In recent years, we have witnessed numerous instances of undemocratic transfers of power in various countries, from the Arab Spring to military coups in Zimbabwe and Myanmar. One common thread that runs through these transitions is the crucial role played by chief justices who preside over compromised and captured judiciaries. In this article, we will explore why President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe is in dire need of a captured judiciary under Chief Justice Luke Malaba or any other figure under his influence, rather than relying on the military, which supports Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s faction.
A chief justice not only determines who occupies the highest office in the land but also wields the power to decide the fate of that officeholder. This is particularly true in cases of illegal transfers of power, as was witnessed in Zimbabwe in 2017. Chief justices like Malaba subscribe to specific factions and sectional interests, ensuring that those aligned with the captured judiciary receive a form of legitimacy, albeit less potent than that derived from the people. In Mnangagwa’s case, lacking popular consent and legitimacy, he turned to the compromised judiciary for validation.
Malaba’s loyalty to Mnangagwa is well-known, but it is fading with time. A judiciary without Malaba, serving as a safeguard for Mnangagwa’s security in office, could expose him to threats ranging from electoral challenges to potential coups, leaving him vulnerable to political persecution and the loss of illicitly acquired wealth.
To secure his sycophantic chief justice’s position, Mnangagwa may resort to amending the supreme law of the land. Recent constitutional amendments have granted Zanu-PF unchecked power, circumventing the usual checks and balances. Public hearings, which typically act as safeguards against constitutional devaluation, have been sidelined. With a Zanu-PF-dominated and captured parliament, amendments securing Mnangagwa’s rule can swiftly pass through the ceremonial legislative process.
These amendments would be a precursor to Mnangagwa’s ultimate goal. However, the resilient opposition, driven by a commitment to good governance, will likely oppose these changes. Life outside Zanu-PF is challenging, as Mnangagwa himself has admitted. Losing access to ill-gotten wealth poses a real threat. Mnangagwa’s anti-corruption commission, originally created to target political opponents, could ironically be used against him by a rival Zanu-PF faction, possibly led by Chiwenga.
Mnangagwa fears removal from office through impeachment or a military coup by elements sympathetic to Chiwenga. To prevent such scenarios, a loyal and reliable judiciary is essential. This judiciary would condemn any power transitions that do not favor Mnangagwa, while denying them the legitimacy required for de facto recognition, similar to what Mnangagwa received in 2017.
A condemned power transition would attract negative international attention, potentially leading to military intervention or economic sanctions against the involved military faction, in this case, Chiwenga’s. Mnangagwa would emerge victorious, thwarting ambitious factions that could threaten his hold on power. An extended stay in office for Malaba would cement Mnangagwa’s rule, as long as the constitution is amended.
However, for Mnangagwa to enjoy indefinite power, he would likely seek to amend the constitution to remove the two-term limit. This would be the ultimate guarantee of his security. Malaba’s role would be to legitimize this amendment, serving Mnangagwa’s interests in the judiciary. Once this is accomplished, Malaba’s future beyond 2023 would no longer be a concern for Mnangagwa, who would be secure in his position, hunting for the next sycophant within the judiciary.
In conclusion, President Mnangagwa’s reliance on a captured judiciary, led by Chief Justice Malaba or a similarly loyal figure, is crucial for maintaining his grip on power. By amending the constitution to secure unlimited terms and ensuring the judiciary’s compliance, Mnangagwa can effectively neutralize potential threats to his rule. This power play reveals the lengths to which leaders may go to maintain their hold on power, even at the expense of democratic principles and popular consent.