REPORTABLE
ZLR (24)
Judgment
No. SC 25/06
Constitutional
Application No. 160/05
(1)
CLAUDIOUS MARIMO (2) MOVEMENT FOR
DEMOCRATIC CHANGE
v
(1)
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL &
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (2) THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(3) THE CHIEF JUSTICE (4) HERBERT
MURERWA
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
SANDURA
JA, CHEDA JA, ZIYAMBI JA, MALABA JA & GWAUNZA JA
HARARE,
JANUARY 12 & JULY 25, 2006
E
Matinenga,
with him E
Mushore,
for the applicants
V
Mabhiza,
with him C
Muchenga,
for the respondents
MALABA JA: This is an
application in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (the
Constitution) for redress of an
alleged contravention of the
Declaration of Rights contained in ss 18(1) and 18 (9) of the
Constitution.
The
right guaranteed to any person under s 18(1) is the right to
protection of the law whilst that entrenched in terms of s 18(9)
is
the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial court established by law.
The
first applicant was a candidate for election as a member of
Parliament for Goromonzi Constituency in the general election held
on
31 March 2005. He was sponsored by the second applicant (the
MDC) which is a registered political party. The seat in
Parliament for Goromonzi Constituency was won by the fourth
respondent who was a candidate in the general election sponsored by
the
Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF).
The Parliamentary elections were
conducted in terms of the Electoral Act [Chapter
2:13] (the Act)
which came into operation on 1 February 2005. Section 161 of the
Act established a new court called the Electoral
Court (the
Court) with jurisdiction to hear and determine election petitions
and other matters in terms of the Act.
Section
162(1) of the Act provided for the appointment of persons to preside
over the court. It reads as follows:
162(1) The Chief Justice shall
after consultation with the Judge President appoint one or more
judges of the High Court to be Judge
or Judges, as the case may be,
of the Electoral Court.
Section
172 of the Act provided that:
172 (1) A decision of the
Electoral Court on a question of fact shall be final.
(2) A decision of the
Electoral Court on a question of law may be the subject of an appeal
to the Supreme Court.
On 15 April 2005 the first
applicant filed a petition with the court challenging the validity of
the election of the fourth respondent
as a member of Parliament for
Goromonzi Constituency. Fifteen other candidates sponsored by the
MDC who had lost the election to
candidates sponsored by ZANU-PF
filed petitions challenging the results in their respective
Constituencies.
On
5 May 2005 the Chief Justice, acting in terms of s 162(1) of the Act
appointed five judges of the High Court to preside over the
court to
hear and determine the election petitions. On 23 May the applicants
made the application to the Supreme Court attacking
the
constitutional validity of s 162(1) of the Act. They alleged that
the Electoral Court was a special court as defined
in s
92(4)(b) of the Constitution.
The
applicants contended that Parliament ought to have provided that
persons to preside over the court had to be appointed in the
manner
prescribed under s 92(1) of the Constitution. It was their argument
that s 162(1) of the Act was inconsistent with s 92(1)
of the
Constitution. For that reason, they contended that s 162(1) of the
Act and the appointments of the judges of the High Court
to preside
over the court were void. The first applicant alleged that because
of the Constitutional invalidity of s 162(1) of the
Act and the
appointments of the judges to preside over the court the rights
guaranteed to him under ss 18(1) and 18(9) of the Constitution
were
likely to be contravened should the hearing of his election petition
commence.
Section
92(1) of the Constitution reads:
92(1) The power to appoint
persons to preside over a special court shall vest in the President,
after consultation with the Judicial
Service Commission;
provided
that Parliament may provide that the Chief Justice may, after
consulting the Judicial Service Commission, appoint a person
holding
the office of judge of the High Court to preside over a special court
for such period as he may specify.
A
special court is defined in s 92(4) of the Constitution to
mean:
(a) the
Administrative Court established by s 3 of the Administrative Court
Act [Chapter
7:07].
