daniel chigunwe
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE leadership contest within CCC has taken yet another dramatic turn, as interim secretary-general Senator Sengezo Tshabangu has refiled his appeal with the Supreme Court following a temporary withdrawal after a procedural misstep.
This latest manoeuvre by Sen Tshabangu reignites a fierce legal battle that has gripped the party and cast a spotlight on the factional tensions simmering beneath its surface.
The initial withdrawal of the appeal had been heralded as a decisive victory by the CCC faction led by Professor Welshman Ncube, who viewed it as an affirmation of the High Court ruling that nullified Sen Tshabangu’s authority to reassign CCC legislators to Parliamentary committees.
The contested judgment, handed down by Justice Neville Wamambo on January 8 this year in case HCH 5606/24, concluded that Sen Tshabangu did not possess the requisite authority to reassign Members of Parliament to different portfolio committees.
It also invalidated the appointment of Sen Nonhlanhla Mlotshwa as the party’s Chief Whip in Parliament, declaring it unlawful and without legal effect.
In a joint statement issued on Monday, Sen Tshabangu and Sen Mlotshwa sought to clarify the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of their initial notice of appeal.
They said that the withdrawal had been prompted by a clerical error in the service address, which they assured had since been rectified.
“Senator Tshabangu and Senator Mlotshwa confirm that their previously served and filed notice of appeal in respect of Harare High Court case number 5606/24 was withdrawn, with the customary tendering of the wasted costs so occasioned,” the statement read.
They further explained that the error had been corrected and the appeal refiled.
The statement underscored that the High Court judgment remains under appeal and is now pending before the Supreme Court, with Sen Tshabangu and Sen Mlotshwa expressing confidence in their legal prospects.
“There are reasonable, if not definite, prospects of success for the appeal,” they said.
The urgency and gravity of the matter were echoed by CCC spokesman Advocate Nqobizitha Mlilo, who said: “It is sufficient for now to say, when the full story is told, jaws will drop. What happened has no precedence in the history of legal practitioners.
“It is fortunate that Senator Tshabangu, Senator Mlotshwa, and Mr Sithole do not want to play dirty as others are doing. They are interested in rational disputation. We hope our colleagues will reconsider their actions.”
The dispute, however, extends far beyond the reassignment of MPs, with Sen Mlotshwa’s appointment as the CCC’s overall Chief Whip emerging as a central flashpoint.
Justice Wamambo’s ruling, which invalidated her appointment, has been fiercely defended by the Ncube-aligned faction of the CCC.
They interpreted Sen Tshabangu’s initial withdrawal of the appeal as a vindication of their legal stance, further entrenching divisions within the party.
Now, with the refiling of the appeal, Sen Tshabangu has laid out a series of intricate legal arguments challenging the High Court’s findings.
Among the grounds advanced in the fresh notice of appeal, Sen Tshabangu asserts that the lower court erred in failing to recognise the constitutional nature of the matter, which, by virtue of Section 167 of the Constitution, falls outside its jurisdiction.
He further contends that the High Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 107 of the High Court Rules 2021, rendering its proceedings and judgment fatally flawed.
Sen Tshabangu also accuses the High Court of misinterpreting Section 151 of the Constitution, asserting that the court erred in ruling that members of the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, the top Parliamentary committee, are appointed for the life of each Parliament. This committee, chaired by the Speaker, brings together senior members from both Government and opposition benches.
He argues that Ms Lynette Karenyi, Mr Sesel Zwidzai and Mr Edwin Mushoriwa were not part of the committee’s original composition and, by the court’s own findings, were not entitled to hold the disputed positions.
Moreover, Sen Tshabangu challenges the High Court’s conclusion that his actions, alongside those of the Speaker of Parliament, in reshuffling parliamentary positions amounted to a recall as contemplated under Section 129(1)(k).
He maintains that the court erred in declaring these actions null and void, citing case HC 6872/23 as precedent.
The appeal also takes issue with the court’s determination that the position of Chief Whip is not recognised by law, thereby rendering Sen Mlotshwa’s appointment unlawful. Sen Tshabangu contends that this finding is both erroneous and unsupported by the legal framework governing parliamentary appointments.
As the battle escalates, the stakes remain high for both factions of the CCC.
The outcome will not only determine the fate of Sen Tshabangu’s authority but also the broader question of who holds legitimate control over the party’s leadership structures.
For now, the refiling of the appeal ensures that the legal saga continues, with the Supreme Court now tasked with untangling the complex web of constitutional and procedural issues at the centre of this dispute.
daglous masveta
