Is the Majome Reassignment a Promotion or a Silent Purge?
HARARE – The corridors of power in Harare are abuzz with a high-stakes legal and political drama following President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s decision to “reassign” Ms Fungayi Jessie Majome from her influential role as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) to a Commissioner in the Public Service Commission (PSC). While the government, through Attorney-General Virginia Mabiza, maintains this is a routine administrative redeployment, a closer examination by investigative journalists and legal experts suggests a more calculated manoeuvre, raising profound questions about the independence of constitutional bodies in Zimbabwe.
At the heart of the controversy is a legal challenge lodged by pro-democracy activist Allan Chipoyi. Represented by Mtetwa & Nyambirai Legal Practitioners, Chipoyi has approached the Constitutional Court, contending that the President’s action constitutes an unconstitutional removal from office, rather than a mere reassignment. This legal battle is not just about one individual; it is a critical test of the constitutional safeguards designed to protect the autonomy of independent commissions and, by extension, the democratic fabric of the nation.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Reassignment or Removal?
On 10 April, Dr Martin Rushwaya – the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet – issued a terse press statement announcing Ms Majome’s move, citing section 202(1)(b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This announcement immediately sparked concern among various quarters, with many speculating that the “re-assignment” was a retaliatory measure. This speculation arose particularly because Ms Majome’s Commission had recently issued a public statement criticising provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 3) Bill.
The Attorney-General, Virginia Mabiza, has been vocal in defending the President’s actions. She is reported to have stated: “There is no doubt that, within our constitutional context, reassignment and removal from office are two different things… Reassignment typically entails a change in responsibilities or posting while removal from office usually implies a more serious action, often arising from gross misconduct or incapacity.” She further argued that Ms Majome’s reassignment should be viewed as an administrative redeployment within constitutional structures, not a punitive or unlawful removal. Mabiza also highlighted that Ms Majome had previously been reassigned from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) to chair the ZHRC, suggesting a precedent for such moves.
However, critics, including Allan Chipoyi, vehemently disagree with this interpretation. Chipoyi argues that the April 10 directive, despite being labelled a reassignment, was “in substance and effect, a removal from office as Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission.” He asserts that “The Constitution does not permit the executive to circumvent its safeguards by relabelling a removal as a ‘reassignment’,” adding that such conduct “amounts to an impermissible circumvention of constitutionally entrenched safeguards.” The core of his argument is that under Section 187 of the Constitution, removing a head of an independent commission requires a formal tribunal process to investigate misconduct or incompetence. By using the term “reassignment,” the President has effectively bypassed this crucial constitutional safeguard.
A Threat to Independent Commissions and Constitutionalism
The implications of this case extend far beyond Ms Majome’s individual career. Legal analysts and pro-democracy advocates warn that if the Constitutional Court rules in favour of the President, it could establish a dangerous precedent. It would mean that any head of an “independent” commission could be moved to a different department at the whim of the executive, effectively eroding their independence. The conspiracy theory circulating in legal circles is that the PSC is where independent voices are sent to be buried under layers of bureaucracy, silencing dissent and critical oversight.
This situation underscores a fundamental distinction between different types of constitutional commissions in Zimbabwe. As Veritaszim notes, the Constitution creates eleven commissions, but they are not all the same. Service commissions, such as the Public Service Commission, generally have members who hold office at the President’s pleasure, meaning they can be appointed and dismissed at will. However, independent commissions, including the ZHRC, are afforded much greater protection. Their chairpersons and members are appointed after consultation with Parliament’s Committee on Standing Rules and Orders (CSRO) and, in the case of ZHRC, with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Crucially, members of independent commissions can only be dismissed on specific grounds—inability to carry out functions, gross incompetence, gross misconduct, or no longer being qualified—and only after a special tribunal has recommended their removal, as stipulated in section 237(2) of the Constitution.
Therefore, the argument that Ms Majome’s reassignment is merely an administrative redeployment, akin to moving a civil servant, fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional protections afforded to independent commission members. Her appointment to the ZHRC was for a specific role, requiring specific constitutional procedures for both appointment and removal. A reassignment to a different commission, particularly one with a different constitutional mandate and tenure provisions, is, in effect, a removal from her original office without due process.
