A
YEAR
ago,
at
its
annual
Conference,
Zanu
PF
passed
the
notorious
Resolution
No.
1.
The
resolution,
a
vulgar
piece
of
unmitigated
buffoonery,
attempts
to
extend
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
tenure
beyond
the
term
fixed
by
congress
in
2022
and
effectively
calls
for
subverting
the
national
constitution
to
achieve
that
end.
The
measure
is
both
egregious
and
unlawful,
chiefly
because
it
conflicts
with
Zanu
PF’s
own
constitutive
instruments.
Congress
v
Conference
Zanu
PF’s
congress,
which
meets
once
every
five
years,
is
the
party’s
supreme
decision‑making
body.
Depending
on
which
of
the
three
un-ratified
2022
constitutions
one
reads,
this
authority
is
set
out
in
section
23
or
27
in
materially
similar
terms.
The
provision
confers
on
congress
the
following
powers:
“Congress
shall
be
the
supreme
policy
making
organ
of
the
Party
and
shall
have
the
following
powers
and
functions:-
(1)
to
elect
the
President
and
First
Secretary
of
the
Party,
who
shall
automatically
become
the
sole
candidate
of
the
State
President
in
the
ensuing
elections;”
In
accordance
with
this
provision,
congress
in
2022
elected
Mnangagwa
as
Zanu
PF’s
candidate
for
the
2023
elections.
This
election
was
for
a
five-year
period.
By
design,
congress
is
the
body
that
meets
to
select
the
party’s
candidate
for
any
general
elections
and
Mnangagwa’s
incumbency
draws
its
lifeblood
from
the
2022
congress
resolution.
No
Zanu
PF
member
can
seek
or
maintain
state
or
party
power
as
the
president
post
2028
without
the
authority
of
congress.
Two
points
emerge
and
must
detain
me:
–
the
party
constitution
is
tailored
so
that
congress
precedes
a
general
election
for
the
purpose
of
selecting
a
presidential
candidate;
and
–
as
a
contractual
and
constitutional
instrument,
the
party
constitution
cannot
validly
contain
provisions
that
conflict
with
the
national
constitution
and
any
such
conflicting
provision
is
void.
Thus,
there
is
no
valid
basis
within
Zanu
PF’s
constitution
for
declaring
a
candidate
beyond
the
2028
elections
more
so
if
this
is
coming
from
an
organ
inferior
to
congress.
Any
attempt
to
do
so
would
violate
the
party’s
own
constitution
and
would
subordinate
congress
to
the
Mai
Welly-twerking-transactional
politics
that
we
now
see
on
display
The
national
conference
meets
annually
and
its
powers
include
receiving
central
committee
reports,
reviewing
implementation
of
central
committee
programmes,
making
resolutions
for
implementation
by
the
central
committee
declaring
the
president
elected
at
congress
as
the
party’s
state
presidential
candidate.
Outside
a
determination
made
by
congress
and
that
only
for
a
period
of
five
years,
the
national
conference
cannot
transact
any
business
bearing
on
the
question
of
a
national
leader
as
is
the
purport
of
Resolution
1.
Crucially,
the
national
conference
does
not
have
the
power
to
elect
the
party’s
presidential
candidate;
it
can
only
declare
an
election
already
made
by
congress.
Last
year’s
conference
resolution
purporting
to
elect
or
rather
select
Mnangagwa
for
a
period
outside
that
fixed
by
congress,
and
calling
for
subversion
of
congress’s
decision
to
achieve
the
purpose,
was
therefore
unlawful
under
any
of
the
three
constitutional
texts
that
are
fraudulently
used
by
Zanu
PF.
Mnangagwa’s
position
is
not
a
legitimate
matter
for
internal
debate
at
this
year’s
conference.
In
fact
concerned
Zanu
PF
members
can
stop
their
party—either
by
judicial
decree
or
through
legitimate
political
maneuvering—from
becoming
engaged
with
this
issue.
Put
in
very
simple
terms,
the
question
of
the
possible
extension
of
Mnangagwa’s
position
cannot
be
debated
by
the
national
conference.
It
is
an
act
ultra
vires.
Zanu
PF
must
abide
by
its
own
rules
and
by
the
national
constitution.
It
cannot
lawfully
transact
business
in
breach
of
those
instruments
or
call
for
their
subversion.
This
festival
of
absurdities
and
illegality
must
be
stopped.
The
men
within
Zanu
PF,
if
there
be
any
(not
vanoda
kuchengeta
vana),
should
confront
these
breaches
and
insist
on
adherence
to
both
the
party
constitution
and
the
constitution
of
the
land.
Thabani
Mpofu
is
an
advocate
in
Zimbabwe’s
superior
courts