for the dialogue, but they were not ready or non-available.
“On Monday this week, I left for Brussels to attend a council of ministers meeting for the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP). It is mandatory for all member countries to be represented at ministerial level, and my attendance was confirmed two months ago.
“Priscilla went to Tunis for a meeting of the African Development Bank where she was required to be present. She returned on Tuesday, and I came back yesterday (Thursday).
“Before coming back, I spoke to MDC-T people and Zanu PF people and indicated that we would be available for the negotiations beginning on Thursday night.
“We suggested to them that in order to expedite the talks, we must all have a retreat out of town and use Friday, Saturday and Sunday to do nothing but dialogue.
“Zanu PF said they were available for the weekend but MDC-T were not. Biti said he was busy with his budget speech and can’t leave Harare. In any case, they (MDC-T) said they would not be available all of this weekend until Monday.
“Right now, we are available, tomorrow we are available, the same for Sunday -- anytime they say they are ready, we are ready.
“Those are the facts. For someone to issue the statement they issued simply demonstrates their perennial inclination to indulge in politics of deceit. The hysteria and arrogance underlying the statement is so despicable that we dismiss it with the maximum possible contempt you can think of.
“You have a bunch of people who have behaved for a long time like spoilt brats and think the whole world must stand and salute them every time they utter their nonsense. We will not worship them now, tomorrow or ever and they can go to hell a 1000 times.”
Tsvangirai’s MDC wants to be given its allocation of provincial governors and ambassadors. The party also says it wants President Robert Mugabe to annul his unilateral appointment of Attorney General Johannes Tomana and Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, which he has already refused to do.
South African President Jacob Zuma, urged by SADC to “remain seized with the developments on the implementation of the GPA [Global Political Agreement]” is set to speak to the Zimbabwe leaders next week – either by phone or by sending an envoy to Zimbabwe, sources said.
NewZimbabwe.com
19 November 2009
Reserve Bank Amendment Bill
Reserve Bank Amendment Bill
17 November 2009
This Bill was agreed to in Cabinet and was gazetted on the 14th August. It could be introduced into Parliament at any time after the Houses resume on the 20th October. [Electronic version of Bill available on request – also copy of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act showing the effect of the amendments proposed by the Bill.] The House of Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Budget, Finance, Economic Planning and Investment Promotion has the duty to consider the Bill and to table a report before the House of Assembly when the Bill has its Second Reading [House of Assembly Standing Order 105]. This portfolio committee could well meet during these next two weeks before Parliament sits again. The committee clerk has said that it is hoped that there will be a public hearing, but this is not certain, so it would be advisable for stakeholders and interested members of the public to submit any representations they may have on the Bill to the portfolio committee now.
Outline of the Bill
According to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, the Bill seeks to bring the powers of the Governor of the Reserve Bank under the control of the Bank’s Board, to clarify the Bank’s functions and to increase the Bank’s reserves. These objectives are to be achieved in the following ways:
A. The Bank’s powers and functions will be limited by:
divesting the Bank of the function of furthering the Government’s economic policies [clause 2];
restricting the Bank’s power to deal in gold and precious metals. It will be allowed to do so “only to the extent strictly necessary to comply with its international obligations” [clause 3] [but does the Bank — as opposed to the State — have any such obligations?];
preventing the Bank from opening credits and giving guarantees [clause 3] [this will be a considerable reduction in its powers];
preventing the Bank from borrowing foreign currency on its own behalf; it will be able to do so only on the State’s behalf and only to the extent that its reserves are not adversely affected [clause 3];
restricting the Bank’s power to lend money [clause 5]. In this regard:
it will be allowed to lend money to the State and parastatals only if:
the loan [presumably this is the total of all loans — the Bill is not clear] does not exceed 20 per cent of the State’s revenues in the previous financial year;
the loan is denominated in Zimbabwean currency [it is not clear how this applies in the present multi-currency situation];
the loan is repayable within, at most, two years;
in the case of a loan to a parastatal, the loan has been approved by the Minister of Finance and is either repayable within a year or converted into State-backed securities;
b. the Bank’s function of lender of last resort to banking institutions will be limited to three-month loans given with the approval of the Minister of Finance to support banks’ daily lending business [It is not clear if these limitations will override the Bank’s lending powers under the Banking Act – this Act available on request];
c. the Bank’s power to lend money to its employees will be limited to loans that are commensurate with those given by commercial banks to their employees;
6. divesting the Bank’s Board of power to determine Zimbabwe’s monetary policy, to ensure price stability and to fix interest rates; those powers will be transferred to a Monetary Policy Committee consisting of the Governor and his deputies, and other members appointed by the President after consultation with the Minister of Finance [clause 13];
7. requiring the Bank to maintain reserves to cover all its liabilities to the public in Zimbabwe; at present its reserves need cover only 40 per cent of its foreign liabilities [clause 17];
8. requiring the Bank to give the Minister quarterly statements showing the state of its reserves, and obliging the Minister to table the statements in the House of Assembly [clause 17];
9. divesting the Bank of all the subsidiary companies through which it carried out its “quasi-fiscal activities”. The only companies it will retain are the two that print currency notes and deal in gold. The Bank’s shares in all the other companies are to be transferred to the State, apparently without compensation [clause 19].
B. The Bank’s internal procedures will be improved
The Bank will be obliged to establish an audit committee [clause 13].
C. The powers of the Minister of Finance over the Bank and its officers will be enhanced by:
obliging the Bank to follow the Minister’s instructions when representing Zimbabwe’s interests at foreign meetings and in international organisations [clause 2];
ensuring that any instructions given to the Bank by “the State” are conveyed to it through the Minister [clause 4] [so the President will not officially have independent access to the Bank and its Governor];
requiring the Board to consult the Minister before appointing an acting Governor if the Governor’s office falls vacant [clause 6] [currently the President appoints an acting Governor in such circumstances];
making the Minister’s permanent secretary a non-voting member of the Bank’s Board [clause 8];
obliging the Bank’s Board to send the Minister copies of minutes of all its meetings [clause 11];
setting up an oversight committee consisting of the Minister’s permanent secretary and all other Board members to conduct a twice-yearly review of the Bank’s performance [clause 13];
most importantly, empowering the Minister to give general policy directives to the Bank’s Board, which the Board will have to carry out “with all due expedition” [clause 18].
D. The Governor’s powers will be limited:
the Governor will no longer be able to appoint a deputy to act for him in his absence; this power will go to the Board [clause 6] — though, somewhat contradictorily, the President rather than the Board will appoint a deputy chairperson to chair its meetings in the Governor’s absence [clause 10];
the Governor’s wide power to delegate functions to officials in the Bank will have to be exercised subject to the Board’s directives [clause 7].
E. Board members to disclose assets
The Bill will oblige all members of the Bank’s Board to disclose their assets to the President within a month after the Bill becomes law [clause 19]. [Regrettably, there is no provision requiring the President to publish the lists of assets so disclosed.]
Merits and Demerits of the Bill
The Bill has been criticised in the Press on the grounds that it reduces the Bank’s independence and, while limiting the Governor’s powers, gives excessive powers of oversight to the Minister of Finance. In particular, the proposal to allow the Minister to give directives as to the policies the Bank must pursue is criticised as being contrary to international best practice, which requires central banks to be independent. And finally, the Governor of the Bank is reported to have protested at the State’s acquisition of the Bank’s shares in its subsidiary companies, on the ground that depositors’ money was used to acquire the shares and the acquisition amounts to an expropriation of that money. There is substance in some of these criticisms.
A. Independence of Bank
It seems to be generally accepted that central banks should be given a large measure of operational independence. The draft SADC Model Central Bank Law, for example, seeks to enshrine the principle that central banks in the region should “act independently and without fear, favour or prejudice or direction from any authority or institution”. Internationally, the more effective central banks are those with the greatest independence: the U.S. Federal Reserve, for example, and the European Central Bank. The powers that the Bill will give the Minister, in particular the power to give policy directives to the Bank, will make it impossible to say that the Bank is truly independent. It may be in practice, of course, because the Minister may choose not to control the Bank. But potentially he will be able to do so, which means the Bank will be subject to direction and control by the Government. And experience has shown that Ministers who are given powers tend to exercise them.
B. Bank’s functions
In clarifying and reducing the Bank’s functions, the Bill is sound. The scope for engaging in “quasi-fiscal activities” will be greatly reduced, and the Bank will be confined to its core functions: setting monetary policy and ensuring price stability. The Governor is reported to have welcomed the clarification, saying that it is noble for RBZ to focus on its core business.
C. Reserves
Similarly, the statutory controls which the Bill will impose on the reserves kept by the Bank can only benefit the country. The Bank will no longer be able to run down the reserves to nugatory levels. It should be remembered that they are not the Bank’s reserves: they are the country’s reserves and the country, represented by the Government, must have a say in how they are maintained.
D. Reduction of the Governor’s powers
The Governor’s powers will undoubtedly be reduced by the Bill. He will no longer be able to delegate powers to subordinates without the Board’s permission, and he, like the Board, will have to obey the Minister’s directives. This reduction in the Governor’s powers is no bad thing. While one may accept that the Bank itself should be independent, that is no reason for giving its chief executive officer overreaching powers within the Bank’s structure.
