The Movement for Democratic Change on 12 April filed a 135-page legal challenge of the March 2002 presidential elections which were won by President Robert Mugabe.
MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai said the party had “uncovered mountains of hardcore and powerful evidence of electoral fraud” and wanted the elections annulled and a new election under international supervision.
Topper Whitehead who gathered most of the information said the lawsuit cited President Mugabe, Registrar-General Tobaiwa Mudede, Minister of Justice Patrick Chinamasa, and Electoral Supervisory Chairman Sobusa Gula-Ndebele as respondents.
The United States embassy said several MDC officials said that the party had no hope of success in its legal challenge of the election but wanted to pursue all possible avenues and be seen as taking some kind of action.
“It is also a useful bargaining chip in the inter-party talks -one of the few the opposition has left,” the embassy said.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 02HARARE927, ZIMBABWE OPPOSITION FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
|
Reference ID |
Created |
Released |
Classification |
Origin |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 000927
SIPDIS
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR JENDAYI FRAZER
LONDON FOR CHARLES GURNEY
PARIS FOR CHARLES NEARY
NAIROBI FOR TERRY PFLAUMER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/12
SUBJECT: ZIMBABWE OPPOSITION FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
REF: HARARE 913
Classified by Political Officer Todd Faulk for reasons:
1.5 (b) and (d).
¶1. (U) On April 12, the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) filed with the High Court a 135-
page legal challenge to President Mugabe’s declared
victory in the March presidential poll. The filing was
made just before the 30-day deadline to submit electoral
challenges elapsed. The lawsuit calls for an annulment
of the election result and a new election under
international supervision. In an April 11 press
statement, MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai stated that
the election “was stolen from the people of Zimbabwe,”
and that the MDC sees “the legal process as
complementing the political process.” “Our lawyers have
uncovered mountains of hardcore and powerful evidence of
electoral fraud,” Tsvangirai claimed, but he clearly
acknowledged that the legal case’s biggest hurdle is
overcoming the judicial system subverted by the ruling
party.
¶2. (C) On April 15, poloff spoke to Topper Whitehead,
who gathered most of the information presented in the
legal challenge. He is an MDC supporter, but holds no
official position in the party. Whitehead stated that
President Mugabe, along with Registrar-General Tobaiwa
Mudede, Minister of Justice Patrick Chinamasa, and
Electoral Supervisory Chairman Sobusa Gula-Ndebele, are
respondents in the case. All have been served with
papers to appear in court, except Mugabe, whose office
refuses to accept them; there are ways around this,
Whitehead said, but it would lead to delays in the court
hearing the case. Whitehead conveyed that the MDC is
gathering affidavits from polling agents, presiding
officers and voters who can attest to instances of
electoral fraud. Thousands of pages of documentation
and videotape from hundreds of eyewitnesses have already
been gathered. One of the reasons the MDC is going to
court over the election, Whitehead opined, is to provide
leverage in the talks with ZANU-PF due to reconvene on
May 13 (REFTEL). The MDC would like to have the option
of dropping the case if the talks lead to some sort of
resolution.
¶3. (C) In a related development, Whitehead informed
poloff that last week the Supreme Court ruled against an
earlier MDC legal measure challenging the validity of
Section 158 of the Electoral Act, which gives Mugabe the
power to issue decrees regarding the conduct of
elections. It was a 4-to-1 decision in which Wilson
Sandura was the only dissenter. A copy of the decision
has not been made available to the MDC yet, Whitehead
added, but the Court basically ruled that the issue was
not a constitutional one and should be heard in the High
Court first. As a result, the Section 158 challenge has
now been incorporated into the MDC’s latest lawsuit.
¶4. (C) Comment: We have been told by several MDC
officials that the MDC has no hope of success in its
legal challenge of the election but that it wants to
pursue all possible avenues and be seen as taking some
kind of action. It is also a useful bargaining chip in
the inter-party talks — one of the few the opposition
has left. It is too early to tell how the case will
proceed in the courts, but experience suggests ZANU-PF
will use its influence to ensure the courts drag out the
proceedings — and consume the MDC’s resources — before
ultimately throwing the case out. End comment.
Whitehead
(30 VIEWS)