(a1) the Fiscal Appeal Court
established by s 3 of the Fiscal Appeal Court Act [Chapter
23:01].
(a2) the Special Court for Income
Tax Appeals established by s 64 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter
23:06].
(a3) any court, or other
adjudicating authority established by law which exercises any
function that was vested in a court referred
to in paragraph (a),
(a1) or (a2) on the date of commencement of the Constitution of
Zimbabwe Amendment (No 15) Act, 1998.
(b) any court or other
adjudicating authority established by law other than
(i) a
local court; or
(ii) a court established by or
under a disciplinary law or
(iii) a
court established by or under an Act of Parliament for the
adjudication of small civil claims;
if
there is no right of appeal directly or indirectly from a decision of
that court or adjudicating authority to the Supreme Court
or the High
Court;
(c) any court or other
adjudicating authority established by law which is declared by that
law to be a special court for the purposes
of this section.
The application was served on the
Chief Justice on 31 May. He appears to have accepted the validity
of the contention advanced by
the applicants because he thereafter
consulted the Judicial Service Commission and the Judge President on
the appointment of the
judges of the High Court to preside over the
court. On 1 June 2005, a letter was sent to each of the judges who
had been appointed
on 5 May. It reads:
It
has been brought to my attention that some of the litigants in the
electoral petitions are unhappy about your previous appointment
as a
judge of the Electoral Court because the Judicial Service Commission
was not consulted in terms of s 92(1) of the Constitution.
In
the event of my appointment of you as a judge of the Electoral Court
on 5 May 2005 not being in accordance with the law it is hereby
revoked.
Please
be advised that I, in my capacity as Chief Justice of Zimbabwe and
after consultation with the Judge President and the Judicial
Service
Commission have appointed you, as a Judge of the Electoral Court with
effect from this day the 1st
June 2005.
Acting on the authority of the
letter of appointment some of the judges refused applications by the
petitioners to suspend the hearing
and determination of the election
petitions pending determination of this application. They also
refused requests by the petitioners
to refer the question of the
contravention of the declaration of rights arising in that court to
the Supreme Court for determination
in terms of s 24(2) of the
Constitution.
It was contended on behalf of the
applicants that the re-appointment of the judges on 1 June 2005 was
also invalid because there was
no Act of Parliament authorising the
Chief Justice to appoint the judges of the High Court after
consulting the Judicial Service
Commission and the Judge President.
It was further argued that the insistence by the judges presiding
over the court to hear and
determine the election petitions and the
refusal to refer the question of the contravention of the Declaration
of Rights which had
arisen in those proceedings to the Supreme Court
for determination violated the petitioners right to the protection
of the law.
The applicants sought by way of
relief a declaratory order in these terms:
It is declared that:
1.1 The Electoral Court
established by s 161 of the Electoral Act [Chapter
2:13] falls within the
meaning of a special court as defined by s 92(4) of the
Constitution.
1.2 Accordingly the manner of
appointment of judges to it as provided in s 162(1) of that Act be
and is hereby declared to be inconsistent
with s 92(1) and s 18 of
the Constitution.
1.3 The
initial appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral
Court without consulting the Judicial Service Commission
on the
specific appointments are accordingly invalid.
1.4 Additionally
any appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral Court
without specifying the period of the appointment
are invalid.
1.5 All
appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral Court
after consulting the Judicial Service Commission without
Parliament
having provided for the same are also declared to be inconsistent
with s 92(1) and hence s 18 of the Constitution and
are accordingly
invalid.
2. It is ordered that:
2.1 The appointments made by the
third respondent to the Electoral Court, whether made in accordance
with s 162 of the Electoral Act
[Chapter
2:13] or made on 1
June 2005 are a nullity, and set aside.
Only the first and second
respondents filed opposing affidavits. The first respondent is the
Minister responsible for the administration
of the Act. The second
respondent was cited because s 24(6) of the Constitution gives him a
right to be heard by the court on the
question whether any law is in
contravention of the Declaration of Rights arising for determination
in any proceedings before it.
The contention advanced by the
respondents in opposing the application was that the Electoral Court
was not a special court
as defined in s 92(4) of the
Constitution. The argument was based on the fact that s 172(2) of
the Act gave to a party who felt
aggrieved by a decision of the court
on a question of law a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. There
was a right of appeal from
a decision of the court to the Supreme
Court (so went the argument). The contention was therefore that
Parliament was not obliged,
in the exercise of legislative power to
provide for the appointment of persons to preside over the court
after consulting with the
Judicial Service Commission. Consequently
the respondents denied that there was any inconsistency between s
162(1) of the Act and
s 92(1) of the Constitution.
The first question for
determination is whether on a true interpretation of s 172(1) of the
Act there was no right of appeal from
a decision of the Electoral
Court within the meaning of s 92(4)(b) of the Constitution. An
affirmative answer to the question
will establish as a fact the
applicants contention that the Electoral Court is a special
court for the purposes of s 92(1)
of the Constitution.
A right of appeal is a matter of
substantive law. The fact of its non existence can only be
established on the construction of the
statute by which the court
from a decision of which it is alleged that no right of appeal was
created. In this case the fact to
be established requires proof of
a negative statement to the effect that there is no right of appeal
from a decision of the Electoral
Court. The contention advanced on
behalf of the respondents to the effect that the Electoral Court is
not a special court
because s 172(2) of the Act gives a party
aggrieved by a decision of that court a right of appeal on a question
of law does not assist
in the proof of the negative fact in s
92(4)(b) of the Constitution.
It appears to me that one has to
look at s 172(1) of the Act in the determination of the question
whether there is no right of appeal
from a decision of the Electoral
Court. Section 172(1) does not expressly provide that there shall
be no right of appeal from a
decision of the court on a question of
fact. It simply provides that a judgment of that court on a
question of fact shall be final.
Usually the draftsman adds such
words as and not subject to appeal to put it beyond doubt that
the finality of the decision
is not in respect of the court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction only but binds the parties as well.
Where Parliament intends to vest
a decision of a court with finality as was the case in s 172(1) of
the Act, there is no right of
appeal. Section 172(1) of the Act
embodies the definitive criterion of a special court set out in
s 92(4)(b) of the Constitution.
There is a decision of the court
which would form the subject matter of that provision distinguished
from the other type of a decision
under s 172(2) of the Act from
which an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court by the actual nature
of the question on which the appeal
would otherwise have lain to the
Supreme Court but for the provisions of s 172(1). I accept the
submission made on behalf of the
applicants by Mr Matinenga
that the Electoral Court established by s 161 of the Act is a
special court for the purposes of s 92(1) of the Constitution.
Having established a special
court under Chapter
VIII of the
Constitution and conferred on it the judicial power to hear and
determine election petitions, Parliament was bound by s 92(1)
of the
Constitution to provide for the appointment of persons to exercise
the powers of that court in the manner prescribed by the
Constitution. The method of appointment of the persons to preside
over a special court prescribed under s 92(1) of the
Constitution
ensured that the same conditions of the discharge of the
judicial functions of the court were secured for them as were
guaranteed
to persons appointed under Chapter
VIII of the
Constitution (dealing with the judiciary) as judges of the High
Court.
It is common cause that our
Constitution is based on the basic concept of the separation of the
powers of the State into the legislative,
executive and judiciary
spheres. In that regard the Constitution is divided into chapters
dealing exclusively with the plenitude
of each power and how parts of
it may be conferred upon appropriate bodies within its sphere.
Judicial authority is dealt with
under Chapter VIII
of the Constitution. Section 79(1) which commences Chapter
VIII declares that the
judicial authority of the State shall vest in (a) the Supreme Court,
and (b) the High Court, and (c) such other
courts subordinate to the
Supreme Court and the High Court as may be established by or under an
Act of Parliament. The hierarchical
structure of the courts has the
Supreme Court at the apex to supervise the exercise of judicial power
by subordinate courts through
the system of appeals.
