- [12:02 AM, 11/2/2016] +264 81 830 3767: The most tragic thing is its exactly the same actors who presided over the destruction of SMM namely Mugabe and Chinamasa, that combination has never produced anything constructive, handei tione!!
- [12:16 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 73 344 2739: Mutumwa with all due respect sir.it sims theres no more fyt left in u.some of us were looking up to u when we were growing up but these days u sound lyk a zanu pf supporter
- [5:38 AM, 11/2/2016] Mahlangu: Strive Masiiwa
Pause: The things we “say” matter
__A record is being kept, somewhere!
I’m sure many of you are following the gripping saga of the American presidential election, as it enters the final stretch. Whether you like America or you don’t, you should be interested in what happens in countries like the US. Because of its sheer economic size, it has a material impact on the lives of everyone in the world. That’s just economics, not politics.
You know that I generally stay away from commenting on political issues, and this is not going to be a departure from that policy.
Here’s what caught my attention last Sunday morning as I reflected on the events of the last few days, with respect to the US campaign: One of the candidates, Donald Trump, has become engulfed in a massive crisis because of something he said to a friend idly (whilst on a bus 11 years ago) when he thought it was just the two of them. However, what he said was actually picked up on a live microphone.
Increasingly, what often creates controversy is something a candidate “said” at some point. And usually it’s been recorded by some technology of our time. All these things — emails, telephone calls, Twitter, YouTube, SMS, Instagram, the list goes on and there are more coming — they all capture and record something we “said” (even if it’s written).
Imagine 25-50 years from now (in the lifetime of most of us): The technology will be available to record virtually every spoken by those who run for public office, allowing us to review it before making our choice on a candidate.
And as the technology evolves further, even ordinary people will be subjected to the same tests. I know companies today that will ask a job candidate to give them access to their social media footprint. Yes, they may look at things beyond LinkedIn to learn more about you!
Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ said these words:
But I tell you, on the Day of Judgment men will have to give account for every idle (inoperative, non-working) word they speak. For by your words you will be justified and acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned and sentenced.
Increasingly, the technology exists to record “every idle word that men speak.”
If Donald Trump loses this election, it can be said that he was “condemned by his words.” The same for Hillary Clinton; if she loses, it may be said that she lost because of those “damned emails” or things she said in them!
Not to oversimplify an election campaign with lots of issues, or get into politics at all: Whoever or wherever you are, and whatever you do… Your own words can make you, or break you.
As you use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, never forget these are “your words.” Once you click that mouse, it’s gone! (You cannot recall, and you cannot delete). A permanent record exists. One day, that record will either justify you, or condemn you.
We must be careful about the things we say. Even our most idle comments are now a footprint of our character, for the whole world to see and judge.
A few weeks ago, I was having a meeting with a very important potential business partner, and he began by referring to something I’d said against corruption years ago.
“Where did you get that?” I asked, quite surprised. “On YouTube,” he replied.
Live your life as though everything you “say” is being recorded somewhere, and you may be called to account for it one day… It’s not just a spiritual thing, anymore.
- [6:15 AM, 11/2/2016] Nikiwe Denga: 1873 Sunrise it’s time to accelerate all engines to full power. Rise and shine with me on www.the1873fm.com
- [6:20 AM, 11/2/2016] Nikiwe Denga: 1873 Sunrise it’s time to accelerate all engines to full power. Rise and shine with me on www.the1873fm.com
- [6:35 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Morning. What are the implications of the current events around state capture narratives on broader conversations about constitutionalism and the proper exercise of public power?
We have learned about how the state can easily be hijacked to advance interests that fall outside the four corners of the government.
Spoke to Gandanga yesterday in Harare who was meeting some journalists as part of FOSMM outreach efforts.
The use of executive orders to undermine constitutionalism is taking a centre stage.
President Zuma is in Harare today. Just think what would be resident in Mugabe and Zuma’s minds when the term “state capture” is invoked.
