Dzidziso Nyadzayo, a columnist for The Sunday Mail has said that advocate Thabani Mpofu was “sensational” and “inflammatory” when he analysed the Supreme Court (SC) judgment that ruled on the leadership crisis in the opposition MDC.
Mpofu had suggested that the SC’s judgment was inconsequential considering the power dynamics in the MDC since 2014.
Below is part of Nyadzayo’s analysis of advocate Mpofu’s article.
So his is an opinion and, if contrary to the court ruling, it ceases to state the real legal position. This seems a trivial fact but I would expect an attorney of his calibre to appreciate the importance of that distinction.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but legal opinions cannot simply be based on whim and feeling, they must also correspond with accurate legal principles…
Mpofu uses the example of Zorewa and Fisheries Company, and that was not an appropriate example to begin with because he is not correct to suggest that the judgment confirming Zorewa’s promotion has no effect because of his death. This is because that promotion comes with a number of legal and financial implications. It could have an impact on his tax obligations, pension benefits, credit, contractual or other obligations. All in all, it means a material change in Zorewa’s personal estate!
Mpofu should know that death does not mean a person ceases to exist; those benefits, including the car, would simply go into his deceased estate, which, for the purposes I just mentioned, would still operate as though he were still alive.
Perhaps this was the crucial point because this tells me his reasoning failed to appreciate that the hypothetical example of Zorewa and the MDC case are both challenges based on a right to administrative justice.
Full article: The Sunday Mail