The Wider Political Landscape: Constitution Amendment Bill No. 3
This controversy unfolds against a backdrop of broader attempts by the Mnangagwa administration to amend the Constitution, further consolidating executive power. The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 3) Bill, or CAB3, gazetted in February 2026, has been a significant point of contention. This bill proposes far-reaching changes, including extending presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years, which would prolong President Mnangagwa’s tenure until 2030. It also seeks to replace direct presidential elections with parliamentary selection of the president and consolidate executive control over key state institutions.
CAB3 has drawn widespread criticism from pro-democracy activists, opposition parties, and constitutional experts. They argue that these amendments represent “executive consolidation through constitutional disruption” and accelerate Zimbabwe’s “ongoing trajectory of democratic regression.” The timing of Ms Majome’s reassignment, shortly after the ZHRC criticised the public consultations on CAB3, has led many to believe it was a retaliatory act against a critical voice. Chipoyi explicitly describes Majome’s transfer as “a punitive, retaliatory measure designed to purge a dissenting constitutional voice from an independent commission.”
Public hearings on CAB3 have been marred by chaos and accusations of unfair collection of views. Citizens have raised concerns about the limited number of venues, the timing of hearings during working hours, and the short duration of the consultation period. Critics also point out the inherent conflict of interest, as the hearings are spearheaded by Members of Parliament whose own terms would be extended if the bill passes. Organisations like the Constitution Defenders Forum (CDF), led by former finance minister Tendai Biti, have actively opposed CAB3, with some leaders even facing arrest while mobilising against the bill.
Jessie Majome’s Career and the Clash with Executive Interests
Ms Fungayi Jessie Majome has a notable career in Zimbabwean public service and human rights advocacy. She previously served as a Deputy Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, and later as Deputy Minister for Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development. Her journey through various commissions, including the ZACC and ZHRC, highlights her experience in critical oversight roles. It was her appointment as Chairperson of the ZHRC on 20 March 2024 that placed her at the forefront of human rights protection in the country.
Her tenure at the ZHRC was marked by a commitment to upholding constitutional principles, which inevitably led to clashes with executive interests. The ZHRC, under her leadership, had raised concerns about “the flawed and exclusionary nature” of the public consultation process for CAB3, including allegations of “harassment and intimidation of dissenting voices” and “a pattern of controlled participation.” This public stance, which aligned with the commission’s mandate to protect human rights and democracy, appears to have been the catalyst for her sudden reassignment.
There is also a complicating factor regarding her previous reassignment from ZACC to ZHRC in March 2024. According to a government spokesperson, this was also a “reassignment.” If this transfer occurred without Ms Majome going through the necessary constitutional procedures for appointment to the ZHRC — which entail the President consulting the JSC and the CSRO —then her initial appointment as ZHRC chairperson could be deemed illegal and void. If this were the case, her current removal could be seen as a belated correction of that illegality. However, the lack of transparency from the government on these matters leaves many questions unanswered.
The Stakes for Zimbabwean Democracy
This ongoing legal and political saga represents a critical juncture for Zimbabwe’s constitutional democracy. The “hidden detail” in Ms Majome’s reassignment is the potential for it to become a standard blueprint for silencing independent watchdogs. If the executive can unilaterally move heads of independent commissions without adhering to constitutional removal procedures, the very concept of independence for these bodies becomes illusory. This would dismantle the checks and balances essential for a functioning democracy, leaving citizens vulnerable to unchecked executive power.
Allan Chipoyi’s application to the Constitutional Court seeks not only to declare the President’s action unconstitutional and nullify the April 10 directive but also to reinstate Ms Majome and prevent any further interference with the commission outside constitutional procedures. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly set a significant precedent for the future of independent institutions in Zimbabwe. It will determine whether the “independent” in Independent Commissions still holds any meaning, or if it is merely a facade that can be manipulated at the discretion of the executive.
For the average Zimbabwean, this move signals a tightening of control over the institutions meant to protect their basic rights. The story is not just about one woman; it is about whether the law is being used to undermine the law itself, and whether the silent purge of independent thinkers will continue unchecked in the upper echelons of the Zimbabwean state. The world watches as Zimbabwe grapples with these fundamental questions of governance, constitutionalism, and the enduring struggle for democratic accountability.