ZANU PF’s ED 2030 resolution not legally binding- lawyer

Renowned Zimbabwean lawyer Brighton Mutebuka (pictured) says ZANU PF’s resolution to extend President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa’s term of office is not legally binding.

Mutebuka who is based in the United Kingdom says if Mnangagwa failed to accept the resolution, it means that there was no ‘meeting of the minds’ and thus informed consent on his part, which is a well established doctrine in contract law.

He writes:

a. At the Bulawayo Conference,
@ChinamasaPA on live TV stated that ED had refused to accept the resolution on the basis that he was a Constitutionalist.

b. If he failed to accept it, it means that there was no ‘meeting of the minds’ and thus informed consent on his part, which is a well established doctrine in contract law.

c. This is also known as “consensus ad idem” made famous by the English contract law case of Smith v Hughes.

d. It advocates for the fact that both sides in an agreement must understand what they are committing to and reach an agreement on that basis.

e. This is crucial in light of the fact that ED is practically hiding behind his proxies & pretending to be reluctant / unwilling to embrace the resolution.

f. He is practically the most reluctant beneficiary of a brazen attempt to violate the Constitution ever – if he is to be believed that is.

g. Essentially, he needed to accept the resolution at the time that it was tabled, prior to its adoption as a legally binding resolution. Doing so afterwards, even secretly won’t suffice!

Conclusion
The above carries no weight in Malaba’s courts, where decisions in politically sensitive cases are perhaps only eclipsed by those dished out by Iranian, Russian & Taliban courts!

On paper, with the way ED is deafeningly silent on the drama surrounding the aftermath of the resolution, you would think that he has been kidnapped and is being held to a ransom!