In SA discussions about the use of state power are robust. The Gupta experiences although not exhaustive like is the case for SMM are being used to expose a deeper and fundamental statecraft problem in Africa.
- [6:41 AM, 11/2/2016] Tinashe Mpasiri: https://www.newsday.co.zw/2016/01/18/think-tank-challenges-presidential-powers/
- [6:44 AM, 11/2/2016] Mahlangu: Please help with full story
- [6:45 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: What is the proper place and role of a President in a constitutional democracy? Externalization when properly unmasked was given birth from the use of executive orders. The first victim was Makamba who was subjected to almost 7 months on remand in prison based on powers that the President didn’t get from the people but clothed himself with.
- [6:46 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: Good research and pick I was reading that earlier and I find it not completely exhaustive because there is no provision for such powers except in an obsolete Act which should be repealed. The only instance is state of emergency which must pass through parliament in 14 days and can only survive for 3 months at most. It’s tightly controlled that state of emergency and the Constitution makes room for subsidiary legislation I think its sec 134 but however it also says it must be tabled in parliament and I don’t think it’s just tabling but it must be ratified in passing.
- [6:51 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: An ACT exists clothing the President with law making powers. He can commit you to prison via executive orders with no judicial or legislative oversight.
- [6:54 AM, 11/2/2016] Tapuwa Chitambo: Help me welcome Barnabas Thondhlana a seasoned journalist well versed with the SMM issue
- [6:55 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Morning Mr BT
- [7:07 AM, 11/2/2016] Mahlangu: Is it not possible to post the full article for the benefit of those whose internet servers are tampered with
- [7:07 AM, 11/2/2016] Tinashe Mpasiri: Welcome Barnabas to the bank of knowledge
- [7:23 AM, 11/2/2016] Tinashe Mpasiri: Think-tank challenges Presidential Powers
January 18, 2016 in National, News
LEGAL think-tank, Veritas, says the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed.
by VENERANDA LANGA
In its recent post on alignment of 126 laws with the Constitution and the General Laws Amendment Bill which is currently before Parliament, Veritas expressed disappointment that critical unconstitutional laws such as the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and the Official Secrets Act were not being amended.
“Statutes such as the Official Secrets Act and the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act are so unconstitutional that those statutes will have to be completely re-thought and re-enacted or repealed altogether,” Veritas said in a statement.
“The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act violates Section 134 of the Constitution, which stipulates that Parliament may, in an Act of Parliament, delegate power to make statutory instruments within the scope of and for the purposes laid out in that Act. In addition, the Act violates the principle of separation of powers, according to which the Executive should administer laws rather than make them. The Act needs to be repealed.”
President Robert Mugabe last October invoked the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and issued Statutory Instrument (SI) 77 of 2015 to force government to take over the Premier Service Medical Aid Society (PSMAS)’s $144 million debt.
Legislators from across the political divide ganged up against Mugabe, saying they would reject it.
The Parliamentary Legal Committee (PLC) also issued an adverse report on SI 77 of 2015, saying taking over the debt of a private entity was ultra vires (beyond legal power or authority of) the Constitution and the State Liabilities Act. The matter is still pending in Parliament.
On the Official Secrets Act, which was enacted to prevent official secrets being disclosed to enemies or hostile organisations, Veritas said the law was modelled on British legislation passed 100 years ago during the First World War.
“Because it is a wartime measure, it is far-reaching and imposes draconian penalties. For example, it makes it an offence for a person to whom any information has been entrusted in confidence to disclose the information to anyone without authority. The penalty for doing so is up to 20 years’ imprisonment. The Act violates freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 61 of the Constitution and needs to be revised extensively to bring it in line with the Constitution,” Veritas said.
- [7:24 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: Hey chief hwu doing. Da SMM war rages on.
