MY PETITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE

This day I regret that I am a poor man. If I had money like Mutumwa Mawere, I would have made the following submission to the constitutional court of Zimbabwe.


MY PETITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE'S APPLICATION TO HAVE THE ELECTION DEADLINE POSTPONED.

 1.
 a) My name is Jupiter Charles Punungwe
 b) I am Zimbabwean citizen identification number 63-0000000-X-18
 c) I am currently working outside the country but I reside at 1278 Tynwald South, Harare. I also alternatively reside at Farm no 1025, Hampshire, Chikomba District
 d) I am not a member of any political party. I make this submission as a private citizen interested in making sure that the tenets of democracy are upheld in Zimbabwe.
 e) I am proud to be Zimbabwean, I am proud to have been Zimbabwean every second of my life. I will proudly remain a Zimbabwean to the day I die.

 2.
 a) You worships, you are the supreme legal authority in Zimbabwe.
 b) You have in your hands the sovereign authority of the people of Zimbabwe which you exercise without fear, favour or interference from any parties.
 c) On Zimbabwean soil, state parties have to obey and respect your judgments, even though such states may deem themselves more powerful than Zimbabwe.
 d) I have absolute faith that your decisions are always in the best interests of Zimbabwe.
 e) I have absolute faith in your impartiality in upholding the laws of Zimbabwe.
 f) Furthermore I submit it to you that the constitution that gives you your authority, is the very same that defines the democratic nature of Zimbabwe.

 3.
 a) I submit it to you that the cornerstone of democracy is that elections must be held on time without fail.
 b) I implore you not stop the democratic clock, simply because a group of individuals are not confident of winning.
 c) I implore you not to stop the democratic clock until some individuals are convinced that the deck is stacked sufficiently in their favour.
 d) I implore you not to stop the democratic clock for reason of appeasing external parties some of who have vested interests and interfering in Zimbabwe's governance.

 4.
 a) Your worships, I also beg you be cognisant of the fact that, the current coalition government was supposed to have concluded its business by the 14th of September 2010.
 b) If you wish to consider that the GNU was sworn in on 13 February 2009, then at the very latest the GNU should have concluded it's reform business by 12 February 2011.
 c) Your worships, it is therefore my considered submission to you that if there were any urgent and critical reforms that warrant the halting of our democratic clock, the respective parties in the GNU have had more than enough time to push for those that they deemed critical.
 d) It is also my considered submission to you that reforms have indeed taken place.
 e)  I recognise that fact that yourselves as the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, are constituted by a constitution that was adopted after a referendum. The referendum extensively reformed Zimbabwe's electoral systems.
 f) I submit to you the conduct of that referendum as evidence that indeed reforms have taken place.

 5.
 a) Your worships, any system, including a system of laws is subject to constant improvement.
 b) Our democratic right as the people of Zimbabwe to periodically choose our representatives, should not be subordinate to these incremental reforms.
 c) Your worships I submit to you Zimbabwe has clearly defined ways in which various servants of the state including security officials and judges are appointed. People with the relevant authority to make the appointments do so when they are in office not before.
 d) Your worships may I bring it to your attention that many other democratic systems including the United States work the very same way Zimbabwe is doing it. When a democratic president is in office, they tend to appoint liberal judges. When a republican is in office, they tend to appoint conservative officials including judges.
 e) Your worships, it is therefore only fair to expect that anyone who is not happy with past appointments in whatever sector of Zimbabwe's government and judiciary, should win office first and make their own changes going forward.

 6.
 a) Your worships, may I also establish the fact that not all Zimbabweans are represented by the political parties wishing to delay the elections.
 b) However elections are the vehicle which afford Zimbabweans to determine their political representation for the next democratic cycle.
 c) That the current cycle is about to expire means that none of the political parties can claim to have a solid mandate, but that they must all go back to the electorate to renew, extend or maybe loose the mandate as the electorate may desire.
 d) Your worships I beg you to be cognisant of the fact elections give every Zimbabwean the right to express themselves if they so wish, irrespective of political affiliation or lack thereof.
 e) By insisting that elections take place on time, you will be upholding the right of every Zimbabwean as defined by the constitution of Zimbabwe, not just some of particular political affiliations.
 f) By upholding the democratic rights of all Zimbabweans, you will not be in any way interfering with the rights of some who express the wish to delay elections.
 g) Your worships, submit it to you that political disagreement among some Zimbabweans, is not a sufficiently strong reason to delay the democratic process.

