๐๐ฏ
๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ
๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ฆ
๐ฐ๐ง
๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ
๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต๐ฉ
๐๐ง๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ฏ
๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต
๐๐ข๐ค๐ฐ๐ฃ
๐ก๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข,
๐ฎ๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ช๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ
๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ด
๐ต๐ฐ
๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ
๐ฐ๐ณ
๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ
๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด,
๐ด๐ถ๐ค๐ฉ
๐ข๐ด
๐ช๐ฏ
2021
๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ
๐ฉ๐ช๐ด
15
๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฉ๐ด
๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต
๐ฐ๐ง
๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ต
๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ,
๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ
๐ฅ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ
๐ฃ๐บ
๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ
๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ต๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ
๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ต
๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ
๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ
๐ด๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ
๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ข๐ธ๐ฏ.
THE
Zimbabwean
Constitutional
Court
(ConCourt)
has
swiftly
rejected
local
pressure
group
Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
and
its
secretary-general
Mbuso
Fuzwayoโs
arbitrary
withdrawal
of
their
apex
court
application
to
stop
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwaโs
term
extension
bid
and
a
battery
of
contentious
constitutional
amendments
changing
the
countryโs
political,
electoral
and
governance
systems.
A
Harare
senior
constitutional
lawyer
told
The
NewsHawks:
โI
have
just
checked
the
๐ข๐๐๐ฆ๐ฌ
๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ฆ
looking
for
a
different
case
and
then
i
realised
that
Case
N0.
CCZ10/26
(Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
&
Mbuso
Fuzwayo
vs
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa,
Zanu
PF,
Ziyambi
Ziyambi,
Jacob
Mudenda
&
Virginia
Mabiza)
withdrawal
has
been
rejected.
It
was
rejected
on
account
of
the
legal
costs
issue.
But
ask
other
lawyers,
they
will
explain
to
you
how
the
system
works.โ
A
Zimbabwean
constitutional
lawyer
based
in
Johannesburg,
South
Africa,
explained
to
The
NewsHawks
in
detail
how
things
work
on
such
cases:
โWithdrawing
a
Constitutional
Court
case
is
not
always
a
simple,
absolute
right,
particularly
when
it
involves
important
constitutional
issues
and
matters
of
public
interest
or
when
significant
proceedings
have
already
occurred
like
in
this
case
because
the
court
had
already
granted
the
applicants
direct
access
after
a
serious
consideration
of
the
initial
application
for
permission
to
file.
While
an
applicant
may
request
to
withdraw
a
case,
the
court
retains
discretion
to
proceed,
particularly
regarding
legal
cost
implications
or
to
prevent
abuse
of
process,
as
seen
in
different
various
matters,
including
the
Jacob
Zuma
litigation
cases
in
South
Africa.
Once
a
matter
is
before
ConCourt,
the
court
may
deny
a
withdrawal
if
it
strongly
believes
a
judgment
is
necessary
for
legal
certainty
or
if
the
case
has
already
proceeded
too
far.
So,
the
important
issues
at
stake
here
in
this
case
include
costs,
judicial
discretion,
procedural
rules
and
abuse
of
court
process.โ
The
lawyer
further
explained:
โFirstly,
simply
withdrawing
does
not
necessarily
escape
liability
for
costs.
The
court
may
still
order
the
applicant
to
pay
the
legal
costs
of
other
parties,
as
shown
in
recent
rulings
regarding
Zumaโs
applications.
The
same
applies
in
this
case.
โSecondly,
the
court
may
continue
to
hear
a
case
even
if
the
original
applicant
wishes
to
withdraw,
especially
if
the
matter
concerns
public
interest
or
serious
legal
questions.
Thirdly,
procedural
rules.
The
process
requires
formal
procedures,
such
as
filing
a
notice
of
withdrawal,
which
may
require
permission
of
the
court
or
Chief
Justice.
Fourthly,
there
is
abuse
of
court
process.
If
a
withdrawal
is
seen
as
a
tactical
maneuvre,
which
it
is
in
this
case,
the
court
may
impose
conditions
or
reject
it.
In
the
case
of
former
president
Zuma,
multiple
attempts
to
rescind
or
appeal
orders,
for
instance
regarding
his
contempt
of
court
sentence,
were
dismissed
by
the
ConCourt
rather
than
simply
withdrawn.
Fifthly,
put
differently
withdrawing
a
case
from
the
ConCourt
is
not
always
โat
willโ
or
โautomaticโ,
particularly
if
the
case
raises
important
constitutional
issues.
While
a
party
can
request
withdrawal,
the
court
controls
its
docket
and
may
refuse
to
stop
proceedings
if
it
believes
it
is
in
the
public
interest
to
decide
the
matter.
In
short,
while
an
applicant
can
ask
to
withdraw
a
case,
it
is
not
always
a
simple,
guaranteed,
or
unilateral
action
in
constitutional
matters.
Itโs
up
to
the
court
to
decide.โ
Post
published
in:
Featured