- [7:31 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Do you think SMM can be the equivalent of the Guptas? Zuma is in town to amplify on state capture a term that has characterised the journey of independence
- [7:33 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: Now dat u mention it it actually looks day way!
- [7:33 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: Dat way*
- [7:35 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: We know the actual actors and the timeline leading to the use or abuse of state power.
What would have led Mugabe to be convinced that an executive order was the best weapon to use to arbitrarily write a new exchange control law as a regulation in order to deal with Makamba?
- [7:37 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: For as long as u make ur money outside zanu of capture u become an enemy of day state
- [7:37 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: Da state*
- [8:42 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Is that so? How come the planes to Zim are full of whites but no one accuses them of being ZANU-PF proxies? Chinese r also making it in Zim so r Indians
- [8:44 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 73 344 2739: Mutumwa.The chinese?They are partnsers of zanu Gurus.
- [8:45 AM, 11/2/2016] Tinashe Mpasiri: All of them?
- [8:52 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Partners of individuals
- [8:52 AM, 11/2/2016] Mahlangu: Thanks
- [8:53 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 328 4005: Possible outcomes after issuance of bond notes
The only time where economic fundamentals support two currencies remaining at the exchange rate of 1:1 is inside a monetary union. This is because the issuer of the Union currency is the one controlling monetary policy throughout the union and central banks of the Union members are subservient to the issuing institution. The Rand Monetary Union is an example. When England opted to keep its currency and some autonomy on monetary policy there was an exchange rate between the Pound and the Euro.
The Zimbabwean case is outside of the textbook. Here is a government wanting to have 2 significantly different currencies trade at 1:1 inside its borders. The same currencies can’t trade at the same rate outside of Zimbabwe because one of them is not a fungible currency, nor tradable outside of the country. The interplay between imports and exports will certainly impact the value of the surrogate currency due to its inability to trade internationally. A trader who requires to import will need to find real dollars to replenish their stock once they sell out in Bond notes. Depending on the availability of the US dollar and the demand for it, a premium will emerge. If this is illegal officially, then a parallel market will arise.
In economic theory, it is impossible to hold two different currencies at par without creating shortages and illegal markets as long as the currencies are materially different in properties/ functions and fundamentals that support them. Laws cannot adequately regulate a market unless they accommodate the judgement of a reasonable man to an economic scenario.
The two currencies will not coexist and the better currency will disappear and be preserved by users as a preferred store of wealth. The bad currency will continue to circulate and replace the good one until the good currency becomes scarce (one of the basic properties of money). The bad currency will require to be increased to take up the vacuum left by the good currency diluting its value in the process and reducing its scarcity.
In a market like Zimbabwe where people have gone through the full circle before this process can progress faster than we can imagine. In no time the economy will be full on local currency and all the mismanagement that has accompanied it before. We also need to understand that it was the people who dollarised the economy and the government simply obliged with the enabling legislation. The government did not bring in a cent of the dollars that were in the country on 2009. It will take the people again to dollarise the economy again after incurring losses through this approaching madness.
- [9:32 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 296 4428: So very true. We hurtle towards 2008. Roadport traders say rate will b 10:1 by year end
- [9:47 AM, 11/2/2016] Tapuwa Chitambo: Welcome Lynet a fellow activist
- [9:48 AM, 11/2/2016] Adv. Thuto Mavula: Welcome Lyn
- [9:48 AM, 11/2/2016] Tinashe Mpasiri: Welcome Lyn
- [9:51 AM, 11/2/2016] Majamanda: But is that constitutional??
- [9:53 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: The problem of spitting on the constitution is not new. It is old and amnesia is high.
- [10:00 AM, 11/2/2016] Majamanda: And this will undermine the separation of powers doctrine
- [10:02 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: This started at independence with the deification of Mugabe
- [10:18 AM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 301 1262: Thnx for the add Taps. Greetings fellow Patriots
- [10:24 AM, 11/2/2016] Ras: It’s unconstitutional.
- [10:29 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: So we know what is constitutionalism, when we say something is Constitutional what do we mean?
- [10:31 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: There is a charter that was shared by Mr Ndoro to this group that sets out the limits in the ex
- [10:31 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Exercise of public power
- [10:45 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: it simply means that the alleged conduct /act provoke the mother of all statutes
- [10:48 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: 2. Constitution• The supreme law of the land.• The basic law of a state which sets out how that state will be organized, the powers and authorities of government between different political units, and by stating and the basic principles of the society.• In Black Law Dictionary,“ The fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institution and system of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civil rights and civil liberties.”• Tomas Paine remark that,“ Government without a Constitution is a power without a right.”
- Constitutionalism• The doctrine or system of government in which the governing power is limited by enforceable rules of law, and concentration of power is limited by various checks and balances so that the basic rights of individuals and groups are protected.• “A commitment to limitations on ordinary political power; it revolves around a political process, one that overlaps with democracy in seeking to balance state power and individual and collective rights; it draws on particular cultural and historical contexts from which it emanates; and it resides in public consciousness.”• Constitutionalism recognizes the need for government with powers but at the same time insists that limitation be placed on those powers. It envisages checks and balances by restraining the powers of governmental organs by not making them uncontrolled and arbitrary.
- Difference:-• A constitution can be defined as the fundamental laws custom, conventions, rules and regulations, stipulating how a country is governed, while constitutionalism can be defined as a principle which is not just a constitution but put limitations to the activities of individuals and the government.• The implication of constitutionalism is that in exercising its powers the government should be limited by law. Its authority over the people is dependent on its observance of the limitations under the law. Those limitations are usually enshrined in the constitution
- [10:52 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Thanks for sharing.
- [10:53 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: In essence we are talking about certainty, knowing what should and should not be done, operating within bounds, knowing that no one is above the law and the role of gvt is known and its source of power and what power it has and can use and that it does not have unfettered power to do anything. Knowing that gvt can be taken to court if it acts outside the power given to it as it does not operate within a vacuum. Gvt is not the law and does not make the law to protect personal interests of people or interests of those in gvt but rather that it acts on behalf of electorate whose power it exercises. Legislature must make laws that are led by the need for a progressive society not maliciously to injure people but to protect interest of people.
- [10:55 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Please join the boiling point on the 1873 radio www.1873fm.com unpacking constitutionalism and its promise.
- [10:55 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: 👏🏿 can u also share the importance of the doctrine of certainity within the legal sphere
- [10:56 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Please add your voice to this matter
- [10:57 AM, 11/2/2016] Shingai Ndoro: Hon. You want mechanisms against the effects of demand and supply,
This is something new to me.
- [10:58 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Master class on financial inclusion
- [11:00 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Sorry master class on constitutionalism
- [11:01 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: One of the most important requirements of law is that it must provide certainty so that people know about its existence, the sanctions thereof and in some cases we even say it must be of long standing for common law. We cannot have unknown laws just popping up every day and being applied retrospectively even, except if they are to the benefit of the person whose rights were limited.
- [11:01 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Yet in the case of externalization no such input was provided
- [11:02 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: Historical origins of legal certainty
- Legal certainty takes origins in the Ancient Greek and Roman Tyrant’s decrees could at any time change Greek laws, which, adopted at the public meeting laws, were certain and democratic
- [11:02 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Perhaps you can explain what externalization means using the prism of constitutionalism
- [11:03 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Great. Let us land these ideas using the facts of our friend – SMM.
- [11:04 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: What is your understanding of precisely why Mabunda applied for a warrant of arrest?
- [11:06 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: Law must provide for certainty and people should all know what will happen in the event of a particular conduct
- [11:07 AM, 11/2/2016] Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda Sibbs: I specifically remember listing these issue Mr Mawere and exactly the same way I have put it. I actual refreshed my memory on legal certainty then.
- [11:08 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: bcoz a tyrant (little king) had made a decree to his servants
- [11:18 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: Legal certainty takes its beginning in the days of classical Athenian democracy and the Roman Empire, but the greatest impetus for its development was made by the ECHR on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the Convention).
One of the first cases, in which the ECHR used the legal certainty principle, is
Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom case
….The Court notes that the term “prescribed
by law” in the Convention implies observance of legal certainty. The Court argues that the term “prescribed by law” includes not only written law, such as the statutes, but unwritten that is enclosed in the society rules and principles of morality.
In Steel and Others v. The United Kingdom case the ECHR emphasized that the Convention requires either the written or unwritten law, which was sufficiently precise to allow the citizen, if needed, with appropriate advice to predict some extent in certain circumstances and the consequences which an action may entail. “Lawful” and “in accordance with the procedure established by law” make full respect for fundamental procedural rules of national law.
Kruslin v. France case
the ECHR concluded that the restriction of human rights under the Convention may be done only if they are necessary in a democratic society. The phrase “under the law” provides a certain quality of the law requiring it to be accessible to a person, and it could foresee the consequences of its use and that the law is not contrary to the rule of law. Formulation of laws should be sufficiently clear and understandable to give citizens the necessary information concerning the circumstances and conditions under which public authorities may interfere to their individual rights.
Novik v. Ukraine case
The ECHR stated that deprivation of liberty is an extremely important sphere of legal certainty usage. The requirement of “quality of law” provides that the law must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid any risk of arbitrariness.
- [11:24 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: Thanks for the scholarship
- [11:28 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: so in light of this, can the RECON ACT…qualify to be called ‘a law’
- [11:36 AM, 11/2/2016] MD Mawere: It is not a law for humans but belongs to the animal kingdom
- [11:38 AM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: @27766608500 …..what do u think about the RECON ACT…after these conversations
- [2:29 PM, 11/2/2016] Norman Mukandagumbo: as l was conducting my researches, l discover that legal certnity is the basic tenent of rule of law. the RECON ACT fails to pass the constitutional test ….for it to be regarded as ‘law’ that limits rights and freedoms
- [2:50 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 301 1262: Following and learning about SMM….we are the Zim we want!
- [2:51 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 587 5828: Wrong platform.
- [3:07 PM, 11/2/2016] Stanley: Hence the need for the public square
- [3:25 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 301 1262: Tell me more even in my inbox if it has been discussed before. SMM I’m sure is a victim but not the only victim.
- [4:46 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 73 769 3782: Breaking News
Jonathan Moyo finally arrested.
Details to follow…
- [4:48 PM, 11/2/2016] TM: View Edit History Fadzayi Mahere
On the 31st of October 2016, the President of Zimbabwe purported to pass the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Amendment of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act and Issue of Bond Notes) Regulations, 2016 – S.I. 133 of 2016.
The said regulations purport to create a legal framework for the introduction of bond notes.
A bond note is a surrogate, fictional form of ‘currency’ which for all intents and purposes
Constitutes a Zimbabwe dollar that has been officially assigned the value of the United States dollar – well, because the President decrees it to be so in section 3(3) of the regulations.
As a matter of law, the proper course would have been for Parliament to create a framework for the introduction of bond notes by amending the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act pursuant to a properly thought-out monetary policy. (It is no
secret that the government has, with the assistance of our banks, raided depositors’ funds and now has to find a way to plug the gap. The Governor’s measures are not bona fide at all.)
However, the President has usurped the function of Parliament by purporting to amend section 44 of the Reserve bank of Zimbabwe Act to introduce section 44B which provides that the Minister may by notice in a statutory instrument prescribe that bond notes are legal tender.
This is not a sterile argument about form – the President has grossly exceeded his powers and in so doing violated the Constitution.
