Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A ZIMBABWEAN HIGH Court judge has ruled that the military action leading to Robert Mugabe’s resignation was legal, a key decision as the military has sought to show that its moves were not a coup.
Experts said it sets a dangerous precedent for the military to step in again.
High Court Judge George Chiweshe yesterday ruled that the military’s actions “in intervening to stop the takeover” of Mugabe’s constitutional functions “by those around him are constitutionally permissible and lawful”.
The military stepped in almost two weeks ago after Mugabe’s firing of deputy Emmerson Mnangagwa amid fears that the 93-year-old Mugabe’s unpopular wife was positioning herself to take power.
The judge said the military’s actions ensured that non-elected individuals do not exercise executive functions, an apparent reference to then-first lady Grace Mugabe.
Separately, the judge said Mugabe’s firing of Mnangagwa as vice president was illegal. Mnangagwa was sworn in as president on Friday in a whirlwind reversal of fortunes, becoming just the second leader of Zimbabwe after Mugabe’s 37-year-rule.
Criticism
The judge’s decisions were quickly criticised both by legal and rights experts and by close allies of Mugabe and his wife.
“If these breathtaking High Court Orders granted in Harare yesterday represent what is being peddled as a ‘new path,’ then please pray for Zimbabwe,” tweeted minister of higher education Jonathan Moyo, the most vocal of the Mugabe allies.
The southern Africa director for Human Rights Watch, Dewa Mavhinga, called the rulings “incredible” and said on Twitter: “Strange, captured judiciary?”
Zimbabwe’s military sent tanks into the streets overnight on 14 November, taking control of the state broadcaster and announcing that Robert Mugabe had been put under house arrest. It said it was pursuing “criminals” close to Mugabe accused of harming the country’s economy.
The military’s move led the ruling party to turn against Mugabe, launching impeachment proceedings before Mugabe on Tuesday announced his resignation, while tens of thousands of Zimbabweans took to the streets in a military-backed demonstration urging Mugabe to step aside.
Mnangagwa, who fled the country shortly after his firing, said upon his return that he had been in “constant contact” with the military during his absence.
Many in the international community avoided calling the military’s actions a coup, instead urging that Zimbabwe’s authorities respect the rule of law during the turmoil. Some Zimbabweans have congratulated the military, taking selfies with soldiers on the streets and sending up a big cheer for army commander Constantino Chiwenga at Friday’s inauguration.
Zimbabwean lawyer Alex Magaisa said the rulings by the High Court judge “may come to haunt Mnangagwa’s government” by setting a precedent in “effectively legalising military intervention in the affairs of government”.
He also wrote today that “it is interesting to note that the order was granted by ‘consent’ which suggests that Mugabe agreed to it. If he did, it could be that it was part of Mugabe’s exit deal”.
Mugabe on the down low
Mugabe has not been seen in public since his speech to the nation on Sunday that defied calls to resign. He will remain in Zimbabwe, and Mnangagwa met him on Thursday and assured him of “maximum security,” the state-run Zimbabwe Herald reported.
Mugabe did not attend the swearing-in yesterday of Mnangagwa, a 75-year-old former defence and justice minister who has been blamed for a number of crackdowns under Mugabe’s rule.
In his first speech as president, Mnangagwa spoke of reuniting the country and reaching out to the world after years of international condemnation and sanctions over rights abuses and allegedly rigged elections. Let “bygones be bygones”, he said. He has warned against “vengeful retribution”.
A number of Cabinet ministers have not been seen publicly since the military swept in, while rights activists have begun sharing worrying details of assaults and raids on their homes amid concerns about possible retaliation.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can’t believe this is only being implemented in the US when it’s been well documented in Europe. Another one that’s just been realised in the past 2-3 years is giving them a soother. This again drives the percentage down lower still as they reckon using a soother helps the baby regulate their breathing.
I know someone who lost a baby to SIDS but still insists it’s fine for babies to sleep on their front because she was always placed on her front and her mother’s a nurse. Apparently studies have shown it’s fine, but I think you’ll find a study to support anything.
Sounds like a coping mechanism. Poor woman.
Any articles not from AFP? Any non-American viewpoints on these sites?
AFP is Agence France Presse. Cheese eating surrender monkeys instead of hot dog eating blubber monkeys.
When was placing a baby front way down ever a good idea.
They do in the hospital especially if baby has a lot of mucous, obviously this is completely supervised
General concern was that if you left a baby on its back it could choke on its own vomit so there was some thought behind it… Parents predating 1992 weren’t idiots..
I don’t know why you would put a baby in a room on it’s own?
“Other strategies include offering a child a pacifier at nap time and night as well as ensuring they have all the recommended vaccinations” – this is a hard hitting report that doesn’t half speak the obvious.
My babies always slept better once they moved into their own room. I think I was keeping them awake and vice versa. But for my own peace of mind I purchased an Angel Mat which beeps to let you know if baby stops breathing.
We bought the ‘Angel Care’ monitor with the mattress sensor and it went off twice for our first born and once for our second born. One of the times it went off for our first born we jumped out of bed and I turned on the light – the baby didn’t move. My wife stirred/shook the child and we heard him take a massive intake of breath. I am glad we spent the 100 euros on the Angel Care monitor. It is more expensive than other monitors, but it does go off it your baby stops moving/breathing.
So how are you supposed to keep a baby warm if you live in a house that gets really cold overnight and you can’t use a blanket? Just curious
Sleep suit, gro bag or similar..
have your say