brian mari

I see a lot of talk about @CCCZimbabwe being fomented the regime and I see a lot of energy from innocent citizens towards the decoys. I have written to 3 institutions with functions to correct people's complaints, there is no talk about it. You then ask, who is behind the spread of abuse of power, the people or regime? After having said this, the blame is on @nelsonchamisa Tell me how, but I will only show you the what. The regime knows it and is busy finding a way out. You the the people of Zimbabwe as you braai or drink or what ever event you will have at Christmas remember- 1) It is you who made the constitution and how you want to be governed and not me or @nelsonchamisa 2) You have separate and distinct authorities that are driven from you and vested in others and without you there is no authority no matter what. 3) While the President is vested with Executive authority in terms of section 88 and said to be head of state with functions in section 110, it is not correct that president is the pressure point to break the regime 4) While majority of politicians hope to be in parliament and people are concerned that parliament may change constitution. The point is, change of constitution which is not constitutional is invalid and with a competent court, it must never be a problem. In that case legislative authority we gave in s117 can always be vindicated in court. 5) This then must tell us all to, leave the internal fight of @CCCZimbabwe and look at s162. 6) It is you who can give judicial authority to anyone and nothing can take this away from you. 7) Most people, including lawyers do not know that from 22 May 2020 Zimbabwe has no Chief Justice or judge of constitutional court. 8) The Supreme Court judgement against @nelsonchamisa was deliberately delivered same day as judgement against Gwaunza on 31 March 2020, yet people were kept hooked on MDC internal fights. 9) The temporary constitutional court bench that was put by paragraph 18(2) of old constitution had its mandated terminated on 21 May 2020 but citizens were kept busy with recalls. 10) Since then, the regime use distraction and catalyst to distract your attention. 11) Forget about the rest and read paragraph 13 of Sixth Schedule and section 177 and finish it all. 12) If there is no Chief Justice or constitutional court judge there is no one to swear in a president. Even if Chamisa is to be declared winner he need a properly appointed Chief Justice to swear him. 13) It is easy to invalidate ED presidency using absence of Chief Justice and s166 constitution court and it solves all other problems. 14) Why not join me. As we celebrate Christmas think about your judicial authority, did you give it to the goons? If no then why do fold arms?

Zanu yeku SA yakabatwa kuti dzvii

My memory and my conscience tell me that people backed Chiwenga to remove Mugabe and not Mnangagwa. The one that betrayed people by going to rope in Mnangagwa is Chiwenga. I cannot be foolish for second time to trust any version of zanu. Zanu nenhoko dzayo dose ngazvirove pasi

Ndinzikwe ndichi komenda zvezanu. Ndinopenga here. Hakuna zanu iri nane. Chero zvikanzi heuno kuzanu apanduka, I do not trust zanu. My turn shall come. My turn is almost there

Ndange ndiri busy hangu. Ndanzwa kungoti nero nero, ini haaa. Ndinero upi uyu. Hanzi weak nero. Nxaaa . Wangu Nero ariko. Handina misodzi inoshanda ruviri. Ndakachema kare. Chemaio

Hi @AdvDali_Mpofu I admire you and feel you put a very good case. I just have a problem with how the whole lot of South African legal fraternity approach cases. Advocate after advocate, you all compete in citing decided cases. To some extend the cited cases are your previous arguments. With due respect @AdvDali_Mpofu that is a weakness than a strength. It is as simple as going to Bill of Rights. A bill of rights is a mathematical set and you cannot cheat Maths. The right to hold office is a POLITICAL RIGHT and not a CIVIL RIGHT period. You hold political office within political rights and the sole reasons why constitutional courts are established is to hear and determine political disputes. All other issues that may be brought before constitutional courts are secondary. You cannot bring civil rights arguments to decide political right to hold office. Once you fail to correctly identify the right to hold office as political right and not civil rights, you will spend 3 days talking of decided cases that do not address issue but prop Judges like Justice Sher to say their political opinions in judicial robs

I like how @nelsonchamisa is dealing with rascals. When they prepare for violence does not engage. When they butcher the constitution to force him to engage he does not engage. In the first place, is it not correct that those in power must do things correct way?

