• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • contact
    • privacy policy

Democracy Chronicles

Zimbabwe Election Dispute: Court Decision Was More Partisan Than Just

By Farai Chirimumimba - August 26, 2018 Leave a Comment

FacebookTweetLinkedInPin
Zimbabwe Election Dispute: Why The ConCourt’s Decision Was More Partisan Than Just
Chief Justice Luke Malaba reading his decision

The unanimous decision, Friday 24 August 2018 by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe (ConCourt) to uphold Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) candidate Emmerson Mnangagwa’s victory in the 30 July 2018 presidential election challenged by leading contender, Nelson Chamisa of the Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance, has raised one major question: ‘was the court partisan’?

This article argues that the court was correct in hearing the application but that the resulting decision was flawed and inconsistent, as it failed to uphold voter’s rights and chose to ignore evidence, thus making the court’s decision appear partisan. This situation has potentially serious and adverse implications for judicial legitimacy and democracy in Zimbabwe if the ConCourt continues to issue rulings this way.

Background

The general elections of 30 July 2018 were the first post-coup elections and marked a turning point in the country’s political history. “The results were announced early Friday 03 August 2018. Mnangagwa won 50.8 percent of the vote, ahead of Nelson Chamisa [who had]…44.3 percent, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) said.”

“…Nelson Chamisa filed a challenge on Friday [10 August 2018 at the ConCourt] against…Mnangagwa’s election victory…a move that delay[ed] Mnangagwa’s inauguration that had been slated for…Sunday [12 August 2018].”

“[Chamisa] had brought the legal challenge saying the vote was marred by “mammoth theft and fraud“”. “Chamisa claim[ed] that he garnered 60 percent of the votes cast and Mnangagwa had less than the required 50 plus one vote…”

“…The…[ZEC later]…adjusted its presidential election results by slightly reducing…Mnangagwa’s win by over 4,000 votes…The corrected figures altered Chamisa’s final results to 44.39 instead of the 44.3 announced by ZEC a few days after the July 30 presidential poll.”

The ConCourt’s decision

“Zimbabwe’s constitutional court [of nine Magistrates] on Friday [24 August 2018] unanimously upheld …Mnangagwa’s narrow victory.” Chief Justice Luke Malaba dismissed Chamisa’s court application saying: “It is not for the court to decide elections; it is the people.” Justice Malaba said Chamisa has failed to adduce “clear, direct, sufficient and credible” evidence.

Malaba instead praised the ZEC for producing “clear and tangible” evidence against Chamisa’s allegations. ZEC proved through the V11 forms that allegations of unpopular forms were false, he said.

While the whole bench correctly argued that: “Applicant (Nelson Chamisa) needed more evidence than the mere admission by ZEC of the inaccuracy of the figures,” its final decision to dismiss the election petition without due regards to rigging is a blow to electoral justice as the court has instead taken sides with those who rig elections.

The ConCourt’s decision and voter rights

There was a 40,000 variance between the presidential election ballot cast and parliamentary election which ZEC failed to explain and also failed to provide the PE2005/AA forms for those who would have refused ballot paper for any reason as required by law. The ConCourt chose to ignore this grave issue.

Thus, the court’s position no doubt did immeasurable damage to equal protection rights the court claimed to be guarding since it favored a timely tabulation of ballots over an accurate recording of the vote.

ConCourt ignores evidence, shows signs of partisanship  

The biggest criticism of the ConCourt is probably its emphasis on wanting primary data in the form of residual ballots as evidence of substance.  Malaba said: “Chamisa should have based his case on “ballot box evidence”. He adds “no such proof was adduced.”

I argue that the ConCourt had no business lecturing the applicant (Nelson Chamisa) on what evidence to bring or not to bring to court. It should have just restricted itself to whether the evidence availed by the applicant was of substance to warrant setting aside of the result and ordering a re-run of the presidential election.

By issuing such a ruling in this case, the ConCourt exposed itself to more charges of blatant partisanship since its decision can be seen as a thinly-veiled maneuver by the rather conservative bench to hand victory to a junta installed Mnangagwa in fear of repercussions since coup leader Retired General and now Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga had on the eve of the ruling said “nothing will change…”

Absence of dissent

Whether or not this is accurate, there is an inescapable irony in the Court’s unanimous decision that failed to garner a dissent, a rare occasion in Zimbabwe’s ConCourt but a reality in other jurisdictions like Kenya, the United States and Zambia.

A dissent could have argued that the ConCourt had exceeded its jurisdiction and infringed on the applicant’s rights through being unnecessarily demanding and would have added value to legal debates as was the case when current Chief Justice Luke Malaba and Justice Patel dissented in minority in the Mawarire v. Mugabe case in 2013.