E. Corporate Governance
Some of the changes to the Bank’s corporate structure will be beneficial – that the Bank will be required to establish an audit committee is in line with international best practice; and the provisions that the Board should send its minutes to the Minister, to keep him or her abreast of what the Bank is doing, and that the Bank’s quarterly statements are presented to Parliament will increase transparency. On the other hand, the establishment of a committee to formulate the country’s monetary policy, to ensure price stability and to set interest rates, seems to leave the Board of the Bank with little to do. The committee’s three functions comprise the main functions of any central bank. If those functions are to be handed over to a committee, what role is the Board to perform? Similarly, the new oversight committee — which is really the Board chaired by the Minister’s permanent secretary — is unnecessary. Why should the Board have to reconvene itself into a committee, with a new chairperson, to consider reports from the Bank’s audit committee?
F. Seizure of shares
It is doubtful if the Government’s proposed expropriation of the Bank’s shares in subsidiary companies is constitutional. This clause may, therefore, attract an adverse report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee. It would have been better if the Bill had simply required the Bank to divest itself of the shares. [The clause’s unconstitutionality lies in the fact it makes no provision for compensation, or for notice to be given, or for an appeal to the Administrative Court, or for any of the other procedures required by section 16 of the Constitution. The proposed expropriation of shares would be permissible only if they were “held by a body corporate established directly by law for a public purpose in which no moneys have been invested other than moneys provided from public funds” [section 16(9)(b) of the Constitution]. The Bank is certainly a body corporate established directly by law for a public purpose, but according to the Governor it has been engaging in “retail banking”, accepting deposits from embassies, NGOs and parastatals, etc., and some of their money was used to purchase the shares. Whether the Bank was entitled to engage in such banking business is itself doubtful [the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act does not seem to allow it] but presumably the Government expressly or tacitly permitted the Bank to do so. Hence it may be hard for the State to maintain that no money other than public money has been invested in the Bank, which it must do, if the acquisition of shares is to be brought within the provisions of section 16 of the Constitution.]
Conclusion
The Bill will undoubtedly improve the internal workings of the Reserve Bank. It will make the Bank more open and more accountable, and will restrict the Bank to its core functions. But it will also reduce the Bank’s independence. However, those who oppose the Bill on this ground have to face that independence can lead to the Bank and its officials becoming less accountable to the people, whom they are appointed to serve and that independence does not guarantee that the Bank will perform its functions competently. While the Bank was independent, its Governor and Board permitted Zimbabweans to suffer the highest level of hyper-inflation seen in modern times, and permitted the value of the Zimbabwean dollar to collapse to nothing. If Government oversight is the price we must pay for accountability and competence, it may be a price worth paying. The ideal would be to achieve a balance between independence and accountability
From the Ministry Of Finance Website: http://www.zimtreasury.org
17 November 2009
This Bill was agreed to in Cabinet and was gazetted on the 14th August. It could be introduced into Parliament at any time after the Houses resume on the 20th October. [Electronic version of Bill available on request – also copy of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act showing the effect of the amendments proposed by the Bill.] The House of Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Budget, Finance, Economic Planning and Investment Promotion has the duty to consider the Bill and to table a report before the House of Assembly when the Bill has its Second Reading [House of Assembly Standing Order 105]. This portfolio committee could well meet during these next two weeks before Parliament sits again. The committee clerk has said that it is hoped that there will be a public hearing, but this is not certain, so it would be advisable for stakeholders and interested members of the public to submit any representations they may have on the Bill to the portfolio committee now.
Outline of the Bill
According to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, the Bill seeks to bring the powers of the Governor of the Reserve Bank under the control of the Bank’s Board, to clarify the Bank’s functions and to increase the Bank’s reserves. These objectives are to be achieved in the following ways:
A. The Bank’s powers and functions will be limited by:
divesting the Bank of the function of furthering the Government’s economic policies [clause 2];
restricting the Bank’s power to deal in gold and precious metals. It will be allowed to do so “only to the extent strictly necessary to comply with its international obligations” [clause 3] [but does the Bank — as opposed to the State — have any such obligations?];
preventing the Bank from opening credits and giving guarantees [clause 3] [this will be a considerable reduction in its powers];
preventing the Bank from borrowing foreign currency on its own behalf; it will be able to do so only on the State’s behalf and only to the extent that its reserves are not adversely affected [clause 3];
restricting the Bank’s power to lend money [clause 5]. In this regard:
it will be allowed to lend money to the State and parastatals only if:
the loan [presumably this is the total of all loans — the Bill is not clear] does not exceed 20 per cent of the State’s revenues in the previous financial year;
the loan is denominated in Zimbabwean currency [it is not clear how this applies in the present multi-currency situation];
the loan is repayable within, at most, two years;
in the case of a loan to a parastatal, the loan has been approved by the Minister of Finance and is either repayable within a year or converted into State-backed securities;
b. the Bank’s function of lender of last resort to banking institutions will be limited to three-month loans given with the approval of the Minister of Finance to support banks’ daily lending business [It is not clear if these limitations will override the Bank’s lending powers under the Banking Act – this Act available on request];
c. the Bank’s power to lend money to its employees will be limited to loans that are commensurate with those given by commercial banks to their employees;
6. divesting the Bank’s Board of power to determine Zimbabwe’s monetary policy, to ensure price stability and to fix interest rates; those powers will be transferred to a Monetary Policy Committee consisting of the Governor and his deputies, and other members appointed by the President after consultation with the Minister of Finance [clause 13];
7. requiring the Bank to maintain reserves to cover all its liabilities to the public in Zimbabwe; at present its reserves need cover only 40 per cent of its foreign liabilities [clause 17];
8. requiring the Bank to give the Minister quarterly statements showing the state of its reserves, and obliging the Minister to table the statements in the House of Assembly [clause 17];
9. divesting the Bank of all the subsidiary companies through which it carried out its “quasi-fiscal activities”. The only companies it will retain are the two that print currency notes and deal in gold. The Bank’s shares in all the other companies are to be transferred to the State, apparently without compensation [clause 19].
B. The Bank’s internal procedures will be improved
The Bank will be obliged to establish an audit committee [clause 13].
C. The powers of the Minister of Finance over the Bank and its officers will be enhanced by:
obliging the Bank to follow the Minister’s instructions when representing Zimbabwe’s interests at foreign meetings and in international organisations [clause 2];
ensuring that any instructions given to the Bank by “the State” are conveyed to it through the Minister [clause 4] [so the President will not officially have independent access to the Bank and its Governor];
requiring the Board to consult the Minister before appointing an acting Governor if the Governor’s office falls vacant [clause 6] [currently the President appoints an acting Governor in such circumstances];
making the Minister’s permanent secretary a non-voting member of the Bank’s Board [clause 8];
obliging the Bank’s Board to send the Minister copies of minutes of all its meetings [clause 11];
setting up an oversight committee consisting of the Minister’s permanent secretary and all other Board members to conduct a twice-yearly review of the Bank’s performance [clause 13];
most importantly, empowering the Minister to give general policy directives to the Bank’s Board, which the Board will have to carry out “with all due expedition” [clause 18].
D. The Governor’s powers will be limited:
the Governor will no longer be able to appoint a deputy to act for him in his absence; this power will go to the Board [clause 6] — though, somewhat contradictorily, the President rather than the Board will appoint a deputy chairperson to chair its meetings in the Governor’s absence [clause 10];
the Governor’s wide power to delegate functions to officials in the Bank will have to be exercised subject to the Board’s directives [clause 7].
E. Board members to disclose assets
The Bill will oblige all members of the Bank’s Board to disclose their assets to the President within a month after the Bill becomes law [clause 19]. [Regrettably, there is no provision requiring the President to publish the lists of assets so disclosed.]
Merits and Demerits of the Bill
The Bill has been criticised in the Press on the grounds that it reduces the Bank’s independence and, while limiting the Governor’s powers, gives excessive powers of oversight to the Minister of Finance. In particular, the proposal to allow the Minister to give directives as to the policies the Bank must pursue is criticised as being contrary to international best practice, which requires central banks to be independent. And finally, the Governor of the Bank is reported to have protested at the State’s acquisition of the Bank’s shares in its subsidiary companies, on the ground that depositors’ money was used to acquire the shares and the acquisition amounts to an expropriation of that money. There is substance in some of these criticisms.
A. Independence of Bank
It seems to be generally accepted that central banks should be given a large measure of operational independence. The draft SADC Model Central Bank Law, for example, seeks to enshrine the principle that central banks in the region should “act independently and without fear, favour or prejudice or direction from any authority or institution”. Internationally, the more effective central banks are those with the greatest independence: the U.S. Federal Reserve, for example, and the European Central Bank. The powers that the Bill will give the Minister, in particular the power to give policy directives to the Bank, will make it impossible to say that the Bank is truly independent. It may be in practice, of course, because the Minister may choose not to control the Bank. But potentially he will be able to do so, which means the Bank will be subject to direction and control by the Government. And experience has shown that Ministers who are given powers tend to exercise them.
B. Bank’s functions
In clarifying and reducing the Bank’s functions, the Bill is sound. The scope for engaging in “quasi-fiscal activities” will be greatly reduced, and the Bank will be confined to its core functions: setting monetary policy and ensuring price stability. The Governor is reported to have welcomed the clarification, saying that it is noble for RBZ to focus on its core business.
C. Reserves
Similarly, the statutory controls which the Bill will impose on the reserves kept by the Bank can only benefit the country. The Bank will no longer be able to run down the reserves to nugatory levels. It should be remembered that they are not the Bank’s reserves: they are the country’s reserves and the country, represented by the Government, must have a say in how they are maintained.
