In a bold move that has ignited widespread controversy, President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s recent appointment of Deputy Prosecutor-General Michael Reza as the new chairperson of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) has come under fire for being unconstitutional. Legal experts are challenging the president’s decision, arguing that Reza lacks the requisite experience for the high-profile role, a development that signals a potential breach of Zimbabwe’s constitution.
President Mnangagwa, leveraging Subsection 1 (a) of section 254 of the constitution, appointed Reza to replace Justice Loice Matanda-Moyo, who has taken up the position of Prosecutor-General. However, this appointment has raised eyebrows and legal questions, primarily because Reza, by the accounts of his legal career, falls short of the seven years of legal practice required for anyone aspiring to be a ZACC commissioner, let alone its chairperson.
The constitution is clear on the matter: to qualify as a ZACC commissioner, a lawyer must have a minimum of seven years of legal practice, be eligible for appointment as a judge, or have previously served as a High Court or Supreme Court judge. According to records, Reza applied to join the Law Society of Zimbabwe and commenced his legal practice either in 2020 or 2021. This means he possesses merely three to four years of experience in the field, significantly less than the mandated seven years, making his appointment legally questionable.
Reza’s academic credentials, including a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from the University of South Africa and a Master of Laws (LLM) from Midlands State University, though commendable, do not satisfy the specific experience requirements set by the constitution for this role. Critics argue that this discrepancy not only renders his appointment as chairperson unconstitutional but also questions his eligibility to serve as a commissioner in the first instance.
The controversy around Reza’s appointment is further complicated by the departure of Jessie Majome, leaving the commission without any lawyer who meets the constitutional experience requirement. Some defenders of Reza argue that his extensive experience in investigating crime could potentially qualify him for the position. However, this argument fails to address the fundamental legal requirements concerning legal experience.
This incident is not President Mnangagwa’s first encounter with constitutional challenges related to appointments. His track record includes the appointment of an excessive number of unelected ministers to his cabinet, a move that was later reversed following public outcry and legal scrutiny. These repeated constitutional breaches raise significant concerns about the president’s adherence to legal standards and the quality of advice he receives.
Furthermore, Reza’s appointment has sparked additional controversy due to his notorious reputation for aggressively detaining civil society and opposition activists through stringent bail processes and demanding their incarceration. His alleged involvement in corruption cases has also cast a shadow over his suitability for a role in the Anti-Corruption Commission, an entity tasked with combating corruption.
The unfolding debate surrounding Michael Reza’s appointment underscores a critical moment for Zimbabwe’s governance and constitutional integrity. As legal experts and the public scrutinize the president’s decision, the controversy sheds light on the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates and the need for transparency and eligibility in public appointments. The question remains whether President Mnangagwa will heed the calls for reconsideration or whether this appointment will stand as another contentious chapter in Zimbabwe’s political narrative.
The appointment of Michael Reza as ZACC chairperson, despite his lack of the constitutionally required seven years of legal practice, raises serious concerns about adherence to constitutional mandates. It’s crucial for the integrity of public institutions that all appointments, especially those as significant as this, strictly comply with the constitution. This incident underscores the need for rigorous vetting processes that uphold constitutional requirements without exception. ED is typing loose ends now and preparing to retire and play hero.
This situation could serve as a catalyst for necessary reforms in the appointment processes to public offices, particularly in bodies as crucial as the ZACC. Implementing more stringent checks and balances could prevent future controversies and strengthen Zimbabwe’s anti-corruption framework. You never see any positive in anything, you are such a hater and your articles are biased.
Given Reza’s contentious reputation and the questions surrounding his eligibility, his appointment as chairperson of ZACC may cast doubt on the commission’s impartiality and effectiveness. For anti-corruption efforts to be credible, those leading them must not only be beyond reproach but also perceived as such by the public. This incident underscores the need for appointing officials with unassailable integrity and unquestionable eligibility.
The debate over Reza’s appointment underscores the critical role that legal expertise plays in the effectiveness of the ZACC. Recognizing the importance of this expertise could lead to more informed and careful selections in the future, ensuring that appointees possess both the requisite legal background and the moral integrity to fight corruption effectively.
The controversy surrounding Reza’s appointment highlights the importance of transparency and clear eligibility criteria in public office appointments. Ensuring candidates meet all legal and experiential requirements is fundamental to maintaining public trust in institutions tasked with combating corruption. This situation calls for a reevaluation of appointment procedures to prevent similar disputes in the future.