Conclusion

The ConCourt’s unanimous decision of 9-0 on the July 30 presidential election in favour of Mnangagwa should go down in history as one of the court’s most ill-conceived judgments.  In issuing its poorly reasoned ruling that gave the presidency to Mnangagwa, the whole bench of nine Justices unnecessarily exposed itself to charges of partisanship and risked undermining the ConCourts’ stature as independent, impartial arbiter of law.

If the ConCourt is to improve on its legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it must do a better job of making clear that it is an independent and non-partisan arbiter of the law. The attitude is that the status of the ConCourt will survive the Chamisa versus Mnangagwa dispute, as it has after other controversial rulings that include denying Diaspora vote. However, if the ConCourt continues to be partisan and use such questionable logic in its decisions, it risk losing relevance, casting doubt on the role of the entire legal system the ConCourt represents in Zimbabwe.

FacebookTweetLinkedInPin

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Africa, Zimbabwe

About Farai Chirimumimba

Farai Chirimumimba is a journalist based in Zimbabwe. He researches and writes about political and security dynamics in Zimbabwe, drawing from his background in peacebuilding and conflict transformation for sustainable development. As a journalist and researcher, Farai also has special interests on knowledge of technical aspects on governance and electoral issues in Africa. He has been writing for Democracy Chronicles since early 2017. Farai is also a reporter for Spiked Online Media based in Zimbabwe.

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Transparency Europe Independent Politicians Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Syria Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home | DC AUTHORS | Zimbabwe Election Dispute: Court Decision Was More Partisan Than Just

Primary Sidebar

donate button

Would A Peace Prize To Greta Have Caused A Political Crisis?

By Mats Sederholm

On December 10, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded, and many have wanted Greta Thunberg to be the recipient. But would the world’s leaders really have been able to take in Greta’s message?

I Can’t Breathe, And Neither Can You

By Jack Jones

Captains and lieutenants have the duty to keep the peace but often see this as a carte blanche to “get rid of the riff-raff”. That’s what happened on that fateful day.

democracy chronicles newsletter

DC AUTHORS

Reconciliation will be crucial to the success of elections in Somalia in 2021

By Abdiweli Hassan

Despite great optimism, insecurity and a fractious political space mean reconciliation will be crucial to the success of elections in Somalia in 2021.

Returning Citizens Await Legal Rulings in Florida Voting Rights Case

By Steve Schneider

Attorneys for 17 Florida residents argue they can register to vote after they finish their prison sentence, and complete parole or probation. Not so, says the Republican governor.

When A House Is Not a Home

By Jack Jones

For both the Palestinians and Kurds, violence continues to happen in their houses. These wars being fought because of old grievances.

After a Month of Countrywide Protest, The Iraqi Prime Minister Resigns

By Thomas Manning

Iraqi protesters have now made sacrifices in large numbers to voice their dissent against the government and they still refuse to back down.

“The Kurds Were not in Normandy”: Distortion and Genocide in the Middle East

By Jack Jones

That Kurds were not in Normandy is a shameful distortion of truth. We abandoned our Kurdish allies for dubious motives, now they are facing genocide.

Finish Off Brexit And Stop Embarrassing The Democracy

By Mats Sederholm

It is 3½ years since Britons voted for an exit and still, the British Parliament has not been able to deliver what the voters decided.

Ready to Impeach

By Jack Jones

The day that Donald Trump installed Stephen Miller as Senior Advisor for Policy in his administration, we should have been prepared for impeachment.

MORE FROM OUR AUTHORS

VISIT OUR POLITICAL ART SECTION:

dc political art

DEMOCRACY CULTURE

Democrats Slam Engage Texas over advocacy on Texas Driver License Grounds

Democrats Slam Engage Texas over advocacy on Texas Driver License Grounds

Democrats have slammed GOP-affiliated Engage Texas over advocacy at Texas Driver License offices but DPS says grounds open to political speech.

Florida: felon voting restrictions to finally have day in court

Florida: felon voting restrictions to finally have day in court

Florida felon voting restrictions to finally have day in court. This comes after suing over Florida GOP-controlled legislature hook on felon voting rights

Meet the 17-Year-Old Creating "Turnout," a Mobilization App for Teen Activists

Meet the 17-Year-Old Creating “Turnout,” a Mobilization App for Teen Activists

Zev Dickstein Shapiro, a 17-year-old social entrepreneur from Cambridge, Massachusetts, is revolutionizing the social media game.

Podcast: A Democracy Summer Reading List

The hosts of the Democracy Works podcast review current books on democracy in this week’s podcast episode.

MORE CULTURE

VISIT OUR US DEMOCRACY SECTION:

American Democracy