In terms of Chapter VI of the Constitution, the primary-law making body of Zimbabwe is Parliament which consists of the Senate and the National Assembly. The President has the power to assent (approve) bills passed by Parliament before they become law. However, the President’s function in this regard is limited to approving or disapproving content deliberated upon by Parliament after extensive debate and scrutiny.
The President’s role is not, in the first place, to decide what laws should be in place – such an approach would offend the time-honoured separation of powers doctrine because it would mean that the President rules by decree.
This is not permitted by the Constitution. In terms of section 131(1) of the Constitution, Parliament’s legislative authority is exercised through the enactment of Acts of Parliament.
In terms of section 134 of the Constitution, Parliament may, in an Act of Parliament delegate power to make subsidiary legislation in accordance with the powers granted in an Act of Parliament.
However, the chief caveat here is that Parliament’s primary law-making power must not be delegated or assigned to anyone else. In other words, Parliament cannot arrogate to another agency of Government – and especially not the President, the power to make, amend or repeal Acts of Parliament. The rationale underlying this limitation on the scope of subsidiary legislation is to avoid a situation where the President circumvents the expedient of Parliament to create laws in a manner that raises the potential for the abuse of state power.
It also seeks to ensure that Acts of Parliament (primary legislation) go through the rigours of robust Parliamentary debate, public hearings and scrutiny by the Parliamentary Legal Committee to ensure that the end result is “good law.”
It goes without saying that any law ‘passed’ in breach of the Constitution – including the bond note regulations – is ultra vires the Constitution and accordingly invalid and of no force or effect. Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the Constitution is supreme over the President – any law or practice inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
It is not only curious, but worrying too, that the President invoked the expedient of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act as the “enabling law” to pass the regulations.
There can be no doubt that the said Act is ultra vires section 134 of the Constitution as it purports to give the President some primary law making power – on this basis alone, the resultant regulations are invalid.
But before we even get there, in terms of section 6(1) of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, the lifespan of any regulations made in terms of the Act is 181 days. The clear import of this is that – as things stand, the legal framework for the “bond notes” will expire within 181 days – after the government has eroded the value of bank deposits irreversibly – among other problems.
What becomes of our money and our fate when the bond notes are rendered illegal by operation of law again?!
The Act, unconstitutional as it is, only permits for the making of urgent regulations. There is nothing urgent about a set of circumstances that was known to the authorities in May 2016; we are now in November! This is compounded by the fact that the President did not even give the Minister an opportunity to craft the bond notes regulations but ‘deemed’ him to have done so in section 3, where he also purported to retrospectively legalise bond coins. (Illegalities are not new to our monetary system.)
Additionally, it can be argued with great force that it is grossly irrational, thus a violation of section 68 of the Constitution, for the President to decree an exchange rate of 1 is to 1 between the bond note and the US dollar.
What basis was used for such a patently nonsensical valuation of Zimbabwean paper? Those who have been following the Reserve Bank Governor’s announcements since the 4th of May 2016 when this lunacy started will note that the new regulations make no mentions whatsoever of an “Afreximbank facility” or any other reserves held to “back” the bond notes. No mention is made of any export incentive either.
The reality is that the President by his decree now seeks to compel us to use the bond notes and exchange them at a value of 1:1.
No introduction is required for any Zimbabwean concerning how an official rate prescribed in this manner falls into disuse and how the entire scheme shall be fertile ground for the rebirth of the parallel market where the true value of this fictitious currency will be determined by the black market. It is also noteworthy that no measures have been put in place to curb the excessive printing of this money. The law as it stands allows the government to print as many of these bond notes as they need or want. Zero safeguards are in place to curb inflation.
In sum, the regulations are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which, along with the above-cited more substantial issues, bear testament to the fact that they were hastily put together.
It is a matter of regret that our government is happy to just wing it when it comes to the question of people’s livelihoods and property.
In court and on the street, Zimbabweans must protest a return to 2008.
