Muguti tells chiefs to stop posting court cases on social media

Muguti was speaking at a meeting in Harare on Tuesday, 13 October, attended by provincial councils of chiefs from across the country.

Some reports had suggested that he had banned the filming of chiefs’ courts. Muguti, however, said the ministry was working on amendments to the Traditional Leaders Act to put an end to some practices currently allowed in these courts.

“We should not be allowing cellphones in the chief’s court, where a case is being heard in confidentiality,” he said.

“The moment you start recording trials in the community court, if someone faces a problem, they will avoid reporting the matter to the chief for fear of being exposed on social media.

“Let us respect the chief’s court; let’s respect our heritage… Why are we now trying to be celebrities? So people say Chief so-and-so is the best; who speaks vulgar?

“Because of that, we are now actively facilitating amendments to the Traditional Leaders Act.”

Muguti said the Act also lacked a national disciplinary structure for traditional leaders.

“There is one fundamental aspect that is missing in the Traditional Leaders Act, and that is the issue of national disciplinary structures,” he said.

“Currently, the disciplinary [structures] are sitting outside the National Chiefs’ Council. That should not be the case.”

Lawyer and politician Fadzayi Mahere has hit back, arguing that Muguti has no authority to make such declarations or to push for changes to the Traditional Leaders Act, as he is not a Member of Parliament.

Citing section 282(3) of the Constitution, she said traditional leaders were not subject to the control of any person or authority, “including that of Mr Muguti”.

“The permanent secretary has no power under the Constitution or under the Traditional Leaders Act [Cap 29:17] to discipline chiefs. The attempt by the permanent secretary to ‘discipline’, bully or superintend over the work of chiefs is unconstitutional and unlawful. In any event, the offence he latches onto does not exist at law,” Mahere wrote.

She pointed out that procedure in local courts is governed by section 20 of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act [Cap 7:05]. That section gives chiefs wide discretion to run proceedings as they see fit to do substantial justice between the parties, and section 20(3) expressly provides that all cases are heard in open court.

“He cannot facilitate a change in the law because he is not a Member of Parliament. If anything, he is bound by the law as it is now and not the law as he wishes it to be,” she said.

“The law-making process is carefully set out in the Constitution and no person can determine beforehand what will and won’t become law. What if Parliament disagrees with his opinion? Only once the law is competently amended can any changes take effect.”

Mahere added that Muguti’s views on local court procedure were not binding on anyone.

“They are merely rants that are of no force or effect. He has a duty in terms of section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act to comply with the law as it is today, regardless of what his emotions are on the issue. The rule of law, not decree, is supreme.”