The structure of the distribution
of judicial power also shows that the independence of the judiciary
is more firmly safeguarded for
persons presiding over superior
courts, that is to say, the High Court and the Supreme Court than it
is for subordinate courts.
To that end, judges of the High Court
and the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after
consultation with the Judicial
Service Commission. They have
security of tenure in that they can remain in office during good
behaviour until they voluntarily
resign, retire at the age of sixty
five or seventy. The office of a judge of the High Court and the
Supreme Court cannot be abolished
during his or her tenure of office.
His or her salary cannot be reduced.
The two pillars of security of
tenure and conditions of service firmly secure for the judges of the
superior courts the necessary
independence from interference by the
other organs of the State that is to say the legislature and the
executive in the discharge
of judicial functions.
It was for the fundamental
purpose of securing, for persons who preside over special courts,
the independence in the discharge
of judicial functions of those
courts safeguarded by the two pillars of security of tenure and
conditions of service, that the framers
of the Constitution provided
that they be appointed in the manner prescribed under s 92(1) which
is one of the provisions of the
Constitution falling under Chapter
VIII.
Once it established a special
court, Parliament was bound by s 92(1) of the Constitution to
provide that persons who were to
exercise the judicial power vested
in that court, be appointed by the President
after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission or provide in
the Act that they be appointed by the Chief Justice after consulting
the Judicial Service Commission.
It is clear from the provisions
of s 92(1) of the Constitution that consultation with the Judicial
Service Commission is a mandatory
requirement for a valid appointment
of a person to exercise judicial power conferred by Parliament on a
special court. Consultation
with the Judicial Service
Commission by the President
or the Chief Justice
is such an integral aspect of the appointment of a person to preside
over a special court that without it there cannot be a
valid
discharge of the judicial functions of that court by the appointee.
The consultation by the President
or the Chief
Justice
of the prescribed body, and not any one else, is so mandatory that
Parliament cannot abridge the provisions requiring its enactment
in
the statute establishing the special court. In fact any method of
appointment of persons to preside over a special court
which is
different from that prescribed under s 92(1) of the Constitution
would be invalid.
Under s 162(1) of the Act,
Parliament empowered the Chief Justice to appoint sitting judges of
the High Court to preside over the
Electoral Court which is a
special court, after consulting the Judge President. It
transferred the right to be consulted
on the appointment of judges of
the High Court to exercise judicial power vested in a special
court from the Judicial Service
Commission to the Judge President.
Parliament had no power to do that. It was under a duty to
provide that the judges of the
High Court were to be appointed to
preside over the Electoral Court in the manner prescribed under s
92(1) of the Constitution.
Failure to so provide means that s
162(1) of the Act is inconsistent with s 92(1) of the Constitution.
Section 3 of the Constitution
provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and if
any other law is inconsistent with
it that other law shall, to the
extent of the inconsistency, be void. It must follow that to the
extent of its inconsistency with
s 92(1) of the Constitution s 162(1)
of the Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. The
appointment of the judges
to preside over the special court in the
manner prescribed under s 162(1) of the Act was clearly invalid.
The last question for
determination is whether the applicants established the contravention
of the fundamental rights protected under
s 18(1) and 18(9) of the
Constitution as they approached this Court on an application under s
24(1) of the Constitution. The law,
the right to the protection of
which the applicants alleged they had been deprived of under s 18(1)
of the Constitution, was s 92(1)
of the Constitution. But for
Parliament to purport to make a law which was void by virtue of s 3
of the Constitution did not in
my view deprive anyone of the right
to protection of the law. That is the case as long as the
judicial system of Zimbabwe
provides a procedure, as it does, by
which any person interested in establishing the invalidity of a
statute, in this case s 162(1)