Hi @JamesonTimba how are you? 1. Have read your article and politically you sound well. 2. However, there is a thing I do not like about your campaigns and without offending you I will try to illustrate. 3. Naturally we have "collective rights" and "individual rights". While you seem to oppose ZANU and CAB3 but your failure to differentiate "collective rights" from "individual rights" leave us on the same position as we are under ZANU PF. 4. The right of a person to free, fair and regular regular election is not a collective right. We do not need referendum result or 2/3rds majority vote of parliament to decide whether to change the regularity of elections or not. 5. The right of a citizen to every elective public office is not a collective right but individual right. 6. All individual rights are not subject to political view or opinion of another. 7. All individual rights are inseparable from the owner. 8. Now Mr @JamesonTimba the right of citizen to "regular"/ "periodic" election is protected in article 21 of Universal Declaration of Human Right, article 25 of International Covenant for civil and political rights, section 67(1)(a) of constitution of Zimbabwe. 9. I do not seek anyone's political view or collective action to have the right to regular election protected. 10. As long as you miss this distinction you cannot device a correct solution. 11. An individual citizen who does not wish to stand for election by exercising a separate right to stand for election, or wish to vote, does not lose his or her right in s67(1)(a) because a referendum was held over section 95 or section 143. 12. In fact all individual rights fall under Principle of "Responsibility to Protect". 13.Our section 44 puts an obligation on the state, that is to say , (president, parliament, judiciary and any other state entity), every individual and any juristic entity, to respect, protect, promote and fulfill right to regular election. 14. Because it was known that the state may as well violet the right in section 67(1)(a), right to regular election, at least 3 provisions bind the State to "regular" election. Section 45(1) bind state to Chapter 4, section 3(2)(b) binds state to regular election, s155(2) binds state to principle of regular election in s155(1). 15. Now you are misdirecting yourself or misleading the nation to think that CAB3 relates to collective rights of people of Zimbabwe. No. Bringing political arguments on individual right, no matter the sweetness of it, is bringing us to same point we were before. 16. Parliament and President are bound by s3(2)(b)(ii) and s45(1) to hold elections on their scheduled dates. All the arguments are irrelevant and people must be fooled to think that they need to fight for their given right in the street or demonstration. 17. If you change your campus you get direction

CAB3 is just like signing a cheque where there is no cent in your account and no overdraft facility. Vaka jaira kunyora msbonf note muchitenda. This time #chapwati

Akango Saina atosaina Kuti asaina zvinosainirwa munhu arikusaina. Saka takangomirira Kuti asaine zvino sainwa Kuti nesuvo tisaine Kuti tasaina. Heee heee done dhiri done dhiri. Iweweee. Dhiri unoriziva ukariona kumeso kwaro iweee?

You do not see people asking these two why they are not taking their s167(2)(d) that was premature to their fake constitutional court now that parliament has passed the Bill. Ipapo ndopatanga uchengeri. Isu hatiitiswe. Takamirira vazvisainire. @nelsonchamisa hoyeee. #chapwati . Saina zvee tione

