From a Constitutional Lawyer to a Twitter Advocate: Tales of a Pariah Lawyer
The recent so-called “legal opinion” issued by Advocate Thabani Mpofu regarding the internal processes of the Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) cannot go unchallenged. His statement, while vociferous, is legally hollow—a mere flourish of rhetoric lacking substance. His interpretation of the ZANU PF Constitution betrays a glaring unfamiliarity with both the letter and spirit of the Party’s governing framework. Therefore, it is imperative to set the record straight, with firmness but due respect.
On the Alleged Invalidity of the Politburo Changes
Advocate Mpofu claims that the letter from Chris Mutsvangwa announcing changes to the ZANU PF Politburo is invalid, asserting that the decision to relieve Obert Mpofu of his office as ZANU PF Secretary-General was made under Article 9, Sections 65 and 67, which he suggests do not support the removal.
This claim is a textbook case of mala fide interpretation. The relevant provisions of the ZANU PF Constitution explicitly vest the authority over the Politburo in the President and First Secretary. Article 9, Section 65 (2022 Constitution) states unambiguously, “The Politburo shall be appointed by the President and First Secretary under Section 67.” Section 67 further confirms that, immediately after the election of the President, First Secretary, and Central Committee members, the President and First Secretary shall appoint all key Politburo offices and deputies. This language is categorical and unambiguous. The authority rests solely with the President and First Secretary—not any collective or ancillary body. To argue otherwise is to deliberately distort the plain text.
On Article 9 as a General Provision
Advocate Mpofu asserts that Article 9 concerns the Politburo’s functions generally and does not confer authority for the First Secretary to reassign office-holders.
Such an assertion reveals either willful blindness or casual disregard for the Constitution’s architecture. Article 9 indeed outlines the Politburo’s functions but Section 65 is a structural clause explicitly linking the Politburo’s composition to Presidential appointment powers. It must be read together with Section 67, defining the scope of such appointments.
Furthermore, the Constitution expressly states that if the President and First Secretary deem it desirable to create additional departments, they may do so at their discretion and appoint heads and deputies accordingly. This logically includes the power of removal since, as legal theorists like Professor Jonathan Moyo have noted, the power to appoint carries the corollary power to disappoint. Advocate Mpofu’s isolation of the provision from its context leads to a patently erroneous conclusion.
On the Mischaracterisation of Sections 65 and 67
Advocate Mpofu claims that Section 65 addresses the functions of the Secretary for Economic Development and Empowerment and Section 67 the functions of the Secretary for Healthcare of the Child and the Elderly, and that neither authorizes personnel changes.
This is the most egregious misrepresentation in his so-called opinion. Sections 65 and 67 of the 2022 Party Constitution actually deal directly with the Politburo’s composition and appointment. Confusing the Party Constitution with some other text, Advocate Mpofu’s public pontifications on Twitter demonstrate the peril of commentaries not grounded in proper consultation of governing documents. Such errors mislead the public and verge on intellectual dishonesty.
On Historical Consistency of Presidential Powers
Since its inception, ZANU PF has consistently vested the President and First Secretary with the authority to appoint the Politburo. Article 8, Section 37 of the 2005 Constitution conferred this power. Article 8, Section 39 of the 2014 Constitution reaffirmed it. The 2022 Constitution continues this tradition unequivocally in Article 9, Sections 65 and 67. This continuity decisively reflects that the President’s prerogative is a foundational, long-standing principle of the Party’s internal governance.
Conclusion
Advocate Mpofu’s pronouncements amount to nothing more than what William Shakespeare aptly described as a “loud sound and fury, signifying nothing.” His interpretation crumbles under the weight of the very provisions he misconstrues. The ZANU PF Constitution is unequivocal: the President and First Secretary possess full discretionary power to appoint, reassign, expand, or dissolve Politburo members.
In sum, this so-called “legal opinion” is neither legal nor an opinion in the strict sense; it is political posturing masquerading as constitutional analysis. ZANU PF’s internal processes adhere firmly to constitutional fidelity, not Twitter advocacy. Entrusting legal strategy to the likes of Advocate Thabani Mpofu is an explanation for why the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) found itself in a constitutional dead end.
[@adv_fulcrum]
[@ProfJNMoyo]