D. Reduction of the Governor’s powers
The Governor’s powers will undoubtedly be reduced by the Bill. He will no longer be able to delegate powers to subordinates without the Board’s permission, and he, like the Board, will have to obey the Minister’s directives. This reduction in the Governor’s powers is no bad thing. While one may accept that the Bank itself should be independent, that is no reason for giving its chief executive officer overreaching powers within the Bank’s structure.
E. Corporate Governance
Some of the changes to the Bank’s corporate structure will be beneficial – that the Bank will be required to establish an audit committee is in line with international best practice; and the provisions that the Board should send its minutes to the Minister, to keep him or her abreast of what the Bank is doing, and that the Bank’s quarterly statements are presented to Parliament will increase transparency. On the other hand, the establishment of a committee to formulate the country’s monetary policy, to ensure price stability and to set interest rates, seems to leave the Board of the Bank with little to do. The committee’s three functions comprise the main functions of any central bank. If those functions are to be handed over to a committee, what role is the Board to perform? Similarly, the new oversight committee — which is really the Board chaired by the Minister’s permanent secretary — is unnecessary. Why should the Board have to reconvene itself into a committee, with a new chairperson, to consider reports from the Bank’s audit committee?
F. Seizure of shares
It is doubtful if the Government’s proposed expropriation of the Bank’s shares in subsidiary companies is constitutional. This clause may, therefore, attract an adverse report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee. It would have been better if the Bill had simply required the Bank to divest itself of the shares. [The clause’s unconstitutionality lies in the fact it makes no provision for compensation, or for notice to be given, or for an appeal to the Administrative Court, or for any of the other procedures required by section 16 of the Constitution. The proposed expropriation of shares would be permissible only if they were “held by a body corporate established directly by law for a public purpose in which no moneys have been invested other than moneys provided from public funds” [section 16(9)(b) of the Constitution]. The Bank is certainly a body corporate established directly by law for a public purpose, but according to the Governor it has been engaging in “retail banking”, accepting deposits from embassies, NGOs and parastatals, etc., and some of their money was used to purchase the shares. Whether the Bank was entitled to engage in such banking business is itself doubtful [the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act does not seem to allow it] but presumably the Government expressly or tacitly permitted the Bank to do so. Hence it may be hard for the State to maintain that no money other than public money has been invested in the Bank, which it must do, if the acquisition of shares is to be brought within the provisions of section 16 of the Constitution.]
Conclusion
The Bill will undoubtedly improve the internal workings of the Reserve Bank. It will make the Bank more open and more accountable, and will restrict the Bank to its core functions. But it will also reduce the Bank’s independence. However, those who oppose the Bill on this ground have to face that independence can lead to the Bank and its officials becoming less accountable to the people, whom they are appointed to serve and that independence does not guarantee that the Bank will perform its functions competently. While the Bank was independent, its Governor and Board permitted Zimbabweans to suffer the highest level of hyper-inflation seen in modern times, and permitted the value of the Zimbabwean dollar to collapse to nothing. If Government oversight is the price we must pay for accountability and competence, it may be a price worth paying. The ideal would be to achieve a balance between independence and accountability
From the Ministry Of Finance Website: http://www.zimtreasury.org
Am Impressed By My Minister Of Finance
When the New Government was formed and ministers were first annouced (before being amended) in February 2009, I made two objections on Tvsangirai's pick of Ministers.
1)One was about people from Matabeleland where he had picked only one from MDCM. That was adjusted when he appointed Gorden Moyo and Sipepa.
2) The second objection was on picking Tendai Biti for the ministry of Finance, I thought it was not the best decision given there were people with financial background like Elton Mongoma, etc. Let me say I repent on that objection. I now understand that selection was a wise one.
The Minister of Finance Honorable Tendai Biti is doing a good job. He is refusing to be bullied by Zanu pf, Mugabe, Gono and anybody. I think he knows what he is doing and he has to be recomended for that. I know it was once publicised that he recieved a mail with a bullet inside meant to be a threat on his life. I pray God for his proctection. His stance on the Zim Dollar, IMF money and the current Reserve Bank Amendment Bill bieng introduced among other things are proof enough that he has to be trusted as a capable Minister of Finance.
1)One was about people from Matabeleland where he had picked only one from MDCM. That was adjusted when he appointed Gorden Moyo and Sipepa.
2) The second objection was on picking Tendai Biti for the ministry of Finance, I thought it was not the best decision given there were people with financial background like Elton Mongoma, etc. Let me say I repent on that objection. I now understand that selection was a wise one.
The Minister of Finance Honorable Tendai Biti is doing a good job. He is refusing to be bullied by Zanu pf, Mugabe, Gono and anybody. I think he knows what he is doing and he has to be recomended for that. I know it was once publicised that he recieved a mail with a bullet inside meant to be a threat on his life. I pray God for his proctection. His stance on the Zim Dollar, IMF money and the current Reserve Bank Amendment Bill bieng introduced among other things are proof enough that he has to be trusted as a capable Minister of Finance.
26 October 2009
Dr Simba Makoni Interview
Interview Broadcast: October 22, 2009
Lance Guma: Hallo Zimbabwe we welcome you to the programme Behind the Headlines. Our special guest today is the interim president of the Mavambo Kusile Dawn movement and former Finance Minister, Dr Simba Makoni. They recently held a press conference offering their views on the MDC’s disengagement from the government. Dr Makoni, thank you for joining us on the programme.
Simba Makoni: Thank you very much, it’s my pleasure.
Guma: Your press conference touched on the MDC disengagement, for the benefit of our listeners could you maybe summarise your position, how did you react to the MDC disengagement?
Makoni: Well first we are perplexed and dismayed by the form of the action; it’s called formal disengagement from Zanu PF. We’re having difficulties understanding what exactly that means in real terms. They say that they are not leaving the inclusive government, they’re continuing to execute their functions but they are disengaging from Zanu PF.
The one explicit action they have taken is to abstain from Cabinet meetings. One isn’t sure how abstaining from Cabinet meetings is disengaging from Zanu PF, so in essence, the first position is one of misunderstanding, confusion and lack of clarity about exactly what does this action mean in practical terms.
Guma: But the MDC will say the action they took was designed to get a reaction from the region, and there has been some movement towards the troika meeting so they’ll point to that and say this is what it was designed to achieve.
Makoni: Well it was designed to precipitate a crisis and generate a reaction from the region. We think we must first focus on what we can do ourselves. This I think is one of the difficulties with the strategies that say let outsiders solve our problems for us.
Guma: Mmm, but I suppose the problem Dr Makoni is that it has been eight months since this government was formed, there does not seem to be a desire from Zanu PF to get any of the agreed commitments in place and so a lot of people are saying the MDC is left with little choice.
Makoni: Well quite clearly, the people of Zimbabwe did not expect anything from Zanu PF. The reason why they voted for change in March 2009 and in other elections before is because they have ceased to have expectation of any positive developments from Zanu PF and the MDC should have known that and this has been pointed out to them right from the time of the negotiation of the Global Political Agreement. To have expected Zanu PF to behave differently would have been a gross misunderstanding of Zanu PF and its nature and character.
Guma: Now in your press statement Dr Makoni, you talked about the fact that the MDC, in your view, are disengaging from Zanu PF based on issues of jobs for the boys and girls. Can you explain that position?
Makoni: Well basically, Prime Minister Tsvangirai made a statement which said that the fact that Roy Bennett has not been installed as Deputy Minister of Agriculture and provincial governors and ambassadors and other public officers that the MDC expected to have been put in place have not been put in place … that’s why they are disengaging from Zanu PF because people have not been put in jobs. That’s what we mean by the jobs for the boys and girls.
Advertisement
It would have been much better for the people of Zimbabwe to be told by Morgan and the MDC ‘we are disengaging from Zanu PF because we are not agreeing on policies to solve the country’s problems’. Policies that stop the country declining, the people’s lives being threatened, policies that enable the economy to recover so that people can have better lives than they had before. This is what the people of Zimbabwe voted for and this is what they expected from the MDC component of the inclusive government.
The people of Zimbabwe had no expectation of anything out of the Zanu PF component of the inclusive government because they have lived with it for 28 years until March 29. And if Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his national executive were saying they are disengaging from Zanu PF because they had not moved policies, programmes and strategies to change the lives of Zimbabweans, we would be applauding them.
Guma: But a lot of people will say…
Makoni: When we said we will support the inclusive government it was because we wanted the inclusive government to change the lives of the people of Zimbabwe, to move Zimbabweans from drudgery and poverty into welfare and wellbeing and this is not what the MDC are doing in the inclusive government.
Guma: But surely Dr Makoni, as a technocrat yourself, you would appreciate the importance of having the right people in the jobs, in government to carry out their mandate and implement the policies properly?
Makoni: Oh absolutely. I don’t know if I’m a technocrat or not but I am a practical and pragmatic Zimbabwean but I appreciate fully the need for competent people, by the way competence is one of the core values of our party, but I will say to you with more than half of the ministers in the Cabinet of the inclusive government and a handful of deputy ministers and a smaller number of bureaucrats from the MDC, that’s sufficient competence to have made a mark on the policy formulation front.
If we had a list of new policies that have been proposed by the MDC for implementation which had failed because there are no ambassadors and there are no governors and there are no deputy ministers, we would be very understanding and accommodating, even supportive of such a position but unfortunately we don’t have those things.
Guma: But the point remains – why should Mugabe be allowed to get away with making unilateral appointments? I refer here to Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana, the point remains the Agreement specifically stated that the parties had to consult on senior appointments and that did not happen?