Hi @ChikomoPrazen I think we have two kind of people here. The pure ZANU whom everyone with level head must always believe they are stupid and then some "opposition" to ZANU who do not know they are "ZANU" by being stupid. Let me do a thread on the second class. Those calling for referendum. 1. I have been listening to @DougColtart for some time and try to understand his views as representative of those calling for referendum. 2. I also know that @DougColtart is a lawyer just as @ProfMadhuku and of late it was all along my understanding that @DougColtart and @ProfMadhuku understand what "constitutional Bill" is. 3. When I listened to audios of @DougColtart today I then understood the stupidity of those calling for referendum and this made me panic big time. 4. It is lawyers that go to courts to represent people before courts and misrepresent everything and as for @ProfMadhuku people regard him as constitutional expert and lecturer of law who is producing people to misrepresenting things here. 5. @ChikomoPrazen from onset there is difference between "the constitution" and "the Act of Parliament" that amends, repeal or enact a constitution. These are always two distinct documents under a direct participation of constitutional making process. 6. It is also critical for you also to get this point here two. To make it easier and break the issue easy, I put a screen shot of the Gazette that published the initial 2013 constitutional Bill published in a Gazette of 29 March 2013 titled Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Bill 2013 clearly stated "for General information". Please refer. 7. It is this Bill that went to National Assembly and Senate to get 2/3 majority and not the constitution. By 29 March 2013 the draft constitution was already there and the people of Zimbabwe had already voted yes for the draft constitution on referendum of 16 and 17 March 2013. 8. At no time did the draft constitution was referred to as "Constitution of Zimbabwe amendment (No.20) of 2013" but you rather say , 9. After Parliament passed "Constitution of Zimbabwe amendment (No.20) Bill of 2013 into law by a notice in the Gazette of 22 May 2013, which I also put here, showing that, after referendum of 17 March 2013, where People of Zimbabwe agreed on what they want to stand as their constitution and sent it to legislature to repeal the former constitution and put new constitution, the legislature did not draft the constitution, they drafted an Act of Parliament that would repeal the former constitution and the draft is what was called "Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Bill of 2013 and since this was a draft of Act of Parliament, it was put to public. 10. This is the critical point that divide the real ZANU who do not know the distinction between constitution and Act of Parliament and those who are ZANU by being stupid by for ever arguing s328(7). 11. What went for National Assembly and Senate to get 2/3 Majority is not the constitution, it is the "Bill that sought to repeal what was the then constitution and enact a new one. 12. Bearing in mind that as of 14 May 2013 when constitution of Zimbabwe amendment (No. 20) bill of 2013 was being debated, the Senate and National Assembly were under former constitution and the oath of office under former constitution to "uphold the constitution" was binding on them. 13. In that regard, the bringing in of a bill that sick to repeal that which the then Senate and National Assembly were elected to uphold, was asking them to debate on whether to stand with their mandate of upholding the "existing constitution" or "repeal" the "existing constitution". 14. If they pass the Bill then the "existing constitution" is repealed and " the new constitution" is enacted. At no time the 2/3 majority vote on a constitutional Bill is about the contents of the actual constitution draft. Never. 2/3 Majority in parliament happened after the draft constitution was already agreed by all and the number of people who voted at a secrete ballot is what Senate or National Assembly would refer as reason to either repeal or not repeal not the contents of the draft. Contents of draft is for People of Zimbabwe. 15. After the "constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) became an Act of parliament, the Gazette of 22 May is clear firstly on the law that was used to enact Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013. Secondly the heading "publication of Law" tells us the law that was being published by the Gazette. What was published as law is "Constitution Of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013, however in the law referred, it also "declared" a new constitution. And the "declared" constitution, pronounced itself as "Supreme" law. 16. From " constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013, which I put a screen short of here, it can be seen that it has only 3 (three) sections. Section 1 gives title of Act, section 2 gives interpretation of Act and section 3 repeals the former constitution and 17. Section 2 of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013, define "NEW CONSTITUTION" as a SCHEDULE to the Act showing that, from onset, that which is in the "Schedule to the Act" was not part of the work of Legislature, but something separate that was brought to legislature to enact. 18. Section 3(1) is couched in a manner that must never be missed or read lightly in this debate. It reads in part " subject to subsection (2)". This is a statement made by a legislature who was entrusted with duty of upholding an "existing constitution". However the conditions given in subsection two of their section 3 of the Act, the legislature were forced to "repeal" the "existing constitution and substitute with "new constitution". 19. The subsection (2) also start by clearing any doubt of their integrity to uphold "the existing constitution"; which is a gesture of protecting self from blame of not upholding "existing constitution" and it points to Sixth Schedule which is what the people directly agreed to at a referendum held on 17 March 2013. 20. In that regard, the words "repealing" of constitution or "amending" of constitution have never meant that legislature is the one that go and draft amendment of provisions of what section 2 of "Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013" defined as Schedule 21. The constitution of Zimbabwe which is a Schedule of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20), has always been a separate law, separate document as it is referred to by the Act as "Schedule" and has separate authors as can be seen from the Act which says "Enacted by President and Parliament" and the Schedule to the same Act, which is define by section 2 of the Act as " New constitution" has a Preamble which starts as follows "We the people of Zimbabwe". 