 7.
 a) Your worships as you may be aware one of the demanded reforms is media reforms.
 b) Morgan Tsvangirai leading this media 'reform' drive was recently quoted as threatening media that is not sympathetic to him and his party that 'muchadya izvozvo' a clear threat made in the Shona language.
 c) Making such threats against the media clearly suggests that calls for media reform are not sincere.
 d) Your worship there is a distinct possibility that these calls are merely meant to delay processes or simply be a spanner in the works.

 8.
 a) Your worships, I submit that there is no need to delay the democratic process
 b) I submit that there are no special circumstances to warrant a delay of the elections.
 c) External state parties including the African Union and SADC have made it clear that the decision amend your previous ruling is yours alone.
 d) Even if these external parties had attempted to instruct otherwise, they do not hold any authority over yourselves. You are the constitutional court of the sovereign nation of Zimbabwe.
 e) Your worships I submit that the paramount consideration is Zimbabwe's democratic needs. I submit that right now, the most important need is that of upholding the democratic precedent that has been religiously maintained for the past three decades.
 f) I submit that it will be extremely harmful to Zimbabwe's future if we allow the precedent that elections can be delayed for the sake of a few unhappy individuals. In future such minded people may seek to delay elections by several years negating the entire practice of democracy.
g) Your worships the purpose of elections is to determine Zimbabwe's political representation from this point forward. It would be unfair to allow those who may have enjoyed political representation in the past to tinker with future political representation outside the democratic electoral framework.
h) Your worships I submit it to you that elections must take place first, to determine the valid political mandates from this point forward, before we tinker with any other reforms.

Elections must be held on time in Zimbabwe

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is not a single day that Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe without an electoral mandate from the people of Zimbabwe.

All those howling in protest please cite the facts, not the conspiracy theories, to prove me wrong. Yes there have been numerous allegations, claims, theories and claimed conspiracies of how Zanu-PF rigs elections, but not a single one of these has ever been proved.

In fact I have no recollection of even one instance, when clear coherent facts were ever presented to make a convincing case. Whatever allegations are made, they fall apart the moment they are subjected to detailed examination.

So in reality most of the allegations are a little more than losers' sour grapes.

One allegation often cited is that Mugabe did not win 2008. This is often accompanied by the unfounded claim that Tsvangirai was the winner. On the contrary, there was no clear winner in March 2008, necessitating either a coalition or a rerun. Tsvangirai did not understand the position and thought he had won outright. He hadn't.

He later chickened out of the rerun, leaving Mugabe to claim the mandate unchallenged. Recognizing the deep divisions among the people, and the disputed conditions of the rerun, Mugabe still went into coalition with Tsvangirai.

So the truth is that Tsvangirai is the one who doesn't have an electoral mandate for anything but is occupying his position purely by negotiation. In fact he is named prime minister specifically as part of an agreement that was supposed to expire three years ago.

He is the one who, if anyone can claim so, was imposed on Zimbabweans by SADC which is one of the reasons he keeps running to them to try and prolong his stay in office and the consequent access to a luxurious lifestyle. That is also the reason he doesn't care for a proper electoral mandate because he does not have one, and does not have the confidence that he can obtain one.

He doesn't want the agreement that put him in power to expire until he has the best possible chance of winning. That is why he is basing the next election on demands for ever-shifting 'reforms'.

Elections must be held before his current mandate expires on July 31, as determined by the Constitutional court of Zimbabwe. If that date passes, believe me the backers of Mugabe's opponents will quickly turn around and say you do not have a mandate anymore so we are not going to recognize you.

He would be a fool to allow himself to be delayed beyond that date. Once that happens, his detractors will have him exactly where they want him - without a mandate. Psychological warfare tactics are being used to manipulate him into that position.

One the one hand we have clear and irrefutable constitutional provisions and requirements. On the other we have very vague 'reforms' that are being made to sound like an absolute necessity. Needless to say the vagueness of these reforms allows them to be panel-beaten and modified along the way to suit the agenda of the moment.

Moreover these reforms are not really meant to improve democracy in Zimbabwe but are being pushed to try and give a single particular party the best possible advantage. 'Reforms' are only deemed necessary only if they are believed to help the MDC-T, end of story.

I have got one question. Do 'reforms' supersede the Zimbabwe Constitution? Anyway, what are these reforms? Can anyone outline them in point form? If the point list made in 2009 and the one in place now were to be put side by side, will they be the same?

Mugabe's opponents are not sure that their proteges will get power through the vote. So to circumvent the people, delay elections beyond the current electoral mandate, then simply recognize anyone you want, because no one has a mandate anymore. Once they recognize whoever they want, simply give them money to prop them up. It happened in Libya.

