Between the time of this interview up to the time that I debate #CAB3 I won't have and will never change my mind on this point. I am actually in disbelief that this moment has come to the fore in my lifetime. I never thought it would happen.
What it nonsensical is your attitude that only your way of looking at things is correct. This is obviously your heritage, I can do little to change how you look at things . But you must consider that there are others who have a different epistemological approach. You haven't polled those lawyers.
@ProfJNMoyo thank you. I was merely pointing out (1) That it was the Chief's delegation that had insisted on that clause.Secondly they have Judicial roles as part of the local courts. The same rules that apply to judges apply to them. See s 162(g) 163(f), s 164 especially 164(4). They are defined as part of the judiciary. There is going to be an inconsistency. My other important point here is that the discussion on CAB3 must move beyond a yes/no kind of discussion to consideration of the merits and demerits of individual clauses.
Clause 20 of the Constitution Amendment bill removes the wording that requires traditional leaders to be non-partisan. It removes the entire code of conduct from Section 281. I was a Technical adviser in COPAC, I remember clearly that it was the traditional leaders who asked for this clause as they were represented in COPAC and even had their own technical advisor. They opined that such a clause would protect their independence. Personally,I don't agree with this clause. #cab3
@adv_fulcrum Comrade @adv_falcrum it's your right to sue when people defame you. But I think you are a little touchy given your own propensity to defame others. For instance you recently recklessly called me a fraudster without any basis whatsoever.
Just finished the rounds chairing the #cab3 meetings. It was peaceful in Mashonaland West. The views were one sided. I have clauses that I personally support in the bill and others that are retrogressive and I will push against.
It doesn't matter how much you pivot from the real issue. Thanks for confirming you didn't author the statement and thus can't continue acting as if the church has intervened in political matters. I am actually a founding member of that association and still part of the BYO chapter. But that's not the central issue.
@adv_fulcrum@ChikomoPrazen You have simply failed to deal with the fact that your unsigned statement is a hoax and does not remotely represent the opinion of any association officially connecter to the church.
Sengezo Tshabangu s friend and lawyer ,He also want to hijack the Association . imposter MP through backdoor
Shiri unemuririro wayo hayiuregi
Mbavha chero ikashayiwa huku inoba matoto
That is not the language of an Adventist in good standing Thabani. The Adventist lawyers association that you are peddling appears to be fishy to say the list. I am an Adventist in good standing and a member of the Adventist lawyers association. In fact, I have been a member of such association since my day is at the university of Zimbabwe. I still note that your statement is unsigned.
@adv_fulcrum Jonathan Moyo is just catching strays. The big fight is between Chamisa's lawyer vs Tshabangu's lawyer. After being outclassed by Tshabangu's lawyer leading to the total take over of CCC, now Chamisa's lawyer is fighting back. Unfortunately, Fuzwayo appointed Tshabangu's lawyer.
@Garikai1Gorey@OpenParlyZw It is ironic to wantonly call other citizens criminals for holding and expressing their views. You can only tolerate your perspective, yet you complain of tyranny. It's either you are stupid or you are the tyrant.
Exciting political moment. It will juxtapose those who see democracy as unmitigated populist politics which thrives on trampling minorities versus one where leaders are chosen in a measured and deliberate way. Which is more conducive to development? We shall see.@OpenParlyZw
Can ED Benefit from the TERM EXTENSION?????
Lots of people are saying the Term Extension needs a Referendum & that ED cannot benefit from it…
Well, this issue WAS SETTLED in the Marx Mupungu Vs Minister of Justice & Legal Affairs & Others. It’s a SETTLED MATTER, nothing to contest there.
The Court made it clear that extending term length is not the same as Changing term limits… The TWO TERMS remain.
So Zimbabweans being misled by Social Media Lawyers & Opposition Lawyers are wasting their emotions on a settled matter.
Amendment 3 will happen without a referendum.
And ED, if he chooses, can benefit from it.
By the way, you can’t even take ED to court for it UNTIL after August 2028. So the issue of ED benefiting doesn’t arise now, he may choose to not go beyond 2028, it’s up to him…
It is therefore a waste of emotions to get angry that ED is overstaying, u don’t know that and u have no evidence of that.