The Roy Bennett bail hearing came before Judge Tedious Karwi on Tuesday the 24th of February at the High Court in Zimbabwe, following his arrest on the 13th of February at an airport outside Harare. He is facing charges of possessing weapons for the purposes of insurgency in an alleged plot dating back to 2006. He was also charged with violating immigration laws. This particular charge has been dropped. He denies any wrong doing. Judge Tedius Karwi granted Roy Bennett bail. The state immediately invoked section 121 of the criminal procedure and evidence act. This provision allows the state seven working days to lodge their challenge to Judge Karwi’s ruling freeing Roy Bennett on bail.
Bail applications are made every day in Zimbabwean Courts. This particular bail application was unique in the sense that the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai offered himself as a guarantor of Roy Bennett’s freedom bid. This was unprecedented as the judge rightfully pointed out. The attempt by the Prime Minister to interfere in this way with the judiciary attracted the wrath of Judge Tediuos Karwi who did not mince his words. In his judgement he aptly criticised the MDC leader and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai for backing the bail application and promising Mr Bennett would not leave the country.The move was "unprecedented", he said. "We don't want politicians to interfere with the work of the judiciary. I hope that they will take heed of that, because we don't want a clash of the executive and the judiciary."
Rightly so too. In any other democracy what the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai did would amount to a serious Constitutional crisis and heads would roll. There is no justification for the executive to interfere with the judicial processes at all. This behaviour by the prime minister is a clear breach of the principle of the separation of powers. Not so many days ago the president Robert Mugabe himself was confronted by reporters over the Roy Bennett matter, but was quick distance himself as he is the persona of the executive, whether in his personal capacity or other “The Roy Bennett is a matter for the courts” he said.
French philosopher Charles Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu when drafting the Constitution, most notably in connection with the separation of powers emphasised the placing of powers into different hands of government. Constitutions across the globe are one way or another modelled on this principle of the separation of powers.
The separation of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature is the best way to secure liberty and prevent a government from becoming corrupted. The principle of putting different powers of government among different actors serves as a check and balance mechanism which would ultimately check one another. For example, Montesquieu warned that “Were the executive power not to have a right of restraining the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; for as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers.”
The founding fathers of the republic of Zimbabwe, Edison Zvobvo and others responsible for the drafting of the constitution of Zimbabwe in 1979-1980 took heed of Montesqueu’s warning by establishing an independent executive which after amendment no 19 consists of the president, two vice presidents. The prime minister and two deputy prime ministers, the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary. This system coupled with checks and balances protects the separation of powers and the freedoms of the people of the republic of Zimbabwe.
The move to guarantor Roy Bennett’s bail application by the prime minister speaks volumes. Others have been quick to dismiss this behaviour as something done by somebody still wet behind the ears when it comes to issues of governance. It seems, however he is prepared to breach the very same rules that he seeks to protect in other platforms, that of the rule of law.’ The distinctly kind of arbitrary, tyrannical rule against which the governed have to be protected. If we seek to build a new Zimbabwean legal system that we can all have confidence in what better time to start than now.
There are those who will seek political expediency over the Roy Bennett matter. Some hold the failure or success of the all inclusive government on the basis of whether Roy Bennett comes out of jail or not. In my opinion, if the GNU fails to survive the Roy Bennett saga, it then follows that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Zimbabwe and indeed its citizen’s future are much bigger than Roy Bennett. Roy Bennett is only but one person in the matrix, of rebuilding Zimbabwe, to borrow the new finance Minister’s favourite wording. Roy Bennett has been duly charged for crimes against the republic and hence we should let the operation of the law take its course. It seems, however that the Roy Bennett issue has over shadowed whatever principles that we would naturally respect in a republic. On the internet forums this matter has brought back race relations in Zimbabwe on centre stage.
Beatrice Mtetwa, the Lawyer representing Roy Bennett tried her utmost best to justify the use of the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s name as guarantor. “The bail act provides for anybody who is a private citizen to stand as surety in a bail application”. This could not be far from the truth. But, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is no longer a private citizen. His very name personifies his public office. It is no way by any stretch of imagination possible to consider Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai a private citizen. He is the prime minister of the republic of Zimbabwe.
After all why Bennett. Why Roy Bennett? What puts Roy Bennett in a special category over and above all the other activists who have been making freedom bids since the prime minster was inaugurated. Jestina Mukoko and the other activists have had their bail bids come before the courts numerous times over the last few weeks. We did not here the prime minister offering to be guarantors in their release. Beatrice did not flag the prime minister’s name in their cases. Failure to keep the checks and balances provided for in the constitution of Zimbabwe will lead to anarchy as Zimbabwe comes full circle and realises they are those who are more equal than others before the law. If we allow that clear line of distinction and responsibility to be blurred between the three arms of government, then the freedoms and the people's interest will be in jeopardy.
