Mutasa on Monday issued an implicit statement indicating that disgruntled Zanu PF members were preparing to mount a court challenge on the legality of the holding of the party’s congress and endorsement of constitutional amendments that scrapped the election of national office bearers.
United Kingdom-based law lecturer Alex Magaisa said the challenge being touted by aggrieved Zanu PF members are sound at law.
“It is plain that the procedure was not followed and that this is a contravention of Zanu PF’s own constitution. If they mount a legal challenge, I think they would have strong grounds,” Magaisa said.
“There is a procedure to be followed when amending the constitution. That procedure exists for a good reason. It is so that the constitution is not amended at the mere whim of individuals or a faction.”
Mutasa alleges that Zanu PF did not follow article 30 of the party’s constitution as read with section 253 which stipulate the process and procedures of making amendments to the charter.
Lawyer Andrew Makoni said: “If procedures were not followed as Mutasa alleges, then like-minded members of the party based on the said violations can approach the courts for redress and most likely the courts are prepared to listen to that and make a determination on the issues or remedy sought.”
However, another lawyer, Dewa Mavhinga, expressed fear that political considerations were likely to override legal merits of the case when it is taken to
“Whether or not their legal argument is sound is quite irrelevant in this politically-charged case which will most likely be decided not on legal merit, but on political considerations,” Mavhinga said.
He added: “It is difficult to imagine that the judiciary, as currently constituted, would rule in their favour and nullify the Zanu PF congress decisions.”