Full report on why 118 MDC MPs should pay $800 000, each, for boycotting Mnangagwa

4.0 Committee Proceedings

4.1 The Committee’s inaugural meeting took place on the 20th of December, 2019. In that meeting, the Committee familiarised itself with its Terms of Reference and matters pertinent to its work. In subsequent meetings, the Committee agreed on the procedure to be followed and the need to ensure that the principle of confidentiality is strictly adhered to.

The Committee identified Honourable Members of Parliament from both the National Assembly and the Senate who were implicated. A total of one hundred and eleven (111) Members were identified, eighty-seven (87) Honourable Members of the National Assembly and twenty-four (24) Honourable Members of the Senate.

Through the administrative channels of Parliament, the Committee wrote letters to the implicated Honourable Members—

(a)   Advising them of the investigation and requesting them to submit affidavits in the first instance; and

(b) Inviting them to meet the Committee for oral evidence in the second instance.

Members were required to submit any other supporting evidence in their defence in conformity with Section 70 (c) of the Constitution which established the right to be heard.  The following documents were submitted—

(a) a joint affidavit for Hon Senators;  and

(b) minutes of the MDC-Alliance National Standing Committee meeting of 26 October, 2019.

4.2 Legal Counsel

Guided by Section 70 (d) of the Constitution which gives accused persons the right “to choose a legal practitioner,..” the Committee advised the respondents of this right in letters inviting them to appear before the Committee. This resulted in Mr Muchadehama of Mbidzo and Muchadehama Legal Practitioners presenting himself to the Committee as legal counsel for the respondents; as did Hon Sen. Douglas Togarasei Mwonzora. The Committee advised Hon. Mwonzora that in terms of Statutory Instrument 37 of 2018 he could not appear before the Committee as legal counsel, due to the fact that he was conflicted. For the avoidance of doubt, Hon. Mwonzora was a respondent. After protracted arguments Hon Mwonzora conceded.

Mr. Muchadehama advised the Committee that a court application challenging the establishment of the Committee vis–a-viz the rulings previously given by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Hon. Adv. J. F. N. Mudenda (“the Speaker”) had been lodged. Mr. Muchadehama informed the Committee that the matter was sub-judice and lis pendens before the High Court.  In Parliamentary convention as applied in Zimbabwe, the sub-judice rule prohibits Parliament from considering matters that are before the Courts.

4.3  Challenges faced by the Committee

The Committee faced the following challenges—

1. In sending out invitations the Committee discovered that addresses submitted to Parliament by some Hon. Members were incorrect. This led to subsequent delays in delivery.
2. Delays arising from Court Applications stalled the investigation.
3. Numerous unforeseen circumstances including—

(a) the COVID-19 Pandemic; and

(b) the unavailability of Witnesses;  the Committee did not meet its reporting deadline and accordingly sought extensions.

Continued next page

(263 VIEWS)