In my previous installment I indicated concern, regarding the seemingly deliberate violation of the constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe. This was viewed as setting a dangerous precedent for our future generations.
Of major concern was that this was practiced in face of Judiciary establishment, as provided for in our constitution. Our failures generally reflect judiciary ineptitude, as bestowed with the responsibility to interpret laws. See [For a problem to be a problem, it has to contain a lie].
On public television we recently witnessed what appeared to be a short-cut in the administration of taking oaths. This was fulfilling the process of swearing in of new ministers, according to Section 104 (6) of our constitution. It seems the crafting of this section carries an oversight—in terms of clarifying the significance of taking oaths before the President?
An important document such as our constitution ought to have clarified the significance of taking oaths, rather than leaving it to assumption. Swearing in public implies that the person fully appreciates the significance of promising to do what is uttered in public oath.
The incumbent pronounces words in such ways as to be heard by those witnessing—declaring what is promised in public. Therefore, falsely taking oaths should be considered a serious violation of the Law of the Land. Such violation justifies the impeachment, or the removal of an executive President from office.
However, the ministers who uttered their oaths on that day, appeared as merely reading the words meant to affirm the significance of taking oath? How does that behaviour justify the conviction, through inaudible words, as uttered in unison?
Did those new ministers say words that came from their hearts, or words that were assumed to come from their hearts? The assumption and reality, simply, do not portray the same meaning. Of course, the principle of taking oaths involves God, as those ministers held what looked like Bibles.
But how could we be sure that those newly appointed ministers were sincere in what they were doing? Do the public even know about their religious convictions towards God? This is like a spouse who blindly falls into an abusive marital relationship, because the partner pretended to be good.
The starting point ought to be on the promissory affirmation as justified by taking oath. The person may be assumed as holding acceptable credentials for the office. But how can we know exactly what goes on in that person’s mind—except through publicly uttered affirmation on oath-taking?
The oath-taking assumes that the ultimate authority is God. If a person gives oath, when knowing that he/she would be lying—that is a matter between that person and God. The casual process of taking oaths by people who may not believe in God, is not only blasphemous, but also a violation of the constitution.
Firstly, our Constitution ought to answer the question on whether the person taking oath believes in God or not. I find it ironic that an atheist can ever find value in taking oaths, unless the intention is to mislead. If our constitution carries a provision for atheists to hold public offices, then why do we have to generalize the process of taking oaths?