Back to Index

Update on Court Case - Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and City of Harare Elections
Roger Stringer
May 15, 2007

This is my (a layman's, extremely abridged) interpretation of the basic arguments, as far as I understand them. The presentations from the four advocates took two hours. I am not responsible for any errors or misunderstandings in what follows!

1. All the Respondents had filed their papers late. Respondent 1 had apologized. The others had not. They then apologized and were granted condonation on their agreement to pay the costs of uplifting the bar on the late filing of their Heads of Argument.

2. Respondent 10 says that he has no objection to elections being held and that "the delay" is the result of delimiting new constituency boundaries. Our argument is that he was simply explaining the reason that no elections had been called, not producing legal arguments to oppose my application.

3. Respondent 1 says in his Heads of Argument that in fact there is no delay, that the elections held in March 2002 were actually by-elections, and that the "general election" for Mayor and Councillors was due in August 2003. Four years after that, when the next elections would be due, would be August 2007, so there is no need to call them yet - or even to postpone them, which they "may" by notice in the Government Gazette. This contradicts what he said in his original Notice of Opposition, where he argued that the ZEC had implicitly postponed the elections that were to be held in August 2006. There is no "peremptory" requirement to publish a notice in the Government Gazette postponing them. According to his Heads of Argument, however, it seems that the elections weren't due then.

4. Respondent 2 (apparently speaking for Respondents 3-9) says that I don't have locus standi to bring this, that I am "attempting to vindicate a public right under the guise of asserting [my] right as a voter". Although I have a right to vote in an election, I don't have a right to demand that an election be held.

5. There are also other arguments - e.g. that the Act says that the elections shall be held in August, so the order I'm seeking would have to be dismissed if a notice were to be placed within 7 days and the requirement that the elections must be not more than 66 days and not less than 28 days from the date of the notice didn't produce a date in August; that the Commission is still legally appointed in the absence of elections - Kamocha's order was made by one judge in chambers, not in court, and is therefore not binding.

Respondent 1 is seeking punitive costs for bringing public employees unnecessarily to court and thus expecting tax-payers to meet those costs. This is despite his advocate conceding that it is good that these issues of doubt are brought to court in a democratic society.

I am seeking an Order in terms of the following Draft Order, that

1. the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission shall forthwith cause a General Election to be held of councillors for the City of Harare, and shall cause an election to be held for the Mayor of the City of Harare and, in particular, shall cause the relevant notices with regard to such elections to be published in terms of Section 124 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] within 7 days of the date of service of this order of court; and

2. the costs of this application be borne jointly and severally by 1st Respondent and any other Respondent opposing these proceedings.

The Respondents are:

The Chairperson, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission - 1st Respondent
Sekesai Makwavarara - 2nd Respondent
Tendai Savanhu - 3rd Respondent
Prisca Mupfumira - 4th Respondent
Jamisone Kurasha - 5th Respondent
Michael Mahachi - 6th Respondent
Justin Mutero Chivavaya - 7th Respondent
Alfred Simba Jome - 8th Respondent
Carlison Katafare - 9th Respondent
The Minister of Local Government Public Works and National Housing - 10th Respondent

The 1st, 2nd and 10th Respondents have filed opposing papers. There has been no opposition from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents, and they have not filed anything to suggest that the
2nd Respondent has authority to represent them.

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