of the Act, can obtain from the courts
of justice in which the plenitude of the judicial power of the State
is vested, a declaration
of the invalidity that would be binding upon
Parliament itself and upon all persons attempting to Act under, or
enforce, the inconsistent
law. Access to a court of justice for
that remedy is itself the protection of the law to which all
individuals including
the election petitioners involved in this case
would be entitled under s 18(1) of the Constitution. See Attorney
General of Trinidad & Tobago v Mcleod
(1985) LRC 81 (PC) at 90 c e; Harrikissoon
v Attorney General
1980 AC 265 at 269, 270.
I am however satisfied that the
applicants established the contravention of their right to protection
of the law by proving the contravention
of the fundamental right
guaranteed to them under s 18(9) of the Constitution. There is no
doubt that the applicants in their capacity
as election petitioners
were entitled to a fair hearing and determination of their cases by
an independent and impartial court established
by law. The
Electoral Court had to be a court established by law before it
could be able to afford the applicants the right
to due process and
to the protection of the law.
The phrase a court established
by law incorporated into s 18(9) of the Constitution includes two
aspects. It refers to a court
as an independent institution and a
repository of judicial power. In that sense the Electoral Court was
established by law
in that it was established by s 161 of the
Act the validity of which was not attacked.
The second aspect relates to a
court as it is constituted that is when a judge sits to exercise
judicial power vested in the court
and does so on the authority of a
valid appointment. It is in the second sense that the phrase was
used to allege a contravention
of the Declaration of the Rights
contained in s 18(9) of the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,
the provision by Parliament
for the appointment of the judges of the
High Court to preside over the Electoral Court in the manner
prescribed under s 92(1) of
the Constitution was a necessary
condition for validity of the appointments and the exercise by the
judges of the jurisdiction of
that court.
It must follow, that as the
judges were not validly appointed, they had no authority to exercise
the judicial power of the Electoral
Court at the time they purported
to hear and determine the election petitions. In other words, the
court in which they sat was
not properly constituted and was not a
court established by law. There was a violation of the right
guaranteed to the applicants
under s 18(9) of the Constitution.
A declaration by a validly
constituted court as to the law applicable to a determination in a
case becomes the law binding the parties
to the proceedings until it
is reversed on appeal. In that way the court affords to the parties
the right to protection of the
law. But in this case the rulings
refusing the request for the reference of the question of
contravention of the Declaration of
Rights contained in s 18(1) and
18(9) were not only clearly wrong in view of the fact that there were
indeed invalid appointments
of the judges concerned but the court was
itself not validly constituted.
The refusal of the application
for reference of the question of the contravention of the Declaration
of Rights in each case where
it had arisen constituted a denial to
the election petitioners involved, of the right to protection of the
law guaranteed under s
18(1) of the Constitution. See Martin
v Attorney-General & Anor
1993(1) ZLR 153 (S) at 157 G-158 A; Tsvangirai
v Mugabe & Anor
S-84-05 at 19.
This court has power under s
24(4) of the Constitution to make such orders and give such direction
as it may consider appropriate
for the purpose of enforcing or
securing the enforcement of the Declaration of Rights. What has
exercised my mind in this regard
is the question whether to order the
suspension of the coming into effect of the declaratory order to
which the applicants are clearly
entitled, for a period in order to
give Parliament the opportunity to correct the error in the exercise
of its powers.
The problem I have faced is that
such an order of suspension of the operation of the declaration of
the invalidity of s 162(1) of
the Act and the consequent effect
thereof would not be for the purpose of enforcing or securing the
enforcement of the Declaration
of Rights. It would have the
effect of perpetuating a void. A court has no power to fill up such
an empty space. It is for
Parliament to put in place a valid law on
the appointment of the persons to preside over the Electoral Court to
hear and determine
the election petitions filed with that Court.
The applicants are accordingly
granted the following relief:
It
is declared that:
1.1 The Electoral Court
established by s 161 of the Electoral Act [Chapter
2:13] falls within the
meaning of a special court as defined by s 92(4) of the
Constitution.
