Will Zim’s judiciary survive this onslaught?

There is great concern over rising arrests of judicial officers and intimidation of sitting judges.
Increasingly, members of the National Prosecuting Authority are being charged with criminal abuse of office over various decisions they have made during the course of their duty.
Tribunals for judges have become fashionable.
These are qualified law officers who practice and pass their decisions with the belief that they are wholly exercising their duties independently without fear or favour as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Monday saw the arrest of magistrate Morgan Nemadire on the same charge for handing down a “lenient sentence” to a Venezuelan national, Delcy Daymar Rodriguez Guererro.
As if the arrest alone was not a questionable practice, it was conducted by the police not through procedural guidelines under the Judiciary Services Commission and was announced on Twitter by Information Secretary Nick Mangwana.
Guerrero was fined Z$700 after being convicted of possessing more than 5kgs of cocaine. The decision to grant her bail is now being alleged to have been arrived at through corruption.
Nemadire’s arrest came just a few days after prosecutor Tapiwa Kasema was also hauled before the courts on the same criminal abuse of office charge for consenting to the granting of bail to alleged notorious armed robbers Musa Taj Abdul, Tapiwa Rudolf Kanhanga and Godfrey Mupamhanga by the High Court.
Equally, Tuesday morning there were media reports that an armed robbery suspect, Douglas Mutenda, was allegedly on the run after another prosecutor, Douglas Chesa, consented to release him on $5000 bail.
All these law officers are being questioned for decisions they made believing in their constitutionally guaranteed privileges to exercise their duties independently without fear or favour.
While heads are spinning over this contentious issue, Section 165 (2) of the Zimbabwe Constitution provides that members of the judiciary, individually and collectively, must respect and honour their judicial office as a public trust and must strive to enhance their independence in order to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
Sub-section 3 of the same section states that, when making a judicial decision, a member of the judiciary must make it freely and without interference or undue influence.
However, events surrounding the current trajectory in the judiciary system now appear as if the judiciary have become a victim of interference from political bigwigs who are using their influence to determine the course of events.
Recently, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, an institution which some equate to a political tool to silence those that are anti-establishment (read anti-Mnangagwa) declared its intention to focus on the judiciary.
Such an announcement appears shocking as it takes away the judiciary’s independence while at the same time instilling fear in law officers who are supposed to carry out their duties without fear.
This brings to the fore the question of whether the judiciary is still independent. Had it been, then it would have the right to self-legislate through already established tools, not the interference of some corruption watchdog.
All ZACC or police should be doing is bring whatever information they have for investigations to the Judiciary Services Commission (JSC) not arrest law officers whose authority is derived from the people of Zimbabwe and is vested in the courts.
Yes, there is a need for some checks and balances in the system, but that should be the mandate of the Judicial Service Commission and the Prosecutor General.
In recent weeks, President Mnangagwa has established tribunals against High Court judges Francis Bere and Erica Ndewere, a scenario which raises more questions than answers, as this raises fears of persecution.
Why are Government officials making threatening comments against institutions that should be independent? Why are the people charged with the watchdog role silent? Nhau/Indaba