Home | Column | Prof Jonathan Moyo: Of rocket scientists and party affiliations - By Geoffrey Nyarota

Font size:

22 January, 2009 01:33:00 By Geoffrey Nyarota

Jonathan Moyo

-Advertisement-

OPINION - UNDER normal circumstances I am most reluctant to engage in battle those who portray themselves in public as intellectual giants on matters pertaining to their interpretation of our much abused and amended Constitution.

But when I perceive obvious chinks in the armour the temptation to try to disarm them becomes irresistible. Prof Jonathan Moyo’s convoluted dissertation on the recent utterances of Attorney General Johannes Tomana and Judge President Rita Makarau, as published in the latest issue of The Sunday Mail, proved too alluring.

In doing so I will try my best to construct sentences of no more than 30 words each.

Moyo declares in his signature insulting language, "There is no Zimbabwean today - excluding those who are brain dead - who does not support or belong to either Zanu-PF or the MDC. ….neutrals have become endangered species and the same goes for independents.

"Even more compelling is that it is not a crime to be a member of Zanu-PF or to support it."

It is patently false to suggest that there is no Zimbabwean who does not support Zanu-PF or the MDCs. There are hundreds of thousands who are not supporters of those three parties. For instance, Dr Simba Makoni then of the Mavambo Project received more than 200 000 votes in March. Moyo is either ignorant, which is worse or lying, which is worse.

Moyo himself represents neither Zanu-PF or the MDC in Zimbabwe’s House of Assembly. In fact, he enjoys the unique distinction of being the Parliament of Zimbabwe’s only independent legislator. Now he declares with remarkable disparagement that only the brain-dead are not members of either of the two parties. He says independent politicians are, in fact, an endangered species.

This statement raises an obvious question: "So to which party is Moyo now aligned?"

It surely cannot be the MDC, notwithstanding the fact that it is only through that party’s benevolence and graciousness that he made it to Parliament. The MDC was the target of this vitriol in the Sunday Mail.
But then, neither can he be aligned to Zanu-PF. Here is what the Moyo said about the leader of that party in an article penned for publication back in November 18, 2004.

Waxing lyrical in his usually flowery language Moyo postulated: "One does not need to be a malcontent to see that, after 25 years of controversial rule and with the economy melting down as a direct result of that rule, Mugabe’s continued stay in office has become such an excessive burden to the welfare of the state and such a fatal danger to the public interest of Zimbabweans at home and in the diaspora that each day that goes by with him in office leaves the nation’s survival at great risk while seriously compromising national sovereignty."

Notwithstanding the prodigious length this statement, at 95 words, Moyo hit the proverbial nail right on the head. But of course, those who accuse Moyo of being at best a chameleon and at worst a political prostitute don’t say so out of any malice. They merely capture the worst flaw of his character – hypocrisy - especially when he deals, in his own contradictory fashion, with matters relating to the national interest of Zimbabwe.

"Mugabe now lacks the vision, stature and energy to effectively run the country, let alone his party," Moyo proceeded. "He is without compassion, maybe because he is now too old, too tired and not in the best of health. His failure to visit stranded families left homeless and suffering from the irrational acts of his own government speaks volumes of his cold and cruel leadership style.

"Of course, Mugabe is still respected as an old man and he still makes very interesting bombastic speeches that are applauded for their entertainment value and which are full of sound and fury but signifying (sic) precious little at the level of policy and action."

Reverting to his favourite theme of national interest Moyo closed his incisive article by writing: "Given the foregoing, President Mugabe has no reason whatsoever to continue in office as that is no longer in his personal interest and is most certainly not in the national interest."

That was back in 2004.

Today, Moyo’s remarks must be viewed in the context of the vicissitudes of post March 29 personal political expediency. Moyo has not denied allegations that he smelt personal benefit from the demise of Mugabe and Zanu-PF in the harmonised elections. He came in from the cold, and rose to become one of the architects of Mugabe’s violence-ridden electoral recovery, culminating in his widely condemned so-called landslide victory on June 27.

But as he dexterously maneuvers his way to the coveted Ministry of Information Moyo will pray that Mugabe is not gifted with the memory of the elephant. He will also pray that his equally ambitious rival, George Charamba, Mugabe’s spokesman does not remind His Excellency.

In his article Moyo felt compelled to take up the cudgels in support of his friend and former lawyer, Johannes Tomana, the recently appointed Attorney General.

Recently Tomana publicly and proudly declared himself to be a staunch Zanu-PF supporter, which statement did not go down very well with Zimbabweans outside Zanu-PF circles and even within. The Zanu-PF old guard does not take kindly to upstarts who try to become more Zanu-PF than themselves.

"Even more compelling is that (sic) it is not a crime to be a member of Zanu PF or to support it." Moyo argues in his article.
"Quite the contrary, Zimbabwe’s Constitution guarantees and protects freedom of association for all Zimbabweans regardless of their professions or status.

"The idea that an Attorney General in a constitutional democracy cannot or should not be a member or supporter of a political party is preposterous and primitive, which is why it has no precedence in the civilised world."

Professor Moyo is right, but as is his fashion, he speaks with a forked tongue. The following is what Section 21 (Sub-section 1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe states without ambiguity:

"Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties or trade unions or other associations for the protection of his interests."