22. One cannot then bring a Bill that list provisions of " schedule to Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013 and lable the bill " Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.3) Bill 2026 and try to full the whole nation, except me and @nelsonchamisa and tell people that "Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act of 2013 has a s92 or 95 or any of the listed sections and therefore the Senate and National Assembly is seating to pass the Bill by 2/3 Majority. 23. Futseki @MoJLPA and @ZANUPF_Official @zanupf_patriots . Constitution of Zimbabwe amendment (No.20) has only 3 sections, it has no s95, or 143 or any of what the bill you present to public. The Constitution of Zimbabwe in terms of s2 of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act of 2013 is a Schedule to the same Act. The authors of the Schedule are the ones that can bring drafts, petitions or referendums to the legislature in terms of s149(1), asking the legislature to "amend" amend their own document. 24. That is why, s117(1) states that the authority to legislate is derived from people of Zimbabwe. You cannot wake up with pen and paper and draft divorce papers of other people's marriage and take the papers to court and give all sorts of arguments and stupid judges give you divorce certificate then it just become valid. 25. Section 328(2) of Schedule to Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013 clearly requires that the Act of Parliament that amend the constitution must do so in EXPRESS terms. This does not mean going to s95 of the Schedule to Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act and play trickery then boom you present this to public and induce fear to them. 26. The "express terms" referred to in s328(2) is like what section 3 of Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013 gives. The factors that prompted Parliament to agree with who ever that brought the idea to amend and why Parliament cannot uphold the existing constitution such that the they have given in. 27. It's either President and Parliament adds sections in Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act, outlining that which brought the amendments to Schedule of same Act or they can delete or vary what is currently in the 3 sections of Act. 28. It is possible that a citizen or group of citizens with vested rights that are infringed by any provision of constitution and they bring a draft and petition parliament in terms of s149(1). Parliament has "power" not "authority" to legislate that draft and state in the bill that goes to public in terms of s328(4), that there is so and so who petitioned Parliament to amend the constitution in terms of draft annexed as Schedule B and Parliament is bound by Xy law that give this person right to ABC which is infringed by S1., 2, 3. Of constitution. By powers vested to legislature the ABC section is amended as per schedule) annexure B. 29. That is what goes to parliament for 2/3 majority vote. To say "yes" the draft must be accepted or No it must be rejected. Not the contents of draft. 30. In that regard, s328(6); (7)&(8) must be viewed in the real context that, the draft of constitution amendments, always come from either citizen or Permanent Resident and never ever from Cabinet or Parliament and depending on the matter, some matters are based on international obligations of state or court orders such that a single citizen with a vested right can petition parliament on a provision that infringes his right. That does not require referendum because the infringement is on an individual's right and no majority vote is required on individual right and this citizen can go to parliament, his draft is annexed to a bill and the public is informed. No one contests or object during public hearing. Bill is sent to Parliament and it seats and deliberate on the draft and they say yes the amendment must pass. 31. Parliament does not create a draft. It considers what is there. Only if the matter involved is includes chapter 4, 16 or term provision or s328 itself is when parliament required to SUBMIT the the MATTER for referendum. 32. This is where the nonsense of "referendum" mixing things up. Section 328(6) clearly uses verb "submit" to National Referendum. This is a question of jurisdiction on specified matters and not a creation of MATTERS for referendum. 33. Just as constitutional court has jurisdiction on constitutional matters such that even if High Court has given a judgement on a matter that was brought before and argued just like any other matter, the High Court must still submit its decision to Constitutional court. That does not mean a matter that is not listed for direct access to constitutional court cannot be brought to constitutional direct. 34. Constitution is clear in s110(2)(f) that it is the responsibility of President to CALL REFERENDUMS FOR ANY MATTER IN TERMS OF LAW. It is not responsibility of Parliament to SUBMIT all matters for calling of referendum or approve or deny the CALLING for referendum of every MATTER that goes for referendum. 35. The person responsible for calling of Referendum is one, and this function is exercised direct not through cabinet or advise of anyone. 36. Sections 328(6);(7)&(8) direct Parliament on specified matters to submit them for referendum. 37. If President is given a bill to sign, he still has the duty to uphold constitution and ask, where is the "schedule" to the Constitutional Bill? If no schedule then end of story. 38. If He signs, still he has not amended the constitution, may be we can say he has amended the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act of 2013 which is irrelevant and nonsense. 39. All what this had done is to give us opportunity yekusvinudza mapenzi and correct the nonsense we have. Right from constitutional court bench to Members of Parliamen

Ungati zvaiwana ngwarati here kana Kuti ngwarati yazviwanira. Bill number 3 iri kutambira kwakaoarirwa

Kana usatiwanzwa mutsindo weChapwati Isa nzeve Pasi uterere. There was a shorter route from Egypt to Canaan but Lord took them through desert for a reason. The red sea and river Jordan were always there but Lord took them through were no bridge nor boat can help. The whole nation did enter Canaan after Joshua and Caleb were in the land before. The reason why it took long is doubt

Apa @hwendec hachisi mutengesi hacho chinenge chidziisa mapapu. Thank you @hwendec . We have not lost. Actual we won. Relax and cool down

Cannot imagine @BvondoChidziva of all the people. Zvakangooma hazvo

The script of ZANU is predictable and I always caught pace with. CAB3 was never meant to amend constitution. It was meant to legitimize an illegitimate constitutional court bench. I am the person with valid papers challenging it constitutionality and I stand. When the regime saw my petition of yesterday, the have decided to announce the verdict before Hon Zvaipa did. The aim is to change the dispute arena. It will always stand true that a verdict by an illegitimate bench cannot give a valid judgement even if it is in your favour