THE NGO NETWORK ALLIANCE PROJECT - an online community for Zimbabwean activists  
 View archive by sector
 
 
    HOME THE PROJECT DIRECTORYJOINARCHIVESEARCH E:ACTIVISMBLOGSMSFREEDOM FONELINKS CONTACT US

 

 


Back to Index, Back to Special Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

  • Inclusive government - Index of articles
  • Zimbabwe's Elections 2013 - Index of Articles


  • A response to the Supreme Court ruling
    Prime Minister’s Office
    May 31, 2013

    The Prime Minister of Zimbabwe has great respect for the courts. However, today’s ruling by the Supreme Court setting an election date is evidence that the court has overstepped its mandate.

    The Supreme Court has no power whatsoever to set an election date. In the true spirit of separation of powers, an election date remains a political process in which the executive has a role to play.

    There is clear evidence that there are some within the executive who wish to circumvent the consultative role in the GPA and the share responsibility enshrined therein to pronounce an election date under the cloak of judicial authority.

    An election date is the responsibility of the executive, which has not shown that it has failed to announce such a date. SADC and the people of Zimbabwe know that an election date is a result of political pronouncements in which the judiciary has no role to play. The Principals have a consultative mechanism that would ensure that a date is proclaimed following an agreement by all parties. This is what SADC, the AU and the people of Zimbabwe expect, not a date set up under the cover of the judiciary without a mechanism to ensure to that issues of the election environment and reforms are addressed.

    Zimbabweans expect implementation of reforms and an intensive voter registration exercise that would not have anyone unnecessarily disenfranchised.

    The only positive news from the ruling is that it has quashed the circus of an election date by June 29. This ruling only vindicates some of us that June 29 was a legal and political non-starter. It, however, still remains difficult to appreciate the practicality of an election by July 31. The Constitution is clear that the term of Parliament expires on June 29 but section 63 (4) is clear that the executive can continue for a maximum of 4 months, which means an election has to be held by 30 October 2013.

    One arm of government, in this case the Judiciary, cannot make a decision which should ordinarily lie in the other arm of the State: i.e the executive.

    Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

    TOP