According
to
Mpofu,
Mutsvangwa’s
title
as
“Secretary
for
Information
and
Publicity
and
Party
Spokesperson”
does
not
exist
in
the
ZANU
PF
Constitution,
so
a
letter
signed
under
that
title
carries
no
legal
effect.
He
argued
that
the
ZANU
PF
Constitution
does
not
give
the
First
Secretary
unilateral
power
to
reassign
Politburo
positions
outside
of
Congress.
Here
is
what
Advocate
Mpofu
said:
“I
have
reviewed
the
ZANU
PF
Constitution
(both
the
2014
and
2022
versions)
thoroughly
and
can
state
the
following
with
authority:“1.
The
letter
from
Chris
Mutsvangwa
purporting
to
announce
changes
to
the
ZANU
PF
Politburo
is
invalid.
It
claims
the
decision
to
relieve
Obert
Mpofu
of
his
office
as
ZANU
PF
Secretary-General
was
taken
under
Article
9,
sections
65
and
67.
Article
9
concerns
Politburo
functions
generally
and
does
not
confer
authority
for
the
First
Secretary
to
reassign
office-holders.
Section
65
addresses
the
functions
of
the
Secretary
for
Economic
Development
and
Empowerment;
section
67
addresses
the
functions
of
the
Secretary
for
Healthcare
of
the
Child
and
the
Elderley.
Neither
provision
authorizes
the
personnel
change
Mutsvangwa
communicates.
For
that
reason,
the
letter
does
not
effect
a
lawful
change
of
office.“2.
Article
9,
section
63
establishes
the
office
of
Secretary
for
Media,
Information
and
Publicity.
Mutsvangwa’s
letter
is
signed
as
“Secretary
for
Information
and
Publicity
and
Party
Spokesperson.”
That
composite
title,
used
to
arrogate
spokesperson
authority,
does
not
exist
in
the
Constitution.
A
communication
signed
by
a
non‑existent
constitutional
office-holder
has
no
legal
effect.“3.
Even
if
Mutsvangwa’s
title
were
a
typographical
error,
the
office
created
under
section
63
is
not
the
designated
spokesperson
of
the
First
Secretary.
Therefore
the
letter
does
not
purport
to
communicate
the
authoritative
position
of
the
First
Secretary.
There
is
no
letter
in
existence
which
purports
to
have
been
written
by
the
ZANU
PF
First
Secretary.“4.
Nothing
in
the
ZANU
PF
Constitution
vests
the
First
Secretary
with
the
unilateral
power
to
make
the
reassignments
announced.
Section
54
is
clear
on
this
as
it
sets
out
the
full
remit
of
his
powers.
In
fact,
in
terms
of
section
49
the
power
to
appoint
heads
is
exercised
during
Congress
and
not
anytime
thereafter.
A
power
not
enshrined
in
the
Constitution
cannot
lawfully
be
exercised.“Accordingly,
if
the
position
is
maintained
that
the
First
Secretary
lacks
authority
to
reassign
Mpofu
et
al,
and
that
position
is
not
accepted,
a
dispute
arises
mandating
resolution.
In
the
meantime,
it’s
back
to
original
settings.“Whilst
I’ve
cited
provisions
from
the
2022
version,
the
conclusion
to
be
retained
is
maintained
even
if
we
use
the
2014
version.”