Makoni: Oh precisely, he shouldn’t be allowed and Prime Minister Tsvangirai took the Oath of Office in the inclusive government knowing that there were those issues and those are the issues indeed which would form part of the agenda for change but not be the agenda for change itself. That’s where we’re making the distinction.
Guma: Let me give another example. You are a former Finance Minister so you probably appreciate this point even much better. The appointment of Gideon Gono -- the MDC have argued that during his tenure as Reserve Bank governor a lot of things have happened including the raiding of corporate foreign currency accounts and that this has damaged the confidence of people who are pouring money into Zimbabwe, so his continued presence at the Reserve Bank is an impediment to government moving forward. Would you not accept such a point?
Makoni: Lance, I considered that there are issues, but remember Gideon raided corporate FCAs before the inclusive government. We drew a line from February 13th when the inclusive government took oath and went into office. We are measuring the performance from there, we are not going back.
Indeed impediments should be removed, but what we are saying is we would be understanding and sympathetic, supportive even, if what the Prime Minister was saying to us was look at what we tried to do from February 13th going forward, this policy we proposed, it was blocked by Robert Mugabe, this policy we suggested it was blocked by Gideon Gono, we would be very understanding and sympathetic of that point of view. But again I repeat, we haven’t been presented with that position.
Guma: Let me get what you would have done in similar circumstances. You are in this coalition with Zanu PF, some of the agreed positions have not been implemented including the swearing in of one of your deputy ministers, what would you do?
Makoni: Well, first I wouldn’t have entered into such a terrible Agreement. You know that our first reaction to the GPA was that this was a terrible Agreement, it was unworkable, it was unbalanced and it was going to make life very difficult for Prime Minister Tsvangirai and the MDC. We said that at the beginning long before they took Oath of Office on 11th and 13th February.
So the first point I would have done is not to enter into a terrible Agreement like that and so I would have worked for a better Agreement which would enable me to function effectively, and if that had happened I think a lot of the problems we are confronting today would have been obviated.
Guma: Some will say you are underestimating the kind of creature that the MDC had to deal with. I mean you were looking at a party, which probably as a former member, you yourself will appreciate how stubborn some of the individuals are and how resistant they are to change so some will say why would you not accept the fact that compromises had to be made for the sake of the people?
Makoni: Oh I’m not denying that compromises had to be made. Remember that my whole thrust of campaigning was about accommodation, cooperation and compromise but it’s the kind of compromise and the content of compromise.
If it’s compromise for its sake, then I think we will be missing the point. Was it compromise that would have enabled effectiveness? As we can see now, this compromise did not make the Prime Minister effective and that is where the first problem lies.
Guma: Someone would say to you Dr Makoni, what’s the point of being in power if you can’t nominate your own people? I mean ideally, it seems pretty clear the MDC are trying in the power matrix to position themselves in such a way that they can effectively deliver the change that everyone is talking about and so would you not be at risk here of belittling genuine complaints that the MDC feel that they have against Zanu PF?
Makoni: No it would be a misunderstanding of our position. We are not belittling the MDC contribution. What we are saying is that the MDC should have been wiser at the beginning and we are saying that the MDC contribution would have been better and more substantive if it was addressed at policies, strategies, programmes and actions that changed the lives of the people of Zimbabwe, that enabled Zimbabwean farmers to grow food for themselves, that enabled Zimbabwean teachers to teach at school, that enabled Zimbabwean doctors to treat diseases in hospital.
But because the focus is on ‘get Gideon Gono out of office’ and ‘put Roy Bennett into office’ that’s why we are saying that the focus is on jobs for the boys. And jobs for the boys do not necessarily deliver change for the people of Zimbabwe.
We would like Prime Minister Tsvangirai to succeed, we would like the inclusive government to succeed we said this, but succeed on substance. Not fight over motorcars, not fight over the kind of furniture and TVs in the office of the Minister but fight over policies that change the lives of the people of Zimbabwe.
Guma: Now this dispute Dr Makoni has been taken to the Southern African Development Community, you yourself spent more than a decade at the helm of that organisation, if I might ask you to speculate – what do you think is going to happen from here? Do you think the regional grouping has what it takes to deal with this issue?
Makoni: Well first let me tell you that the SADC that I was involved in was very different from the SADC that we have today so the dynamics in the organisation are quite different.
Secondly, I think you want to appreciate that SADC’s principal anchoring from January 29, 2009, was that ‘Zimbabweans, we have given you an instrument of management of your national affairs – inclusive government and JOMIC. If anything goes wrong, sort yourselves out through those institutions’.
We went to the DRC last month and Prime Minister Tsvangirai is now crisscrossing the region. I have no different expectation from the region than you have the institutions through which to solve your own problems, go ahead and solve them yourselves.
Guma: But it’s eight months and nothing has been solved and the regional grouping is one of the guarantors of the Agreement so shouldn’t they do something?
Makoni: Well look, the primary responsibility for solving Zimbabwe’s problems lies with Zimbabweans and since February 13th it lies principally with the inclusive government. These people (Zanu PF and MDCs) came to the country and said ‘we are offering ourselves as a partnership to solve your problems because we believe we are competent to do it’. Let them show their competence.
Guma: To end the programme Dr Makoni, I’ll just ask one final question. Your views on pending or impending elections in 2011, in terms of your own political party, how do you see things going?
Makoni: Well first, I don’t know that there’s a timetable for the next elections. The requirements for a free and fair election as stipulated in the Global Political Agreement are not yet in place and they don’t seem to be coming into place. It’s one of the issues over which we have concerns about the performance of the inclusive government, but that said, we are preparing ourselves now as a fully fledged political party, not only to contest the next election whenever it comes but to win the next election and that’s our position.
Guma: That was Dr Simba Makoni joining us on Behind the Headlines.
www.NewZimbabwe.com
Lance Guma: Hallo Zimbabwe we welcome you to the programme Behind the Headlines. Our special guest today is the interim president of the Mavambo Kusile Dawn movement and former Finance Minister, Dr Simba Makoni. They recently held a press conference offering their views on the MDC’s disengagement from the government. Dr Makoni, thank you for joining us on the programme.
Simba Makoni: Thank you very much, it’s my pleasure.
Guma: Your press conference touched on the MDC disengagement, for the benefit of our listeners could you maybe summarise your position, how did you react to the MDC disengagement?
Makoni: Well first we are perplexed and dismayed by the form of the action; it’s called formal disengagement from Zanu PF. We’re having difficulties understanding what exactly that means in real terms. They say that they are not leaving the inclusive government, they’re continuing to execute their functions but they are disengaging from Zanu PF.
The one explicit action they have taken is to abstain from Cabinet meetings. One isn’t sure how abstaining from Cabinet meetings is disengaging from Zanu PF, so in essence, the first position is one of misunderstanding, confusion and lack of clarity about exactly what does this action mean in practical terms.
Guma: But the MDC will say the action they took was designed to get a reaction from the region, and there has been some movement towards the troika meeting so they’ll point to that and say this is what it was designed to achieve.
Makoni: Well it was designed to precipitate a crisis and generate a reaction from the region. We think we must first focus on what we can do ourselves. This I think is one of the difficulties with the strategies that say let outsiders solve our problems for us.
Guma: Mmm, but I suppose the problem Dr Makoni is that it has been eight months since this government was formed, there does not seem to be a desire from Zanu PF to get any of the agreed commitments in place and so a lot of people are saying the MDC is left with little choice.
Makoni: Well quite clearly, the people of Zimbabwe did not expect anything from Zanu PF. The reason why they voted for change in March 2009 and in other elections before is because they have ceased to have expectation of any positive developments from Zanu PF and the MDC should have known that and this has been pointed out to them right from the time of the negotiation of the Global Political Agreement. To have expected Zanu PF to behave differently would have been a gross misunderstanding of Zanu PF and its nature and character.
Guma: Now in your press statement Dr Makoni, you talked about the fact that the MDC, in your view, are disengaging from Zanu PF based on issues of jobs for the boys and girls. Can you explain that position?
Makoni: Well basically, Prime Minister Tsvangirai made a statement which said that the fact that Roy Bennett has not been installed as Deputy Minister of Agriculture and provincial governors and ambassadors and other public officers that the MDC expected to have been put in place have not been put in place … that’s why they are disengaging from Zanu PF because people have not been put in jobs. That’s what we mean by the jobs for the boys and girls.
Advertisement
It would have been much better for the people of Zimbabwe to be told by Morgan and the MDC ‘we are disengaging from Zanu PF because we are not agreeing on policies to solve the country’s problems’. Policies that stop the country declining, the people’s lives being threatened, policies that enable the economy to recover so that people can have better lives than they had before. This is what the people of Zimbabwe voted for and this is what they expected from the MDC component of the inclusive government.
The people of Zimbabwe had no expectation of anything out of the Zanu PF component of the inclusive government because they have lived with it for 28 years until March 29. And if Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his national executive were saying they are disengaging from Zanu PF because they had not moved policies, programmes and strategies to change the lives of Zimbabweans, we would be applauding them.
Guma: But a lot of people will say…
Makoni: When we said we will support the inclusive government it was because we wanted the inclusive government to change the lives of the people of Zimbabwe, to move Zimbabweans from drudgery and poverty into welfare and wellbeing and this is not what the MDC are doing in the inclusive government.