The greatest strategic imperative in Zimbabwe right now is to preserve peace and stability. The preservation of stability will allow the people to gradually re-grow the economy. As long as the key resources are in their hands and control the people will reap maximum long term benefit, as opposed to the short term benefits of quickly handing over resources to others.

The greatest threat to stability is foreign sponsored destabilization as happened in Libya and is happening in Syria. Therefore a careful and clever foreign policy is necessary to starve off such nefarious sponsorship of destabilization.

When one looks at Libya and Syria, it is clear that the destabilization, euphemistically called 'international intervention', is not meant to help the countries but rather induce them to self-destruct. It is classical divide and rule.

In the case of Zimbabwe what counts in her favour is that you cannot militarily destabilize Zimbabwe without destroying the South African economy. Zimbabwe sits right on top of South Africa's transport routes to key markets and sources of raw materials in the north.

Any instability in Zimbabwe will rub off on South Africa itself with its potpourri of 11 major ethnicities some highly suspicious of each other. If things start going wrong, South Africans can easily start fighting along tribal and racial lines. There are indications that some, particularly hardcore Afrikaner racists, are chomping at the bit to set up separate states. Already they have enclaves, Orania and Kleinfontein.

Whether we like it or not, Zanu-PF have their hands on the most important levers of power. Prying off their fingers has to be carefully and intelligently managed, not just for Zimbabwe's sake but for the sake of the region.

Look at what is happening in Syria. What was claimed would be a quick deposition of Assad by Western favoured rebels is turning into a regional conflict, whose outcome nobody knows. However the destruction wrought upon Syrian infrastructure will take decades to overcome.

America's drone policy is racist

Suppose a CIA informant has this girl he is going out with. Then this guy from the next village also bonks the girl and the informant finds out. Of course he won't be happy.

Most human beings will seek ways to avenge such slights of their honour. These include

1. Shouting and screaming at the rival.
2. Looking for a suitable weapon to inflict bodily harm on the rival
3. Go tell big brother to deal with the rival.

In the past 'big brother' could only be some stocky guy, or a can of acid. Nowadays big brother can have drones. Mind you big brother doesn't even need to know the root motive of why he is being asked to use his drones. He can simply be told what is needed to get him to go along with the plan.

The aggrieved guy now has the option to tell that so and so from the next village is the worst of the bad Taliban - send him a Hellfire.

Will the CIA be any wiser to the real motive. Chances are that they won't even have a clue. Firstly the did not grow up within the culture hence they won't be able to pick up the tell tale signs of a jealous infused individual.

Mind you we are talking about a society where people kill and maim for honour, just like that. Women are routinely maimed with acid and some are shot for merely going to school.

Secondly there is no record of interactions, like a folder of salacious draft messages, that keeps growing with messages that never get send. That is how David Petraeus used to communicate with his lover. Most interactions are verbal and are literally speaking - gone with the wind.

Eventually the casual intimate liaison of the then CIA director ended up sending threatening messages to a perceived rival. Imagine if she could have got away with sending a Hellfire armed Reaper. Informants in remote areas, whose information is difficult if not impossible to verify, can get away with sending Hellfires to love rivals as we speak right now.

In the Petraeus case there is a trail of salacious emails to give us an insight into what happened. Out in the field, there is no luxury of such records to reveal the details of motives.

America just finds itself with more and more people hating them.

In my opinion, America's drone policy is simply criminal. According to a recent NBC report (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?) they admit to not knowing a quarter of who they are killing. Their claims to know the other three quarters are also tenuous.

America's drone policy is no different from bombing an entire Bronx apartment building simply because a drug dealer is living there. Of course they would never attempt that in the the Bronx.

The only reason they do it elsewhere is because they consider the lives of us third world people to be cheap and useless. So if they kill ten of us in the hope of getting maybe one person they want, it doesn't matter to them. We are nothing but useless collateral damage.

This is exactly the same mentality that has been the driving force behind slavery and colonialism for centuries. The mentality that the lives of other races are cheap and expendable in the quest to improve the lot of the 'chosen race'. This mentality is the foundation upon which racism is built.

Even though America's president is black, America's drone policy is racist. It treats the lives of non-Westerners as cheap and expendable.

I am willing to bet my bottom dollar, that they will never ever replicate the policy in regions with significant white populations. If Ayman al Zawahiri were to go and hide in a Swiss hamlet, a Welsh borough or a French villa, they would never drone bomb it. However if he were to hide in a Thai muban, chances are they would drone bomb it.

I am not justifying the actions and philosophy of the cave dwelling fundamentalists who would like to see every woman in the world covered from head to toe.

All I am pointing out, is that two wrongs do not make a right.