- [4:49 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 970 7735: I’m eagerly waiting for the details
- [4:52 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 514 2244: ummm
- [4:52 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 514 2244: ummm Frequently asked questions about Bond notes 1 Nov 2016 (2).pdf6 pagesPDF339 kB 3f63a8b78d2b495d88f10ed060997f76355 pagesPDF3 MB
- [7:43 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: Mahere article is misleading
- [7:44 PM, 11/2/2016] shavirai mawere: I am very sorry for that
- [7:46 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: S134 of State Consttn does allow issuance of statutory instruments.Parliament delegated power to make S I kudhara..What has been issued thru invocation of Prez Pwrs(TM) Act is a SI not an Act of Parliament
- [7:46 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: What the Constn prohibits is delegation of parly primary power to make Acts of Parliament not SIs
- [7:47 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: What was issued is a Statutory Instrument not an Act of Parly. So Advocate Mahere is mistaken on that 1
- [7:48 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: Also there wl be an independent to oversee the bond. Mahere either is unaware of that or deliberately pretended not to know
- [8:25 PM, 11/2/2016] Delight Benge: @Jones Musara you seem to be defending the indefensible. De facto currency without going to parly is a flawed process. Who is going to accept bond note given the 2008 experiences. We have had enough of this political gimmicking. Not this time around please
- [8:28 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: u argument is flawd Cde..So going to Parly wld suddenly make the bond notes fine?
- [8:29 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: Presidential Pwrs Act empowers Bob to issue out the SI
- [8:30 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: if u have problem with the Act then lobby for its amendment or abolishment
- [8:30 PM, 11/2/2016] JNS Musara: another thing there are circumstantial differences btwn 2008 and now.
- [8:33 PM, 11/2/2016] Delight Benge: Do Zimbabweans live for Mugabe or for themselves? If he crafts an SI that says we consume dirt it’s still okay because its coming from HE. Please do not insult our intelligence
- [8:36 PM, 11/2/2016] +27 73 321 2905: ?????🙄🙄
- [8:44 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 73 344 2739: Well said
- [8:44 PM, 11/2/2016] Tawanda Madamombe: What has been issued is an amendment to an existing RBZ act, that does not constitute an SI but A whole new process reserved for parly
- [8:54 PM, 11/2/2016] Delight Benge: It has been coded s133/16. Where there is no emergency can HE utilise temporary measures?
- [8:55 PM, 11/2/2016] Ras: The PPTMA is unconstitutional. It must be simply abolished
- [8:55 PM, 11/2/2016] Ras: Cde Musara your contribution prompted me to look up S34 which I will attach in a second. My reading of this section is not in line with your argument. Why should Parly delegate law making to the President? It goes against basic principles of separating powers
- [8:57 PM, 11/2/2016] Delight Benge: Going to parly is a process of putting checks and balances. If a negative report is generated with regards to the introductions of bond notes then they should not be introduced. On the same note if it is a positive report then let them come through. That is constitutionalism to my small mind.
- [9:08 PM, 11/2/2016] Ras: At a basic minimum a SI should be in line with its “parent” Act
- [9:09 PM, 11/2/2016] TM: Because secondary legislation cannot have more powers than its empowering Act
- [9:11 PM, 11/2/2016] Mahlangu: its clear Mugabe is not being smart here because the blame lies solely on him. In any case he has never been smart
- [9:26 PM, 11/2/2016] Ras: Precisely
- [10:40 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 77 459 5355: Yeh right you are somewhere in the northern hemisphere and everything will br circumstantial for you …happy halloween. Frequently asked questions about Bond notes 1 Nov 2016 (2)6 pagesPDF339 kB GOVERNMENT-GAZETTE13 pagesPDF254 kB
- [11:01 PM, 11/2/2016] Tawanda Madamombe: ☝🏼☝🏼☝🏼government gazzete
- [11:32 PM, 11/2/2016] +263 73 344 2739: Wn u ask a question and then offer to answer it yoself. Know dts propaganda u r preaching