Zimpapers Logo

According to the resolution, a five-member committee was to be set up to determine the fate of Mr Zvoma.
Although the judgment was read in Justice Francis Bere’s chambers, lawyers from both sides confirmed the granting of Mr Zvoma’s order and they hailed the judge for passing a “well-reasoned” judgment.
The lawyers indicated that the court found that the motion itself was punitive in nature and that the committee to be established would not determine the verdict but the penalty.

It was the court’s finding that the procedure adopted was wrong and that if anything, the Standing Rules and Orders Committee was qualified to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Zvoma.
In an interview after the ruling Mr Zvoma’s lawyer, Mr Edwin Manikai of Dube, Manikai and Hwacha, said the judgment restrained Parliament from interfering with the process pending a court application filed by Mr Zvoma.

Mr Zvoma filed a court application seeking to declare the whole process of firing him illegal.
Despite that application, Parliament went on to move the motion resulting in him filing the urgent chamber application.
“The judgment means Parliament is restrained from interfering with the process pending hearing of the application seeking the main relief to declare the whole process illegal.

“The judge found that the process would have been initiated by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee and Mr Zvoma is entitled to a fair hearing.
“The SROC or its subcommittees is the one that recommends disciplinary action on the clerk. The matter is back to the drawing board.
“The ruling ensures that there is no clouding or interference with Parliament, an important arm of the State.

“That was a well-reasoned judgment,” Mr Manikai said.
Mr Chris Mhike of Artherstone and Cook said the judgment was clear and that Parliament had to comply and map the way forward in light of the judgment.
“We have noted the contents of the judgment. It was a very substantiated judgment exposing a number of fundamental points of law.

“Parliament naturally has to consider these pronouncements with the seriousness they deserve.
“After proper consideration of the issues raised by the judge, a position will then be taken by Parliament on how to proceed in light of the latest judgment,” he said.
The attempt to fire Zvoma started early  last month with MDC-T legislators accusing the clerk of failing to adhere to universally accepted etiquette and decorum of officials in his capacity.

Some of the allegations included  failure to properly conduct the election for the post of Speaker of the House of Assembly in August 2008 and unprocedurally deferring the sitting of Parliament on 27 March last year.

Zvoma’s lawyers were moving for the nullification of the motion on the basis that the path used by the legislators was illegal and that the legislators went on to debate the motion despite a pending court hearing.
But the legislators argued that the motion had already been adopted and that only the House of Assembly could reverse it.