ZanuPF Cooption CircularsExplained

A senior official in Zanu PF secretary-general’s office says circulars sent to party leaders, structures and members from that office take precedence over those from departments, unless overturned by higher authorities at the presidium level.

The official was explaining why Zanu PF legal affairs secretary Patrick Chinamasa’s 30 June circular on clarification of the party’s co-option process cannot override the initial one sent by secretary-general Obert Mpofu on the issue on 5 June.

Mpofu first sent his circular – which effectively bars local tycoon Kudakwashe Tagwirei from getting into the 342-member decision-making Central Committee in-between congresses – on 5 June.

Then on 30 June Chinamasa purported to withdraw it and replaced it through his own communication.

The official said only Mpofu – who is senior to Chinamasa in the hierarchy or pecking order – could withdraw and replace the circular, not his junior, unless by mutual agreement.

But even then, the official continued, that would also be unlawful and unprocedural as the secretary-general – who used to be called secretary for administration before that was changed to what it initially was when the party was formed – is the one who administers the party and hence the relevant authority, not the legal affairs secretary who is only in charge of his department, which is one among many.

The official explained to The NewsHawks:

“The secretary-general’s office is higher than that of the legal affairs department as it comes just below the presidium – that is the President, two deputies and the chairperson – and administers the whole party.So a circular issued by the secretary-general’s office cannot be withdrawn by a head of department, who is junior.The chain of command and responsibilities in Zanu PF is clearly stated in the party’s constitution, procedures and work flows.

“In terms of party hierarchy, Chinamasa is junior to Mpofu, so he cannot withdraw his circulars or any communication.That is the first point in this specific case.

“The second one is that, in terms of procedure and protocol given the above, that circular could only have been withdrawn by the office of origin and its relevant officials, not a head of department, unless of it was the presidium.

“So in terms of the constitution, procedure and protocol – and practice and even common sense – what is invalid, null and void is Chinamasa’s circular, dated 30 June, not Mpofu’s dated 5 June one which takes precedence.

“Thirdly, you can’t withdrawn a letter or circular not coming from you. Mpofu’s circular has to be withdrawn by him as the sender and relevant authority.

“Fourth, that is why Mpofu’s circular is the one which has been acknowledged, accepted and is being used to guide the co-option process by provinces, for instance in Matabeleland South only yesterday.

“Fifth and lastly, Chinamasa is only doing this thing to support Tagwirei as his longtime close friend.The two worked closely together from 2016-2018 during the command agriculture period; and became joined at the hip as a result. So in the end, Chinamasa is trying to rescue Tagwirei on this issue.”