Commissions Watch 19 Jun [Anti-Corruption Commission Candidates: New Timetable for Public
Interviews Friday 21st June]
COMMISSIONS WATCH
[19th June 2019]
Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission
New Timetable for Interviews of Candidates This Friday 21st June
Our Commissions Watch bulletin dated 8th June [link] gave advance notice
of the public interviews to be held at Parliament of the 38 short-listed
candidates for appointment to fill eight vacancies in the membership of the
Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission [ZACC]. This bulletin sets out the
new timetable for the interviews, as revised following a legal challenge
described below.
Our previous bulletin – like the preceding public notices published by
Parliament in the print media – set out the procedure decided on by the
Committee on Standing Rules and Orders [CSRO], which was that the
committee members would split into two teams to conduct the interviews, to
be held simultaneously in the Senate and National Assembly chambers
from 9.00 am to 4.20 pm on Friday 21st June, with breaks for tea and
lunch. The thinking was that this procedure would facilitate completion of
38 twenty-minute interviews on the day set aside for the purpose.
High Court challenge to interview procedure
One of the candidates, legal practitioner Mr Tinomudaishe Chinyoka,
challenged the legality of this two-team procedure by launching High Court
proceedings against the Speaker of the National Assembly and the
President of the Senate, who are ex officio the chairperson and deputy
chairperson, respectively, of the CSRO. His argument was that the
procedure would be inconsistent with the Constitution because the
Constitution requires the CSRO itself, not sub-committees, to conduct such
interviews and submit a list to the President from which he will make the
appointments. Splitting the CSRO into two sub-committees or teams would
result in candidates being interviewed by different persons.
Note: Section 254(1)(b) of the Constitution empowers the President to
appoint the eight ZACC members from “a list of not fewer than twelve
nominees submitted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders” and
section 237(1), which applies by virtue of section 256, provides that “the
Committee on Standing Rules and Orders must … conduct public
interviews of prospective candidates; prepare a list of the appropriate
number of nominees for appointment; and submit the list to the President”.
The appropriate number in the present case is at least twelve, as stipulated
in section 254(1)(b).
Court order
Justice Chikowero agreed with Mr Chinyoka’s argument. So, it appears,
did Parliament on consideration, because the lawyer representing the