Guma: But surely Dr Makoni, as a technocrat yourself, you would appreciate the importance of having the right people in the jobs, in government to carry out their mandate and implement the policies properly?
Makoni: Oh absolutely. I don’t know if I’m a technocrat or not but I am a practical and pragmatic Zimbabwean but I appreciate fully the need for competent people, by the way competence is one of the core values of our party, but I will say to you with more than half of the ministers in the Cabinet of the inclusive government and a handful of deputy ministers and a smaller number of bureaucrats from the MDC, that’s sufficient competence to have made a mark on the policy formulation front.
If we had a list of new policies that have been proposed by the MDC for implementation which had failed because there are no ambassadors and there are no governors and there are no deputy ministers, we would be very understanding and accommodating, even supportive of such a position but unfortunately we don’t have those things.
Guma: But the point remains – why should Mugabe be allowed to get away with making unilateral appointments? I refer here to Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono and Attorney General Johannes Tomana, the point remains the Agreement specifically stated that the parties had to consult on senior appointments and that did not happen?
Makoni: Oh precisely, he shouldn’t be allowed and Prime Minister Tsvangirai took the Oath of Office in the inclusive government knowing that there were those issues and those are the issues indeed which would form part of the agenda for change but not be the agenda for change itself. That’s where we’re making the distinction.
Guma: Let me give another example. You are a former Finance Minister so you probably appreciate this point even much better. The appointment of Gideon Gono -- the MDC have argued that during his tenure as Reserve Bank governor a lot of things have happened including the raiding of corporate foreign currency accounts and that this has damaged the confidence of people who are pouring money into Zimbabwe, so his continued presence at the Reserve Bank is an impediment to government moving forward. Would you not accept such a point?
Makoni: Lance, I considered that there are issues, but remember Gideon raided corporate FCAs before the inclusive government. We drew a line from February 13th when the inclusive government took oath and went into office. We are measuring the performance from there, we are not going back.
Indeed impediments should be removed, but what we are saying is we would be understanding and sympathetic, supportive even, if what the Prime Minister was saying to us was look at what we tried to do from February 13th going forward, this policy we proposed, it was blocked by Robert Mugabe, this policy we suggested it was blocked by Gideon Gono, we would be very understanding and sympathetic of that point of view. But again I repeat, we haven’t been presented with that position.
Guma: Let me get what you would have done in similar circumstances. You are in this coalition with Zanu PF, some of the agreed positions have not been implemented including the swearing in of one of your deputy ministers, what would you do?
Makoni: Well, first I wouldn’t have entered into such a terrible Agreement. You know that our first reaction to the GPA was that this was a terrible Agreement, it was unworkable, it was unbalanced and it was going to make life very difficult for Prime Minister Tsvangirai and the MDC. We said that at the beginning long before they took Oath of Office on 11th and 13th February.
So the first point I would have done is not to enter into a terrible Agreement like that and so I would have worked for a better Agreement which would enable me to function effectively, and if that had happened I think a lot of the problems we are confronting today would have been obviated.
Guma: Some will say you are underestimating the kind of creature that the MDC had to deal with. I mean you were looking at a party, which probably as a former member, you yourself will appreciate how stubborn some of the individuals are and how resistant they are to change so some will say why would you not accept the fact that compromises had to be made for the sake of the people?
Makoni: Oh I’m not denying that compromises had to be made. Remember that my whole thrust of campaigning was about accommodation, cooperation and compromise but it’s the kind of compromise and the content of compromise.
If it’s compromise for its sake, then I think we will be missing the point. Was it compromise that would have enabled effectiveness? As we can see now, this compromise did not make the Prime Minister effective and that is where the first problem lies.
Guma: Someone would say to you Dr Makoni, what’s the point of being in power if you can’t nominate your own people? I mean ideally, it seems pretty clear the MDC are trying in the power matrix to position themselves in such a way that they can effectively deliver the change that everyone is talking about and so would you not be at risk here of belittling genuine complaints that the MDC feel that they have against Zanu PF?
Makoni: No it would be a misunderstanding of our position. We are not belittling the MDC contribution. What we are saying is that the MDC should have been wiser at the beginning and we are saying that the MDC contribution would have been better and more substantive if it was addressed at policies, strategies, programmes and actions that changed the lives of the people of Zimbabwe, that enabled Zimbabwean farmers to grow food for themselves, that enabled Zimbabwean teachers to teach at school, that enabled Zimbabwean doctors to treat diseases in hospital.
But because the focus is on ‘get Gideon Gono out of office’ and ‘put Roy Bennett into office’ that’s why we are saying that the focus is on jobs for the boys. And jobs for the boys do not necessarily deliver change for the people of Zimbabwe.
We would like Prime Minister Tsvangirai to succeed, we would like the inclusive government to succeed we said this, but succeed on substance. Not fight over motorcars, not fight over the kind of furniture and TVs in the office of the Minister but fight over policies that change the lives of the people of Zimbabwe.
Guma: Now this dispute Dr Makoni has been taken to the Southern African Development Community, you yourself spent more than a decade at the helm of that organisation, if I might ask you to speculate – what do you think is going to happen from here? Do you think the regional grouping has what it takes to deal with this issue?
Makoni: Well first let me tell you that the SADC that I was involved in was very different from the SADC that we have today so the dynamics in the organisation are quite different.
Secondly, I think you want to appreciate that SADC’s principal anchoring from January 29, 2009, was that ‘Zimbabweans, we have given you an instrument of management of your national affairs – inclusive government and JOMIC. If anything goes wrong, sort yourselves out through those institutions’.
We went to the DRC last month and Prime Minister Tsvangirai is now crisscrossing the region. I have no different expectation from the region than you have the institutions through which to solve your own problems, go ahead and solve them yourselves.
Guma: But it’s eight months and nothing has been solved and the regional grouping is one of the guarantors of the Agreement so shouldn’t they do something?
Makoni: Well look, the primary responsibility for solving Zimbabwe’s problems lies with Zimbabweans and since February 13th it lies principally with the inclusive government. These people (Zanu PF and MDCs) came to the country and said ‘we are offering ourselves as a partnership to solve your problems because we believe we are competent to do it’. Let them show their competence.
Guma: To end the programme Dr Makoni, I’ll just ask one final question. Your views on pending or impending elections in 2011, in terms of your own political party, how do you see things going?
Makoni: Well first, I don’t know that there’s a timetable for the next elections. The requirements for a free and fair election as stipulated in the Global Political Agreement are not yet in place and they don’t seem to be coming into place. It’s one of the issues over which we have concerns about the performance of the inclusive government, but that said, we are preparing ourselves now as a fully fledged political party, not only to contest the next election whenever it comes but to win the next election and that’s our position.
Guma: That was Dr Simba Makoni joining us on Behind the Headlines.
www.NewZimbabwe.com
Constitution Workshop Report (031009)
WORKSHOP ON THE MAKUNG OF THE CONSTITUTION
DATE: O3 OCTOBER 2009
VENUE: BRETRHEN IN CHRIST CHURCH LOBENGULA (BICC)
Facilitators
1. Ms Jane Willams: Woman of Zimbabwe Rise (WOZA)
2. Mr L. Madhuku: National Constitutional Assembly (NCA)
3. Mr Clever Bere: Zimbabwe National Students Association (ZINASU)
4. Lawyer Effie Ncube: For the National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO)
5. Mr D. Dabengwa: Constitution making and parties outside the GPA.
6. Pastor Motsi; Church representative
7. Pastor H.Ndlovu: Facilitator
8. Mr Usani Sibanda: Director Christian Alliance (CA)
This was not a political rally but a workshop to do with the making of the constitution, which affects every Zimbabwean whatever race, colour, tribe or creed.
PRESENT
Dignitaries from different interest groups, pastors from various other churches and Brethren in Christ Church, media people for BICC Lobengula, youths from BICC Pumula and BICC Lobengula and ushers. One hundred and eleven people attended the workshop.
Opening prayer with Mrs Siziba at 13.50 hrs
Welcome Speech – Pastor H. Ndlovu
- Rev Albert Ndlovu, our Snr Pastor & Father
- Other Pastors here present
-Jenni Williums, Dr Lovemore Madhuku, Mr Clever Bere, Mr Effie Ncube, Commrade Dumiso Dabengwa, Mr Useni Sibanda
- Other leaders,
- Distinguished guests, brethren, ladies and gentleman
I would like to welcome you all and thank you for taking your time to come and be part of this Constitution Workshop.
It is with great prestige and honor for me to stand here today in this historic event in our church and community.
-Many people have been saying to me that I have become political, some have been saying they can’t attend this workshop because its about politics and some were saying they are afraid of the Riot police.
-I would our people released their responsibility as citizens of this nation to determine their destiny and what happens in this country.
-It is our responsibility and right to be involved in the constitution making process of this country, it is not for politicians but Zimbabweans!
1. Jane Williams (Chairperson WOZA)
She stated that WOZA is a social organisation and not a political party. They stand for the rights of women and want recognition for women who are treated as second-class citizens. They honour women as they have the biggest burden of raising families. The police and the judiciary have subjected WOZA to violence and injustice but they do not regard themselves as victims but as survivors. They are not a feminist organisation but they want to foster the respect of people and as a result, they have in their ranks men of the organisation called Men of Zimbabwe Arise (MOZA). WOZA is concerned with what they call bread and butter issues and the dignity they expect to be engendered in the constitution for women.
