High Court Ruling On Chamisa – Fresh Details Emerge

Zim Media Review has shed more light on the High Court ruling earlier on Wednesday, nullifying MDC president Nelson Chamisa’s authority as party leader.

However, there are a lot of grey areas regarding the case, which begs the question, is there an invisible hand in the whole saga? Below is the Zim Media Review thread:

The case against Chamisa’s party leadership was brought to court in September last year by Elias Mashavira, a party organiser in Gokwe. Mashavira sought a declaration that Chamisa was not the party’s legitimate leader as he had not been endorsed by an extraordinary congress.

On March 14, the court reserved judgment on the matter. This was a week after Chamisa had issued a notice convening the party congress between May 24 and 26.

In April, the court ruled that Mashavira’s case was not urgent. Chamisa’s lawyer Muchadehama said then “There is nothing urgent and that was noted after we argued that it was incompetent for the applicant (Mashavira) to seek a final order in an interim application”.

There’s also ANOTHER pending case brought by 5 MDC members. The affidavit said Sec 64 of MDC constitution says in the event of death or resignation of the president, deputy becomes acting president till the holding of extra-ordinary congress not later than a year to elect a new leader.

One of the applicants said, “My freedom of association has been violated …after the death of my party president in 2018, I am as of the 15th of Feb 2019 being forced to associate myself with the third respondent (Chamisa) who has usurped the role of president unlawfully..”

Is Mashavira, the man who brought the Chamisa case to court, a bonafide member of the MDC as he states in the court papers? Can’t that be verified?


Download the Pindula App for a better user experience.

Join WhatsApp & Telegram News Groups:

WhatsApp Group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/D3p2N7OV4gTKVkg5QwUdvY

Telegram Group:

Back to top

One Comment on “High Court Ruling On Chamisa – Fresh Details Emerge

  1. this constitutes a preposterous argument, leadership is chosen by electorate [not by speculative dubious cases brought forward to court by malicious individuals] and the Government of Zimbabwe makes an error bringing controversial issues already well decided by electorate to the Courts, that way effectively and even adversely compromising and denying Zimbabweans true democratic practice as done by the whole fast developing civilized world. God bless.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Share Full Post