In a bold assertion of parliamentary authority, Zimbabwean Speaker of Parliament Jacob Mudenda recently curtailed an attempt by opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) MP Gladys Hlatywayo to question President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s controversial diplomatic comments. During a recent meeting in St. Petersburg with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mnangagwa referred to Zambia as an American “client state,” a comment that has ignited tensions between Zimbabwe and its neighboring countries.

President Mnangagwa’s remarks have not only soured relations with Zambia but also with Malawi, which he similarly labeled as a U.S. satellite. These comments have come at a time when Zimbabwe is already grappling with internal political strife following the contested general elections last August. Despite receiving considerable backlash for his undiplomatic statements, support from some sections of his political base and certain pundits suggests a divided opinion on his approach. This controversy unfolds as Zimbabwe is poised to take over the chairmanship of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) this coming August, placing its diplomatic relations under closer scrutiny.

The parliamentary session that witnessed this clash was marked by a significant confrontation. Hlatywayo, handling the CCC’s foreign affairs portfolio and recently ousted from her position in the African Caribbean Pacific-European Union delegation by Mudenda, endeavored to address the potential risks of Mnangagwa’s remarks on regional security. However, Speaker Mudenda swiftly shut down her inquiry, asserting that such matters of bilateral or regional relations fall strictly within the purview of the executive branch. This stance sparked immediate dissent among members, leading to a heated exchange, though Mudenda’s decision stood firm, blocking any further debate on the issue.

This incident underscores a worrisome trend in Zimbabwean governance where the separation of powers is increasingly blurred, and the parliamentary role in foreign affairs is marginalized. Zimbabwe’s constitution clearly mandates that all state and government bodies, including the executive, are accountable to the parliament. This includes the President, who as Head of State is also part of the legislature and holds the public seal.

Despite these constitutional provisions, Mnangagwa’s administration has exhibited a clear preference for sidelining parliament in matters of foreign policy, a stance seemingly supported by Mudenda. By preventing Hlatywayo from questioning the President, Mudenda not only bypassed a crucial opportunity for legislative scrutiny of Mnangagwa’s remarks but also highlighted a broader issue within Zimbabwe’s legislative framework where democratic accountability is frequently overlooked.

Adding to the complexity of Zimbabwe’s political landscape is Mudenda’s recent move to revoke appointments by the CCC’s pro-Chamisa faction to portfolio committees in February, ensuring dominance of a pro-ruling party faction. This followed another contentious action in May, where Mudenda and Zanu PF Chief Whip Pupurai Togarepi blocked the reinstatement of recalled CCC MPs, counter to a decision by the Inter Parliamentary Union Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.

Zimbabwe’s governance is structured around three pillars: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, intended to function independently while cooperating to ensure effective governance. However, recent events within the parliament indicate a significant shift from this model, with the executive increasingly distancing itself from legislative scrutiny and accountability.

This ongoing turmoil within Zimbabwe’s parliament extends beyond national borders, having regional consequences particularly as the country prepares to lead SADC. The parliament’s role in promoting a transparent, accountable governance system is crucial, and its diminishing influence could have severe repercussions not only for Zimbabwe but also for its relationships with neighboring nations. As the country progresses, the balance between executive power and legislative oversight remains a critical challenge that must be addressed to maintain the principles of constitutional democracy.