Moyo is being extremely deceitful. He is aware that during the campaign for the presidential election, which he helped Mugabe to win "by a landslide" on June 27, 2008, more than 200 MDC supporters lost their lives in the most horrific circumstances imaginable.

Thousands more were either maimed or were displaced from their homes. Somebody with a wicked sense of humour called the whole murderous exercise Operation Mavhotera Papi (Operation Which Candidate Did You Vote For). Offending fingers were summarily chopped off on mere suspicion.

Moyo never uttered a single word in protest or in defence of the right of these innocent people to freedom of association. The professor seems to believe in selective freedom of association.

To bolster his point Moyo cites the case of the new United States Attorney General in the Barack Obama’s administration. He says of Eric Holder that he is a well-known and long-standing Democrat and that there has been no attempt by the Republicans or anyone else to disqualify Holder on grounds of his political affiliation.

The legitimacy of Barrack Obama has never been in dispute or challenged by the Republicans. Outgoing President George Bush sat close to Obama at the inauguration on Tuesday. In fact, Obama’s rival in the presidential election, John McCain, was quick to concede victory and to publicly congratulate Obama. On the eve of Obama’s inauguration a dinner was hosted in honour of McCain.

No single human skull was broken in order for Obama to be declared President of the United States.

Yet Moyo has the temerity to draw comparisons between the US administration and the Mugabe dictatorship.

The US presidential election was held on November 4, seven months after Zimbabweans initially went to the polls to choose a new President. To date, 10 months after Zimbabwe’s presidential election, and seven months after Mugabe’s alleged landside victory he still has not formed a government.

On Tuesday, January 20, Mugabe must have hung his head in shame and humiliation as he witnessed on CNN or SABC in the secrecy of State House the ultimate display of democracy at work. A son of Africa became the president of the mightiest nation on earth in the smoothest transition imaginable. The United States stood proud. Africa was ecstatic. The whole world was enthralled.

In the Zimbabwean context the departure of George Bush deprives Mugabe of a favourite scapegoat. I can’t see him saying, "Obama and Brown.…" without sounding totally ridiculous.

The man that Moyo defends so vehemently, Tomana, was appointed in the context of an illegitimate regime.
Moyo says: "For the avoidance of doubt, in Tomana’s case the matter would have been different if there were serious questions about his qualification as a lawyer."

I have had a serious question about Tomana’s competency and I brought my reservations about his proficiency to him back in 2002.

He had just dispatched, as was his regular practice then, a letter on behalf of some government minister of other. It was probably Moyo – I don’t remember. Tomana demanded that The Daily News, of which I was editor, withdraw an article that had been published about the minister or he would sue for defamation.

Having satisfied myself that there was nothing particularly defamatory about the article, and dying of curiosity to meet the source of a constant stream of annoying threats, I called and made an appointment to see the lawyer.

He was then a senior partner in the law firm of Tomana and Mandaza. Diana Mandaza was the wife of Dr Ibbo Mandaza, then publisher of The Daily Mirror. She had made a name in her own right as the assiduous secretary of the Sandura Commission. I had never heard of Tomana until he started to send threatening letter to me.

On arrival in his office I was forthright with Tomana, pointing out in no uncertain terms that there was nothing in any way defamatory about the article he was citing or about other articles before it. I suggested he should learn to tell his clients when there were no legal grounds to sustain their grief over a newspaper article.

He was equally forthright.

"You are right," he said, "but one has to earn a living."

He was probably right. He and his former client and friend are still trying their best to earn a comfortable living.
Enjoying his power of the pen, Moyo then touched on the controversial issue of Judge President Rita Makarau’s attack on lawyers. I was shocked by the virulence of the Honourable Member of Tsholotsho North’s attack on Beatrice Mtetwa, the president of the Zimbabwe Law Society.

"Although Justice Makarau did not mention any names," he sallied forth, "one of the lawyers who recently made a clearly unwarranted and unfair attack on the judiciary is the reckless president of the Law Society, Beatrice Mtetwa.

"Taken against the background of the prevailing situation in the country, Mtetwa’s scandalous statement was clearly calculated to harm not only the integrity of the judiciary but also Zimbabwe’s national interest itself, which is probably something easy for a Swazi national to do."

Moyo can call Mtetwa reckless, if he so wishes or her statements scandalous.

But to invoke her country of origin in the circumstances is totally unacceptable for a man who seeks high office again in our country, especially when his own former spouse was from the same Mountain Kingdom. In any case, in what way is it easy for the citizens of the friendly Kingdom of Swaziland to harm the national interest of Zimbabwe?

This matter should be raised in Parliament.

If it was not for the vexatious issue of the missing funds at the Ford Foundation in Nairobi, Moyo would most probably be still in Kenya today. I doubt that Kenyans ever reminded him of his country of origin during his sojourn in their country. He is a Pan-Africanist, anyway.

If Moyo had remained in Nairobi or at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, where he allegedly fled to before he allegedly fled from there back to Harare, chances are that President Robert Mugabe would have long been confined to the annals of Zimbabwe’s turbulent early history by now.

Sorry for the 49 words. SOURCE: The Zimbabwe Times

CLICK HERE AND JOIN THE BANTA ON THE FORUM WITH OTHERS