The writer Lloyd Msipa writes from London, UK. He can be contacted at lmsipalaw@googlemail.com
Bail applications are made every day in Zimbabwean Courts. This particular bail application was unique in the sense that the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai offered himself as a guarantor of Roy Bennett’s freedom bid. This was unprecedented as the judge rightfully pointed out. The attempt by the Prime Minister to interfere in this way with the judiciary attracted the wrath of Judge Tediuos Karwi who did not mince his words. In his judgement he aptly criticised the MDC leader and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai for backing the bail application and promising Mr Bennett would not leave the country.The move was "unprecedented", he said. "We don't want politicians to interfere with the work of the judiciary. I hope that they will take heed of that, because we don't want a clash of the executive and the judiciary."
Rightly so too. In any other democracy what the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai did would amount to a serious Constitutional crisis and heads would roll. There is no justification for the executive to interfere with the judicial processes at all. This behaviour by the prime minister is a clear breach of the principle of the separation of powers. Not so many days ago the president Robert Mugabe himself was confronted by reporters over the Roy Bennett matter, but was quick distance himself as he is the persona of the executive, whether in his personal capacity or other “The Roy Bennett is a matter for the courts” he said.
French philosopher Charles Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu when drafting the Constitution, most notably in connection with the separation of powers emphasised the placing of powers into different hands of government. Constitutions across the globe are one way or another modelled on this principle of the separation of powers.
The separation of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature is the best way to secure liberty and prevent a government from becoming corrupted. The principle of putting different powers of government among different actors serves as a check and balance mechanism which would ultimately check one another. For example, Montesquieu warned that “Were the executive power not to have a right of restraining the encroachments of the legislative body, the latter would become despotic; for as it might arrogate to itself what authority it pleased, it would soon destroy all the other powers.”
The founding fathers of the republic of Zimbabwe, Edison Zvobvo and others responsible for the drafting of the constitution of Zimbabwe in 1979-1980 took heed of Montesqueu’s warning by establishing an independent executive which after amendment no 19 consists of the president, two vice presidents. The prime minister and two deputy prime ministers, the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary. This system coupled with checks and balances protects the separation of powers and the freedoms of the people of the republic of Zimbabwe.
The move to guarantor Roy Bennett’s bail application by the prime minister speaks volumes. Others have been quick to dismiss this behaviour as something done by somebody still wet behind the ears when it comes to issues of governance. It seems, however he is prepared to breach the very same rules that he seeks to protect in other platforms, that of the rule of law.’ The distinctly kind of arbitrary, tyrannical rule against which the governed have to be protected. If we seek to build a new Zimbabwean legal system that we can all have confidence in what better time to start than now.
There are those who will seek political expediency over the Roy Bennett matter. Some hold the failure or success of the all inclusive government on the basis of whether Roy Bennett comes out of jail or not. In my opinion, if the GNU fails to survive the Roy Bennett saga, it then follows that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Zimbabwe and indeed its citizen’s future are much bigger than Roy Bennett. Roy Bennett is only but one person in the matrix, of rebuilding Zimbabwe, to borrow the new finance Minister’s favourite wording. Roy Bennett has been duly charged for crimes against the republic and hence we should let the operation of the law take its course. It seems, however that the Roy Bennett issue has over shadowed whatever principles that we would naturally respect in a republic. On the internet forums this matter has brought back race relations in Zimbabwe on centre stage.
Beatrice Mtetwa, the Lawyer representing Roy Bennett tried her utmost best to justify the use of the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s name as guarantor. “The bail act provides for anybody who is a private citizen to stand as surety in a bail application”. This could not be far from the truth. But, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is no longer a private citizen. His very name personifies his public office. It is no way by any stretch of imagination possible to consider Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai a private citizen. He is the prime minister of the republic of Zimbabwe.
After all why Bennett. Why Roy Bennett? What puts Roy Bennett in a special category over and above all the other activists who have been making freedom bids since the prime minster was inaugurated. Jestina Mukoko and the other activists have had their bail bids come before the courts numerous times over the last few weeks. We did not here the prime minister offering to be guarantors in their release. Beatrice did not flag the prime minister’s name in their cases. Failure to keep the checks and balances provided for in the constitution of Zimbabwe will lead to anarchy as Zimbabwe comes full circle and realises they are those who are more equal than others before the law. If we allow that clear line of distinction and responsibility to be blurred between the three arms of government, then the freedoms and the people's interest will be in jeopardy.
The writer Lloyd Msipa writes from London, UK. He can be contacted at lmsipalaw@googlemail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment