In a move that has sparked widespread outcry and controversy, President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe has defiantly appointed Michael Reza as the new chairperson of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), succeeding Justice Loice Matanda-Moyo, who has been appointed Prosecutor-General. This decision has plunged the nation into a constitutional crisis, with allegations that the President’s action directly contravenes the nation’s supreme law.
The crux of the controversy lies in the appointment’s clear breach of the constitutional prerequisites for the position. According to the Zimbabwean constitution, specifically Subsection 1 (a) of section 254, a ZACC commissioner, especially the chairperson, must possess at least seven years of legal practice experience. This criterion is imperative to ensure that the commission’s leadership has the requisite legal acumen and integrity to combat corruption effectively. However, Michael Reza, despite his academic credentials—a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of South Africa and a Master of Laws (LLM) from Midlands State University—falls significantly short of this requirement. Having only registered to practice law in Zimbabwe in either 2020 or 2021, Reza’s experience barely reaches the four-year mark, rendering him constitutionally ineligible for the role.
This decision has not only left ZACC under the leadership of an unqualified chairman but has also enveloped the institution in a shroud of illegality and compromised its integrity. The constitutional breach is glaring, with Reza’s appointment not meeting the critical experience threshold necessary for the pivotal role of steering the anti-corruption body.
Further complicating the issue is the aftermath of the removal of Justice Matanda-Moyo and Jessie Majome from the commission, which has resulted in the absence of any lawyer within ZACC possessing the constitutionally mandated seven years of legal practice. This situation starkly contrasts with Mnangagwa’s purported rationale for Reza’s appointment, which hinges on an alternative criterion of having at least ten years of experience in investigating crime – a stipulation that, while relevant, does not substitute the legal expertise required by the constitution.
Reza’s appointment has been met with mixed reactions, with supporters citing his extensive experience in crime investigation as sufficient grounds for his appointment. Nonetheless, legal analysts and critics argue that regardless of his investigative background, Reza’s lack of the requisite legal experience renders him neither qualified nor suitable for the role of ZACC chairperson.
Adding to the controversy are the allegations of Reza’s involvement in the persecution by prosecution of opposition activists and leaders, along with his entanglement in several corruption cases. These allegations further cast doubt on his suitability for a position that demands the highest levels of integrity, impartiality, and dedication to fighting corruption.
The appointment of Michael Reza as the chairperson of ZACC thus stands as a stark reminder of the challenges facing governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. It raises serious questions about the commitment of the nation’s leadership to uphold the constitution, enforce anti-corruption measures, and ensure that the bodies tasked with combating corruption are led by individuals who are not only legally qualified but also beyond reproach in their professional conduct and integrity. As the nation grapples with this constitutional quandary, the international community watches closely, awaiting the resolution of a situation that undermines the very foundation of Zimbabwe’s fight against corruption.
The controversy surrounding Reza’s qualifications underscores the importance of transparency in the appointment process of such high-stakes positions. A clear and open selection process, aligned with constitutional prerequisites, is essential to avoid disputes and ensure that the appointed individuals possess the necessary legal acumen and integrity.
This appointment raises significant concerns regarding adherence to constitutional requirements. For an institution as critical as ZACC, ensuring that all legal and experience criteria are met is not just a matter of procedural formality but a fundamental aspect of maintaining its integrity and efficacy. Circumventing these standards can severely undermine public trust in the institution’s ability to combat corruption impartially and effectively.
An appointment that appears to breach constitutional requirements not only compromises the integrity of ZACC but also erodes public trust in governmental institutions. Fighting corruption requires an unwavering commitment to uphold the law, starting with the leadership of the bodies tasked with this critical mission.
While investigative experience is undoubtedly valuable, the specific requirement of seven years of legal practice for ZACC commissioners highlights the necessity of legal expertise in interpreting laws, understanding judicial processes, and ensuring that anti-corruption efforts are grounded in a solid legal foundation. Overlooking this requirement can dilute the commission’s legal robustness.