The 2013 constitution spells out that an Act of Parliament must prescribe a code of conduct for Vice Presidents. But was it done? No


By Trust Sibanda


The advent of social media has impacted positively on communities that thrive on rumor as people will
have something to wile up time on in this generation of lack of employment.

Those who occupy higher offices whose space seem to be lacking privacy as the eagle eye of social media shifts those closed curtains and shut doors.

The doors that were shut for the public not to peep through have been made porous by this media.

Just this past week social media bullies and media believers woke up with the news of VP straying into
other peoples yards in search of sacred fruits.

No one knows whether the fruits the big man is accused to be feasting on are low hanging or there are harvested after a struggle of pelting rocks and clearing obstacles in the process.

The good part is the man has distanced himself from such acts of immorality but the woman if one or women in their “manyness” have failed to break the silence.

Kangaroo courts as already charged the VP as guilty without trial. What happened to the old adage of
Sabhuku Havatongwi”?

The tricky question is those who say the big man is guilty while line in law are they reading because as
legal minds say the occupier of that office is not a civil servant so there is now law from civil service can
bind him.

We stand guided by section 201 of the constitution. He operates from above civil service not
from within.

It is clear that he was appointed to be in charge of the civil service not to be enslaved by its
rules. If he was a Headmaster at a particular school as we speak a code of conduct would be searching
for him.

Constitutionally they say a VP can be removed if he does something which is inconsistent with his office.

Remember that biblical story where only saints were allowed to cast a rock on the adulterous woman

The question is who defines that charge and is there a standard to measure it against.

Is the inconsistence defined by the office of the President, parliament, judiciary or the public?

Those who must define maybe they are quick to remember that biblical story where only saints were allowed to cast a rock on the adulterous woman.

The question is will the stone be picked by a Saint or by a suspect in other cases that are yet to be known.

Legal minds say our 2013 constitution spells out that an Act of Parliament must prescribe a code of
conduct for Vice Presidents. Eight years down the line nothing of that sort is in place. Suppose the story
on social media is true then he has to go scot free due to lack of rules that would have termed the
appetite for the sacred fruits.

No one must be charged for nonexistent laws. This exposes lack of will and commitment from parliament in aligning our laws to the constitution which we all agreed upon according to the definition of democracy.

The whole story to me does not make sense at all because people want the VP to plead guilty even if he
is not supposed to. I believe his word that he is a victim of voice cloning or hacking I am not sure if this
would be correct if put in one sentence.

If his security can be bridged how safe are we as citizens and how secure is our country

I develop butterflies if it can turn out to be true that indeed his mobile device was tempered with.

We are talking of the second or third most important person in the country. If his security can be bridged how safe are we as citizens and how secure is our country?

As the cloners or hackers got access to his communication channel what other information did they
intercept in the process.

One thing I learnt from this unfortunate incident whose details are comedic and disappointing is that
anyone who occupies a public office must lead an exemplary life so that they can earn trust and respect
from citizens.

People will push themselves out of power due to compromised morality.

Those tasked to speak for the government also have a sharpened weakness of tweeting texts that flare
the suspicion. What happened to the “silence is golden” rule?

Time is a good healer. It is consistent in healing grapevine. Tests we put on tweeter are like salt put on a wound.

In other countries Leaders step down if their tenure is compromised by controversy but our situation is
different. A person becomes vulnerable if they forfeit their influence.

They will start to be investigated and humiliated. ZACC and law enforces will operate from their places and leave them broke and in prison if they fail to exile themselves.

Future leaders must not only be requested to bring a certain number of signatures for consideration but
there is need for them to bring testimonials. We need to cover their moral aspect as well not only their

The question is from this rumor what is the next step? Was the presser enough to prove one innocent?
Must we also give the microphone to the other party to do a presser as well since it takes two to
mingle? The two voices may help citizens to compare notes.

If all factors remain constant these are issues that prompt a President to set a commission of inquiry to probe allegations of office capture.

In case you missed my point. I never accused or exonerated anyone.

I was just asking questions.


Trust Sibanda is an Education, Training and Development Practitioners. He is a current affairs and news media analyst for The Sunday Express E-edition. Feedback




See links:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *