CCC Leadership Tussle: Ncube Threatens Tshabangu with Disciplinary Action as Court Delays Ruling

The High Court has deferred its judgment in the legal battle where CCC leaders, ousted by Sengezo Tshabangu, challenge their removal from parliamentary roles.

Justice Neville Wamambo has promised to deliver the verdict at a future date, leaving the political arena in suspense.

The lawsuit involves key CCC figures like interim leader Welshman Ncube, his deputy Lynette Karenyi Kore, Sesel Zwidzai, and Edwin Mushoriwa, who argue their dismissals were unjust.

Tshabangu, who appointed new members to these positions, is named alongside the Speaker of the National Assembly and Senator Nonhlahla Mlotshwa as defendants.

The plaintiffs contend that Tshabangu’s decisions to remove them from the Standing Rules and Orders Committee overstep his constitutional powers.

They also dispute Mlotshwa’s appointment as chief whip, questioning its legality under the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

Further complications arise from Tshabangu’s reshuffling of CCC members across various parliamentary committees, which the plaintiffs aim to reverse.

They are seeking a court order to halt the Speaker from officially recognizing these changes in the National Assembly.

Ncube has warned that Tshabangu will face disciplinary action, asserting his actions were unilateral and not endorsed by the party.

During the hearing, Ncube’s lawyer, Method Ndlovu, criticized the Speaker for swiftly acting on Tshabangu’s directives while ignoring communications from the plaintiffs.

Ndlovu pointed out that Tshabangu’s actions contradict a previous court order prohibiting him from recalling party members, suggesting the reshuffle mimics such a recall.

Ncube labeled Tshabangu’s moves as unauthorized and not reflective of the CCC’s collective will, questioning the Speaker’s recognition of Tshabangu over the party.

In defense, Tshabangu’s legal representatives, Lewis Uriri and Nqobani Sithole, argued that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

They emphasized that the changes were already enacted, and parliamentary acknowledgment was merely procedural, not subject to interruption.

This ongoing CCC drama not only highlights internal party struggles but also poses significant questions about legal authority and parliamentary procedure in Zimbabwe.

The delay in the court’s judgment adds to the political uncertainty within the CCC, affecting its parliamentary representation and internal unity.

This legal standoff could set precedents for how political parties manage internal disputes and leadership challenges within the framework of Zimbabwe’s legal system.