They are concerned that the constitution if done in current manner, people will not have what they call the ‘minimum standard’ being met. They believe also in the need for a free press and the de-politicisation of the police force, which means the resignation of the current leadership of the police. WOZA also advocates for the separation of power and the independence of the judiciary. They also advocate for the reduction in the years of one who occupies the office of the president to sixty-five years and also they say the issue of dual citizenship needs to be looked into as it is a legacy of colonialism where part of southern Africa was one huge federation. Above all, there is need for the guarantee of basic rights such as health, education, and shelter etcetera. WOZA also is looking for rights of those viewed as minority and they advocate for the de-politicisation of the constitution writing process.
2. L. Madhuku (Chairperson NCA)
Present with him where:
Alois Dzvairo – National Youth Chairperson
Allan Tshuma – office of the NCA
Mr Moyo – Chairman for Bulawayo
Mr Madhuku looked at the flows of the constitution making process where he said that the constitution is meant to be a process that is done for the people for the people. He said this required people to say out their views unlike the process through which the process is being conducted where politicians are the ones undertaking the process and the NCA says that an independent body should be set up to do the writing of the constitution. He also spelt out the composition of the parliamentary committee called the management committee which responsible for larger committee set up by parliament to carry out the consultative work. It is as follows:
1. Mr Patrick Chinamasa MP
2. Mr Tendai Biti MP
3. Prof Welshman Ncube MP
From the above list and that the so called management committee (made of lead negotiators of the GPA) is also of politicians, it becomes obvious why the process is said to be flowed. The parliament will report to the three GPD negotiators who will in turn report to the three principals, Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai & Arthur Mutambara. The NCA say they cannot stop what they call a flowed process but they believe it will stop on its own. This, the NCA say, is because the committee responsible has already lost three months and only one month is left and they have not done ‘anything’. The NCA say they can only help by giving people information on the process and what can be done, but no stop it. Mr Madhuku went on to explain the document known as the Kariba Draft which he said was a document already written and published. It was done on the 30th of September and is signed by the three principals and it favours current president Mr Robert Mugabe.
Flaws
1. Controlled by politicians
2. Already drafted without participation of civic society
Therefore if Zimbabweans accept a compromised constitution and vote for it, the NCA say ‘it will be disaster’.
3. C. Bere
Mr Bere supported the stance of the NCA in demanding an independent body to lead the constitutional writing process. He emphasised that the process is as important as the product itself. As Mr Bere was looking and the shortcomings of the Kariba draft and the Lancaster House constitution, he looked at the flaws of these documents and said the NCA does no want to write a constitution, but wants to see a people driven constitution. Mr Bere said the bone of contention was the handing of responsibility of this process in the hands of the people who governed and not those to be governed. He commended the youths who attended the workshop and urged youths to bring about positive change in the country and not to be used as weapons for the destruction of the country by political parties.
4 E. Ncube
Mr Ncube spoke about the draconian legislation, the Access to Information and Protection to Privacy Act (AIPPA) which he said was hindering the free flow of information as the law is consistent with running a dictatorship and hence protecting ZANU PF and the president. He noted that Zimbabwe has the highest number of satellite dishes the world over because people are not given media choice. Mr Moyo said the constitution was meant to ensure the protection of people’s rights. The struggle for this, he said stopped when people thought of AIPPA as a ‘good’ law. Mr Ncube said currently the press was controlled by one man and one party and hence it compromises even the important debate of the constitution. He said the state cannot be a free state without a free media. The media plays an important role in the development of the country. The media must ensure that the constitution considers the independence of the media from political parties and politics.
Mr Ncube went on to talk of the marginalisation of the so-called minority groups as Zimbabwe is a multi-cultural and multi lingual state and the media has to play the important role of ensuring the development and preservation of the language as a heritage. He spoke also of freeing the media so as to allow it to report on the violation of human rights and he said Zimbabwe needed that kind of society. He spoke also of the devolution of power.
5. D. Dabengwa
Mr Dabengwa said that he was not speaking on behalf of any political parties but rather he would look at the constitution in general and the effects on the general public. He also spoke about the need for the ‘new’ constitution to come up with the devolution of power. He urged that a constitution with flaws must not be allowed to pass through. He also urged the youth to be in the forefront of the war of positivism in the country because he (Dabengwa) and his contemporaries had done their part and even what they are doing now they are doing for the coming generations. He said unlike the manner in which the country’s constitution was being amended any such amendments should be done not for individual or political party interest, but rather in line with the need of the country.
6. Questions And Answers
1. Why should we go the NCA way in drafting the constitution? Who are the people?
2. What is this so called MDC draft constitution and what impact significance will it or does it have in the new constitution making?
3. Is it true that Zanu Pf is preparing to amend the current Lancaster house constitution again?
4. South African constitution was enacted in 1996 and has been amended at least 12 times, what is wrong with ours having been amended 19 times from 1980. Why should there so many amendments?
5. The USA constitution is not as detailed as ours, Botswana or South African one, United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, why is it necessary to have one?
6. Why is the MDCT backtracking from the Kariba draft in which they are a signatory?
7. Botswana & USA have minimum age of 35 for office of president, ours is 40, why can’t change?
8. What is devolution of power?
9. Is the NCA truly a non political organisation? This is because some individuals that were once its leaders or members are now politicians, e.g. the now Prime Minister Morgan Tvsangirai.
7. Rev Motsi on behalf of Reverent Albert Ndlovu
He commended BICC for being the only church to initiate a workshop of the nature done, that spoke about constitutional issues. He said the church needed to be involved in a process as important as the one that was done at BICC. Rev Motsi spoke about constitutionalism and constitution making process where he said constitutionalism was difficult in Zimbabwe and that the constitution making process was even more difficult. He urged people generally that they should be seen to be participating in issues that affect them in their day to day activities.
8. Mr U. Sibanda
Mr Sibanda spoke about how Christians could not keep away form issues of governance as they are the people of God and they need to tell the politicians how they want to be governed. He therefore urge more participation for Christians on issues of national interest as these are the people who know the godly way through which government should rule over nations.
Rev M. Ndlovu then gave a vote of thanks and prayed ending the workshop.
DATE: O3 OCTOBER 2009
VENUE: BRETRHEN IN CHRIST CHURCH LOBENGULA (BICC)
Facilitators
1. Ms Jane Willams: Woman of Zimbabwe Rise (WOZA)
2. Mr L. Madhuku: National Constitutional Assembly (NCA)
3. Mr Clever Bere: Zimbabwe National Students Association (ZINASU)
4. Lawyer Effie Ncube: For the National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (NANGO)
5. Mr D. Dabengwa: Constitution making and parties outside the GPA.
6. Pastor Motsi; Church representative
7. Pastor H.Ndlovu: Facilitator
8. Mr Usani Sibanda: Director Christian Alliance (CA)
This was not a political rally but a workshop to do with the making of the constitution, which affects every Zimbabwean whatever race, colour, tribe or creed.
PRESENT
Dignitaries from different interest groups, pastors from various other churches and Brethren in Christ Church, media people for BICC Lobengula, youths from BICC Pumula and BICC Lobengula and ushers. One hundred and eleven people attended the workshop.
Opening prayer with Mrs Siziba at 13.50 hrs
Welcome Speech – Pastor H. Ndlovu
- Rev Albert Ndlovu, our Snr Pastor & Father
- Other Pastors here present
-Jenni Williums, Dr Lovemore Madhuku, Mr Clever Bere, Mr Effie Ncube, Commrade Dumiso Dabengwa, Mr Useni Sibanda
- Other leaders,
- Distinguished guests, brethren, ladies and gentleman
I would like to welcome you all and thank you for taking your time to come and be part of this Constitution Workshop.
It is with great prestige and honor for me to stand here today in this historic event in our church and community.
-Many people have been saying to me that I have become political, some have been saying they can’t attend this workshop because its about politics and some were saying they are afraid of the Riot police.
-I would our people released their responsibility as citizens of this nation to determine their destiny and what happens in this country.
-It is our responsibility and right to be involved in the constitution making process of this country, it is not for politicians but Zimbabweans!
1. Jane Williams (Chairperson WOZA)
She stated that WOZA is a social organisation and not a political party. They stand for the rights of women and want recognition for women who are treated as second-class citizens. They honour women as they have the biggest burden of raising families. The police and the judiciary have subjected WOZA to violence and injustice but they do not regard themselves as victims but as survivors. They are not a feminist organisation but they want to foster the respect of people and as a result, they have in their ranks men of the organisation called Men of Zimbabwe Arise (MOZA). WOZA is concerned with what they call bread and butter issues and the dignity they expect to be engendered in the constitution for women.
They are concerned that the constitution if done in current manner, people will not have what they call the ‘minimum standard’ being met. They believe also in the need for a free press and the de-politicisation of the police force, which means the resignation of the current leadership of the police. WOZA also advocates for the separation of power and the independence of the judiciary. They also advocate for the reduction in the years of one who occupies the office of the president to sixty-five years and also they say the issue of dual citizenship needs to be looked into as it is a legacy of colonialism where part of southern Africa was one huge federation. Above all, there is need for the guarantee of basic rights such as health, education, and shelter etcetera. WOZA also is looking for rights of those viewed as minority and they advocate for the de-politicisation of the constitution writing process.
2. L. Madhuku (Chairperson NCA)
Present with him where:
Alois Dzvairo – National Youth Chairperson
Allan Tshuma – office of the NCA
Mr Moyo – Chairman for Bulawayo
Mr Madhuku looked at the flows of the constitution making process where he said that the constitution is meant to be a process that is done for the people for the people. He said this required people to say out their views unlike the process through which the process is being conducted where politicians are the ones undertaking the process and the NCA says that an independent body should be set up to do the writing of the constitution. He also spelt out the composition of the parliamentary committee called the management committee which responsible for larger committee set up by parliament to carry out the consultative work. It is as follows:
1. Mr Patrick Chinamasa MP
2. Mr Tendai Biti MP
3. Prof Welshman Ncube MP
From the above list and that the so called management committee (made of lead negotiators of the GPA) is also of politicians, it becomes obvious why the process is said to be flowed. The parliament will report to the three GPD negotiators who will in turn report to the three principals, Robert Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai & Arthur Mutambara. The NCA say they cannot stop what they call a flowed process but they believe it will stop on its own. This, the NCA say, is because the committee responsible has already lost three months and only one month is left and they have not done ‘anything’. The NCA say they can only help by giving people information on the process and what can be done, but no stop it. Mr Madhuku went on to explain the document known as the Kariba Draft which he said was a document already written and published. It was done on the 30th of September and is signed by the three principals and it favours current president Mr Robert Mugabe.
Flaws
1. Controlled by politicians
2. Already drafted without participation of civic society
Therefore if Zimbabweans accept a compromised constitution and vote for it, the NCA say ‘it will be disaster’.
3. C. Bere
Mr Bere supported the stance of the NCA in demanding an independent body to lead the constitutional writing process. He emphasised that the process is as important as the product itself. As Mr Bere was looking and the shortcomings of the Kariba draft and the Lancaster House constitution, he looked at the flaws of these documents and said the NCA does no want to write a constitution, but wants to see a people driven constitution. Mr Bere said the bone of contention was the handing of responsibility of this process in the hands of the people who governed and not those to be governed. He commended the youths who attended the workshop and urged youths to bring about positive change in the country and not to be used as weapons for the destruction of the country by political parties.
4 E. Ncube
Mr Ncube spoke about the draconian legislation, the Access to Information and Protection to Privacy Act (AIPPA) which he said was hindering the free flow of information as the law is consistent with running a dictatorship and hence protecting ZANU PF and the president. He noted that Zimbabwe has the highest number of satellite dishes the world over because people are not given media choice. Mr Moyo said the constitution was meant to ensure the protection of people’s rights. The struggle for this, he said stopped when people thought of AIPPA as a ‘good’ law. Mr Ncube said currently the press was controlled by one man and one party and hence it compromises even the important debate of the constitution. He said the state cannot be a free state without a free media. The media plays an important role in the development of the country. The media must ensure that the constitution considers the independence of the media from political parties and politics.
Mr Ncube went on to talk of the marginalisation of the so-called minority groups as Zimbabwe is a multi-cultural and multi lingual state and the media has to play the important role of ensuring the development and preservation of the language as a heritage. He spoke also of freeing the media so as to allow it to report on the violation of human rights and he said Zimbabwe needed that kind of society. He spoke also of the devolution of power.
5. D. Dabengwa
Mr Dabengwa said that he was not speaking on behalf of any political parties but rather he would look at the constitution in general and the effects on the general public. He also spoke about the need for the ‘new’ constitution to come up with the devolution of power. He urged that a constitution with flaws must not be allowed to pass through. He also urged the youth to be in the forefront of the war of positivism in the country because he (Dabengwa) and his contemporaries had done their part and even what they are doing now they are doing for the coming generations. He said unlike the manner in which the country’s constitution was being amended any such amendments should be done not for individual or political party interest, but rather in line with the need of the country.
6. Questions And Answers
1. Why should we go the NCA way in drafting the constitution? Who are the people?
2. What is this so called MDC draft constitution and what impact significance will it or does it have in the new constitution making?
3. Is it true that Zanu Pf is preparing to amend the current Lancaster house constitution again?
4. South African constitution was enacted in 1996 and has been amended at least 12 times, what is wrong with ours having been amended 19 times from 1980. Why should there so many amendments?
5. The USA constitution is not as detailed as ours, Botswana or South African one, United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, why is it necessary to have one?
6. Why is the MDCT backtracking from the Kariba draft in which they are a signatory?
7. Botswana & USA have minimum age of 35 for office of president, ours is 40, why can’t change?
8. What is devolution of power?
9. Is the NCA truly a non political organisation? This is because some individuals that were once its leaders or members are now politicians, e.g. the now Prime Minister Morgan Tvsangirai.
7. Rev Motsi on behalf of Reverent Albert Ndlovu
He commended BICC for being the only church to initiate a workshop of the nature done, that spoke about constitutional issues. He said the church needed to be involved in a process as important as the one that was done at BICC. Rev Motsi spoke about constitutionalism and constitution making process where he said constitutionalism was difficult in Zimbabwe and that the constitution making process was even more difficult. He urged people generally that they should be seen to be participating in issues that affect them in their day to day activities.
8. Mr U. Sibanda
Mr Sibanda spoke about how Christians could not keep away form issues of governance as they are the people of God and they need to tell the politicians how they want to be governed. He therefore urge more participation for Christians on issues of national interest as these are the people who know the godly way through which government should rule over nations.
Rev M. Ndlovu then gave a vote of thanks and prayed ending the workshop.
25 September 2009
"Why I am Rejoining Zanu Pf" Jonathan Moyo
ZANU PF “is facing a Lazarus moment” and must rise from the dead if it is to remain in power, Tsholotsho North MP Jonathan Moyo (Indp) said on Thursday as he prepares a shock return to the party’s ranks after quitting in 2005.
Moyo, who once told New Zimbabwe.com he would never rejoin Zanu PF, says “everything has changed” in Zimbabwe with the formation of a power sharing government led by President Robert Mugabe and former opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai, now the Prime Minister.
“Politics is not a religion, and political statements, even those which include the word ‘never’, are intended to highlight and dramatise a point, and not to express a gospel truth,” Moyo said in an exclusive interview with this website.
“It’s the same with scientific statements and theories, they are not permanent truth. Just like political opinions, they are true depending on the facts of the moment. The problem in politics emerges only when someone changes his or her principles, not when they change their opinions or affiliations.
“I have not changed my principles in terms of my nationalism, my belief in Zimbabwe’s sovereignty, belief in the country’s hard-won independence, the historic land reform programme and the necessity to empower Zimbabweans. At no point after leaving Zanu PF did I challenge those principles.”
Whether the former Information Minister is accepted in Zanu PF is a decision to be made by the party’s politburo, which will meet within the next two weeks.
But Moyo is already looking forward, warning the party that it must get over factional fights if it is to hold off Tsvangirai’s MDC at the next elections.
He said: “Zanu PF has made strategic errors in the last few years, and they don’t need me telling them. There has been too much focus on internal issues around succession politics and factionalism which has affected the focus of its membership.
“In the current scheme of things, any factional approach to politics is doomed to fail. So Zanu PF members must stop looking at each other from a factional point of view, but look at themselves as members of the same party.
“The party is facing a Lazarus moment, and it must rise from the dead. In politics, it is very possible to do a Lazarus, but the enormity of the task cannot be under-estimated.”
Advertisement
It has been reported that these factional fights will work to stop Moyo’s return to the party, with Vice President Joice Mujuru flagged as a strong opponent.
But Moyo says his relationship with Mujuru is “very cordial, and mutually respectfully not withstanding past misunderstandings which have been left there – in the past.”
As he talks, it’s hard to imagine Moyo ever left Zanu PF. Yet he maintains his walk-out in February 2005 when the party tried to block him standing for MP was real.
“There are certain people, and I am one of them,” Moyo says, “who will be always Zanu PF at heart, whatever the situation on the ground.
“It should be remembered that the circumstances that led to my departure from Zanu PF are public and have nothing to with a conflict over principles. It must also be remembered that the work that I did in Tsholotsho to assist the community and other places in Matabeleland -- getting a bank in Tsholotsho, getting a GMB depot, opening a massive irrigation scheme in the district, helping nine schools to have A’ Level status, building clinics and spearheading the construction of the Lupane State University -- all these and other related projects were done under Zanu PF and with Zanu PF people.
“The people of Tsholotsho know this. It’s only outsiders, malcontents, who will imagine it’s better if Moyo doesn’t rejoin Zanu PF.”
Moyo says part of the motivation for returning to Zanu PF is the “lonesome reality” of being an Independent “in a two party state”. But there was never a danger of joining the MDC because of “fundamental” ideological differences.
He said: “Politics is about interacting with other human beings; a serious minded politician cannot think they can make a difference working alone, it does not help the community in any way for a person to work alone.
“But from the word go, I have had problems with the MDC at the level of ideological principles … I have never had a meeting of minds with MDC on that score. I may have agreed with them on specific issues, never on the principles.
“Here are people who have invited sanctions on their country. There is nothing anyone in my country will do to make me go and invite an enemy to deal with my personal situation, that’s impossible.”
But Moyo says the four-year hiatus from Zanu PF has made him a better politician – and now has a greater understanding of the aspirations of Zimbabweans in general, and people from the Matabeleland region in particular.
Moyo said: “If I choose to work with Zanu PF, as I did before, I am not only expressing a fundamental right but also understanding the needs of the community. Zimbabweans don’t want hand-outs, but real development symbolised by roads, clinics, roads, and schools which allows them to get by in a more sustainable way.
“The politics of hampers and politics of living from hand-to-mouth which is so much part of the MDC and its connected foreign donor agencies like USAID … there’s something about it which is corrupting and disempowering, you cannot empower a community through hand-outs and turning Zimbabwe into a permanent emergency.”