1.2 Accordingly the manner of
appointment of judges to it as provided in s 162(1) of that Act be
and is hereby declared to be inconsistent
with s 92(1) and s 18 of
the Constitution.
1.3 The
initial appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral
Court without consulting the Judicial Service Commission
on the
specific appointments are accordingly invalid.
1.4 Additionally
any appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral Court
without specifying the period of the appointment
are invalid.
1.5 All
appointments made by the third respondent to the Electoral Court
after consulting the Judicial Service Commission without
Parliament
having provided for the same are also declared to be inconsistent
with s 92(1) and hence s 18 of the Constitution and
are accordingly
invalid.
1.6 All appointments made by the
third respondent to the Electoral Court, whether made in accordance
with s 162 of the Electoral Act
[Chapter
2:13] or made on 1
June 2005 are a nullity and set aside.
1.7 The first respondent and
second respondent are jointly and severally to pay the costs of the
application one paying the other
to be absolved.
SANDURA
JA: I agree.
CHEDA JA: I agree.
GWAUNZA JA: I agree.
ZIYAMBI JA: I have read the
judgment of MALABA JA and agree with the conclusions at which he
arrived as well as the relief granted.
I wish to add the following
remarks:
Judges in Zimbabwe are appointed
and hold office in terms of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Their
security and tenure of office is
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Thus the terms and conditions of their appointment cannot, without
their consent, be altered during
their tenure of office. These
provisions make for the independence of the judiciary from the other
arms of the State being the
Executive and the Legislature.
Section 92(1) of the Constitution
provides for judges of the High Court to be appointed to serve in a
special court in circumstances
limited to the manner of their
appointment and the period of appointment. Section 92(2) ensures
that during the term of office
of such judges appointed to preside
over a special court, their conditions of service shall not be
amended and their office shall
not be abolished without their
consent.
No provision is made in the
Constitution for judges of the High Court to serve in subordinate
courts other than special courts.
Thus it would be fair to say that
if the Electoral Court is not a special court then the appointment of
judges of the High Court
to preside in that court is inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution. The Chief Justice when
acting in terms of s 91
of the Constitution can only assign a judge
of the High Court to preside in an inferior court if that court is a
special court.
In prescribing a manner of
appointment by the Chief Justice, other than that enacted in the
Constitution, Parliament contravened the
Constitution and the
offending provisions, being s 162 of the Electoral Act (the Act),
is invalid by reason of its inconsistency
with the Constitution.
It follows from the above that
the appointment of the judges of the High Court to preside in the
Electoral Court, made by the Chief
Justice acting in terms of s 162
of the Act was contrary to the provisions of s 92(1) of the
Constitution and therefore invalid.
The contention by the respondent
that the Electoral Court is not a special court as defined by s 92(4)
of the Constitution since there
is a right of appeal on a point of
law to the Supreme Court, does not assist its case. Apart from the
fact that the right of appeal
is, in my view, so limited as to be non
existent, if the Electoral Court is not a special court, then the
appointments of the judges
of the High Court to preside in it are all
invalid. If it is a special court then the procedure set out in s
92(1) must be followed
if the appointments are to be valid.
Whichever way one looks at it,
the applicants contentions are valid. If the Electoral Court is
to be a special court then Parliament
must enact the enabling
legislation in conformity with the Constitution. If it is not a
special court, then judges of the High
Court cannot lawfully be
appointed to preside in it.
The most favourable conclusion
which can be arrived at in the circumstances, since Parliament is
presumed to act in compliance with
the Constitution, is that
Parliament intended that the Electoral Court should be a special
court. In order to give effect to that
intention the necessary
legislation in accordance with s 92 of the Constitution must be
enacted to govern the appointment of judges
of the High Court to
preside in that court.
Atherstone & Cook,
applicants legal practitioners
Civil
Division of the Attorney Generals Office,
respondents legal practitioners