Newly appointed Zanu PF Treasurer General Patrick Chinamasa has dismissed Advocate Thabani Mpofu's recent criticism of President Emmerson Mnangagwa's Politburo reshuffle as baseless and without substance, labelling it a misleading interpretation.
Mnangagwa made changes to the Politburo structure last month in a move that political analysts believe is strategically aimed at curtailing his deputy, Retired General Constantino Chiwenga's, aspirations to succeed him.
Among the changes, Mnangagwa demoted Obert Mpofu from the influential position of Secretary General to the less prominent role of Secretary for Information Communication Technology (ICT).
Mpofu is reported to be an ally of Vice President Constantino Chiwenga and is alleged to have had knowledge of the source of the corruption dossier Chiwenga tabled in the last Zanu PF Politburo meeting in Harare.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The dossier allegedly named controversial business tycoons Kudakwashe Tagwirei, Wicknell Chivayo, Paul Tungwarara and Delish Nguwaya.
Jacob Mudenda, Speaker of the National Assembly, replaced Mpofu as Secretary-General, while Chinamasa himself was shifted from Legal Affairs Secretary to the role of Treasurer General of the party.
Advocate Mpofu subsequently took to social media, alleging that Mnangagwa had violated the party's constitution with the changes he had made.
"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," Mpofu, the lawyer, stated.
However, Chinamasa responded to Mpofu's claims yesterday blow by blow.
"This claim is a classic case of mala fides interpretation. The relevant provisions of the Zanu-PF Constitution clearly stipulate the President and First Secretary's authority over the Politburo," Chinamasa wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday.
He said: "Article 9, Section 65 (2022 Constitution) explicitly states:
"The Politburo shall be appointed by the President and First Secretary under Section 67...
"Section 67 reinforces this by stating that:
"Immediately after the election of the President and First Secretary and Members of the Central Committee, the President and First Secretary of the Party shall... appoint from the newly elected Central Committee, two (2) Vice-Presidents and Second Secretaries, the National Chairman, the Heads of Departments of the Politburo, the Committee Members of the Politburo and the Deputies to the Heads of Departments.
"This language is categorical and unambiguous. The authority vests in the President and First Secretary -- not in any collective, committee, or ancillary structure. Thus, any personnel changes announced are lawfully anchored in the President's prerogative. To argue otherwise is to deliberately distort the plain meaning of the text."
Advocate Mpofu also argued that Article 9 of the Zanu-PF Constitution does not empower Mnangagwa to reassign office holders outside of the party's elective congress.
"Article 9 concerns Politburo functions generally and does not confer authority for the First Secretary to reassign office-holders," Mpofu, the lawyer, contended.
In response, Chinamasa urged Mpofu to "have a look at himself" and understand the Zanu-PF's Constitution in its entirety.
"This assertion demonstrates either wilful blindness or a blatant disregard of the Constitution's architecture.
"While Article 9 indeed outlines the functions of the Politburo, Section 65 therein is not a functional clause - it is a structural clause explicitly tying the Politburo's composition to Presidential appointment powers. It must be read in pari materia with Section 67, which sets out the scope of such appointments."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Chinamasa further dismissed Mpofu's interpretation of the Zanu-PF Constitution, arguing that it misrepresented the powers bestowed upon the President and First Secretary. He stated that Mpofu's arguments were a bit of a reach, and that Mpofu was getting ahead of himself.
Chinamasa pointed out that the Constitution explicitly allows for the reassignment and removal of department heads, and that Mpofu's reading of Sections 65 and 67 pertained to the Politburo itself, rather than subordinate roles.
He accused Mpofu of missing the mark completely, saying that Mpofu's arguments have no real basis in the documented and agreed-upon Constitution.