But perhaps the overwhelming factor driving him back to the Zanu PF ranks is an unshakeable belief that there is still something to salvage, despite the party losing its parliamentary majority for the first time since 1980 in elections last year.
“Zanu PF can win a free election, just like the MDC cannot win a free and fair election as was shown in March 2008,” he says when asked if his move is not a gamble too far. “The MDC cannot do better than March 2008 -- that election was one election in Zimbabwe that was truly and honestly fair. Everyone who participated in it, everyone who observed it knows it was free and fair and yet the MDC couldn’t win.
“Yes they did better than previously, and indeed reduced Zanu PF’s two thirds majority into less than simple majority, but it didn’t result in a majority in parliament or winning the presidency which at the end of the day an election is all about.
“For me, the MDC have no chance in heaven of doing better than March 29, they reached their apex and from now onwards they have reached their decline.”
Moyo claims the MDC decline will be brought about by “those external forces that supported it changing their strategy, making peace with their former enemies”.
“It is very clear the MDC has been able to make it because of support of the Americans and the Europeans. Listen to what is being said at the United Nations this week, they are not talking about Zimbabwean anymore, they are not making the same noises they were making there this time last year. They are dragging their feet towards a final resolution.”
Much speculation has developed around what position Zanu PF will give Moyo when he returns. Zanu PF national chairman John Nkomo – a sworn opponent of the political maverick – has suggested he should start at “cell level”.
But New Zimbabwe.com sources say Moyo will likely step in to replace Nathan Shamuyarira as Zanu PF secretary for information during or after the December Congress. Shamuyarira is reportedly keen to retire.
Moyo said: “This has nothing to do with tasks and positions, I am already a member of parliament for God’s sake! Why treat me like someone who is desperate to become MP on a Zanu PF ticket?
“I am just happy to be a member, happy to work with comrades and others who are like-minded to develop my community and country.”
Moyo makes a bold declaration that Zimbabwe will shortly be a “two party state for sometime to come”.
He added: “It’s going to be between MDC and Zanu PF and Zimbabweans have to choose. A lot of experiments have been tried and all of them have been united by their catastrophic failure.
“The MDC may survive and do better if it frees itself from its creators and funders, but it will take a whole lot of working.
“If you look at Zanu PF, the possibilities are many. If you look at the MDC, it is difficult to see them beyond Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai is at least showing signs of infatuation with nationalism, maybe because he is a former Zanu PF cadre, but these others guys … there can be no future MDC led by Eddie Cross, Roy Bennett and dangerous people like Sekai Holland who think Mzilikazi was more cruel that whites. That kind of party cannot have a future in a country like ours.”
NewZimbabwe.com
Moyo, who once told New Zimbabwe.com he would never rejoin Zanu PF, says “everything has changed” in Zimbabwe with the formation of a power sharing government led by President Robert Mugabe and former opposition rival Morgan Tsvangirai, now the Prime Minister.
“Politics is not a religion, and political statements, even those which include the word ‘never’, are intended to highlight and dramatise a point, and not to express a gospel truth,” Moyo said in an exclusive interview with this website.
“It’s the same with scientific statements and theories, they are not permanent truth. Just like political opinions, they are true depending on the facts of the moment. The problem in politics emerges only when someone changes his or her principles, not when they change their opinions or affiliations.
“I have not changed my principles in terms of my nationalism, my belief in Zimbabwe’s sovereignty, belief in the country’s hard-won independence, the historic land reform programme and the necessity to empower Zimbabweans. At no point after leaving Zanu PF did I challenge those principles.”
Whether the former Information Minister is accepted in Zanu PF is a decision to be made by the party’s politburo, which will meet within the next two weeks.
But Moyo is already looking forward, warning the party that it must get over factional fights if it is to hold off Tsvangirai’s MDC at the next elections.
He said: “Zanu PF has made strategic errors in the last few years, and they don’t need me telling them. There has been too much focus on internal issues around succession politics and factionalism which has affected the focus of its membership.
“In the current scheme of things, any factional approach to politics is doomed to fail. So Zanu PF members must stop looking at each other from a factional point of view, but look at themselves as members of the same party.
“The party is facing a Lazarus moment, and it must rise from the dead. In politics, it is very possible to do a Lazarus, but the enormity of the task cannot be under-estimated.”
Advertisement
It has been reported that these factional fights will work to stop Moyo’s return to the party, with Vice President Joice Mujuru flagged as a strong opponent.
But Moyo says his relationship with Mujuru is “very cordial, and mutually respectfully not withstanding past misunderstandings which have been left there – in the past.”
As he talks, it’s hard to imagine Moyo ever left Zanu PF. Yet he maintains his walk-out in February 2005 when the party tried to block him standing for MP was real.
“There are certain people, and I am one of them,” Moyo says, “who will be always Zanu PF at heart, whatever the situation on the ground.
“It should be remembered that the circumstances that led to my departure from Zanu PF are public and have nothing to with a conflict over principles. It must also be remembered that the work that I did in Tsholotsho to assist the community and other places in Matabeleland -- getting a bank in Tsholotsho, getting a GMB depot, opening a massive irrigation scheme in the district, helping nine schools to have A’ Level status, building clinics and spearheading the construction of the Lupane State University -- all these and other related projects were done under Zanu PF and with Zanu PF people.
“The people of Tsholotsho know this. It’s only outsiders, malcontents, who will imagine it’s better if Moyo doesn’t rejoin Zanu PF.”
Moyo says part of the motivation for returning to Zanu PF is the “lonesome reality” of being an Independent “in a two party state”. But there was never a danger of joining the MDC because of “fundamental” ideological differences.
He said: “Politics is about interacting with other human beings; a serious minded politician cannot think they can make a difference working alone, it does not help the community in any way for a person to work alone.
“But from the word go, I have had problems with the MDC at the level of ideological principles … I have never had a meeting of minds with MDC on that score. I may have agreed with them on specific issues, never on the principles.
“Here are people who have invited sanctions on their country. There is nothing anyone in my country will do to make me go and invite an enemy to deal with my personal situation, that’s impossible.”
But Moyo says the four-year hiatus from Zanu PF has made him a better politician – and now has a greater understanding of the aspirations of Zimbabweans in general, and people from the Matabeleland region in particular.
Moyo said: “If I choose to work with Zanu PF, as I did before, I am not only expressing a fundamental right but also understanding the needs of the community. Zimbabweans don’t want hand-outs, but real development symbolised by roads, clinics, roads, and schools which allows them to get by in a more sustainable way.
“The politics of hampers and politics of living from hand-to-mouth which is so much part of the MDC and its connected foreign donor agencies like USAID … there’s something about it which is corrupting and disempowering, you cannot empower a community through hand-outs and turning Zimbabwe into a permanent emergency.”
But perhaps the overwhelming factor driving him back to the Zanu PF ranks is an unshakeable belief that there is still something to salvage, despite the party losing its parliamentary majority for the first time since 1980 in elections last year.
“Zanu PF can win a free election, just like the MDC cannot win a free and fair election as was shown in March 2008,” he says when asked if his move is not a gamble too far. “The MDC cannot do better than March 2008 -- that election was one election in Zimbabwe that was truly and honestly fair. Everyone who participated in it, everyone who observed it knows it was free and fair and yet the MDC couldn’t win.
“Yes they did better than previously, and indeed reduced Zanu PF’s two thirds majority into less than simple majority, but it didn’t result in a majority in parliament or winning the presidency which at the end of the day an election is all about.
“For me, the MDC have no chance in heaven of doing better than March 29, they reached their apex and from now onwards they have reached their decline.”
Moyo claims the MDC decline will be brought about by “those external forces that supported it changing their strategy, making peace with their former enemies”.
“It is very clear the MDC has been able to make it because of support of the Americans and the Europeans. Listen to what is being said at the United Nations this week, they are not talking about Zimbabwean anymore, they are not making the same noises they were making there this time last year. They are dragging their feet towards a final resolution.”
Much speculation has developed around what position Zanu PF will give Moyo when he returns. Zanu PF national chairman John Nkomo – a sworn opponent of the political maverick – has suggested he should start at “cell level”.
But New Zimbabwe.com sources say Moyo will likely step in to replace Nathan Shamuyarira as Zanu PF secretary for information during or after the December Congress. Shamuyarira is reportedly keen to retire.
Moyo said: “This has nothing to do with tasks and positions, I am already a member of parliament for God’s sake! Why treat me like someone who is desperate to become MP on a Zanu PF ticket?
“I am just happy to be a member, happy to work with comrades and others who are like-minded to develop my community and country.”
Moyo makes a bold declaration that Zimbabwe will shortly be a “two party state for sometime to come”.
He added: “It’s going to be between MDC and Zanu PF and Zimbabweans have to choose. A lot of experiments have been tried and all of them have been united by their catastrophic failure.
“The MDC may survive and do better if it frees itself from its creators and funders, but it will take a whole lot of working.
“If you look at Zanu PF, the possibilities are many. If you look at the MDC, it is difficult to see them beyond Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai is at least showing signs of infatuation with nationalism, maybe because he is a former Zanu PF cadre, but these others guys … there can be no future MDC led by Eddie Cross, Roy Bennett and dangerous people like Sekai Holland who think Mzilikazi was more cruel that whites. That kind of party cannot have a future in a country like ours.”
NewZimbabwe.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
