Dispute with judiciary deepens

In the deepening dispute between the Zimbabwean government and the judiciary, Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay has announced that he would not bow to government pressure to quit and would reconsider his decision to retire early, news reports said on Wednesday.

Gubbay, the head of the Supreme Court deemed as anti-government by the authorities, had originally agreed to accept four month’s leave prior to his resignation at the end of June. But he has decided to resist the government’s insistence that he quit immediately - and the appointment of an acting chief justice - as unconstitutional. “I have been instructed by the chief justice to oppose the unlawful demands made by the minister of justice for him to vacate his chambers and house,” said Mordecai Mahlangu, Gubbay’s lawyer, in a statement quoted by the British ‘Financial Times’. “In the light of the unexpected and unwelcome developments, the chief justice will be reconsidering the question of his early retirement.”

The decision followed a statement by Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa in the state-run ‘Herald’ newspaper that he would terminate Gubbay’s term in office, “clearing the way for the immediate appointment of a substantive head of the judiciary”. Information Minister Jonathan Moyo added that Gubbay’s refusal to allow an acting chief justice to take his place before he retired constituted misconduct, and by Thursday the “chief justice’s term of office will be over and the president will proceed to fill the vacancy using the powers vested in him by the constitution.” Moyo also said that in addition four high court judges would be forced to leave the bench.

Greg Linnington, a constitutional lawyer at the University of Zimbabwe told IRIN on Wednesday that the government’s move was illegal. “The constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary and has special procedures for removing judges from office.” Only with the recommendation of a tribunal made up of judges and approved lawyers can the president remove a chief justice, Linnington said, and only on the grounds of mental or physical incapacity or gross abuse of office. The removal of judges is at the recommendation of the chief justice.

“The government tends these days just to ignore the rule of law,” Linnington added. “I would be very surprised if they established a tribunal and would be very surprised indeed if the tribunal agreed to remove the chief justice.” What could occur instead would be a physical attempt to bar Gubbay from office: “Certainly there is no legal way to remove the chief justice, there are no grounds, he’s done a very good job,” the university lecturer commented.