It would appear that the constitutional independence of Zimbabwe from the United Kingdom derives from the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 of the United Kingdom parliament which by virtue of section 1(2) of that enactment could legally be revoked by Order in Council at any time.
Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1979 Act also empowers the Queen in Parliament to by Order in Council make provision for or in connection with the government of Zimbabwe "or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with (Zimbabwe), as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient".especially in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken. This could surely be taken to include the recent conduct of the Mugabe regime.
Section 3 (3) (a) of the 1979 Act also includes the "power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of (Zimbabwe), including laws having extra-territorial operation" whilst section 3 (3) (c) permits the suspension or modification of "the operation of any enactment or instrument in relation to (Zimbabwe) or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with (Zimbabwe)."
Clearly, therefore, the UK government has the legal power to suspend all of the constitutional arrangements deriving from the 1979 legislation which would (I believe) have the effect (at least under English law) of restoring Zimbabwe ro the status of a British colony entitled to the protection of its subjects by the Crown and thereby legally permitting the UK's military intervention for the purposes of restoring democracy and good governance.
The irony of such a proposition is of course that the UK government would be highly unlikely to do any such thing given the appalling outcome of its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the UK's obligations to the people of Zimbabwe have much greater legitimacy and if the legal argument I have advanced is for any reason flawed, it is surely a lot stronger than in the case of the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq.
W.J.C. RHYS-BURGESS
(The author is a partner in the International Law firm of Schuman Cassin LLP)
Gothic House, Barker Gate, Nottingham NG1 1JU Tel. 0115 958-3524 (Direct Line)
Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1979 Act also empowers the Queen in Parliament to by Order in Council make provision for or in connection with the government of Zimbabwe "or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with (Zimbabwe), as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient".especially in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken. This could surely be taken to include the recent conduct of the Mugabe regime.
Section 3 (3) (a) of the 1979 Act also includes the "power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of (Zimbabwe), including laws having extra-territorial operation" whilst section 3 (3) (c) permits the suspension or modification of "the operation of any enactment or instrument in relation to (Zimbabwe) or persons or things in any way belonging to or connected with (Zimbabwe)."
Clearly, therefore, the UK government has the legal power to suspend all of the constitutional arrangements deriving from the 1979 legislation which would (I believe) have the effect (at least under English law) of restoring Zimbabwe ro the status of a British colony entitled to the protection of its subjects by the Crown and thereby legally permitting the UK's military intervention for the purposes of restoring democracy and good governance.
The irony of such a proposition is of course that the UK government would be highly unlikely to do any such thing given the appalling outcome of its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the UK's obligations to the people of Zimbabwe have much greater legitimacy and if the legal argument I have advanced is for any reason flawed, it is surely a lot stronger than in the case of the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq.
W.J.C. RHYS-BURGESS
(The author is a partner in the International Law firm of Schuman Cassin LLP)
Gothic House, Barker Gate, Nottingham NG1 1JU Tel. 0115 958-3524 (Direct Line)
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 9 comments