For the record: Chamisa Constitutional Court judgment in full

Subsection 2; the election of the vice president may be challenged only on the ground that he or she was not qualified for election.

Sub section (3) The Constitutional Court must hear and determine a petition or an application under sub section (1) within 14 days after the petition or application was lodged and the court’s decision is final. The applicant seeks the following relief, Paragraph 1 The declaratory to the fact that:

(i) The Presidential election 2018 was not conducted in accordance with the law and was not free and fair.

(ii) The election results announced by the commissioners of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission on the 2nd of August 2018 and the concomitant declaration of that same day by each chairperson to the effect that Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa was to be regarded as the duly elected President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the 2nd of August 2018, is in terms of section (93) Subsection (4) paragraph (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as read together with section (III) subsection (2) paragraph (b) of the Electoral Act, declared unlawful, of no force or effect, accordingly set aside.

(iii) That the applicant Nelson Chamisa is in terms of section (93) subsection (4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe declared the winner of the presidential election held on the 30th of July 2018.Paragraph 2. An order to the following effect (i), the 25th respondent shall publish in the Government gazette this order and the declaration of the applicant to the office of the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Alternatively (ii) in terms of section (93) sub section (4) paragraph( b) an election to the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe shall be held within 60 days of this order and (iii) cost of this application shall be born by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and any such respondent as opposes it.

The application was opposed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 25th respondents for reasons that will be set out in the full judgement.

The court ruled that the opposing papers filed by the 5th, 6th, 17th, and 20th respondents were (i) not properly before the court and (ii) should be expunged from the record with no order as to costs.

The 6th and 18th respondent indicated that they would abide by the decision of the court. We go to the first question whether the application is properly before the court. The respondents took several points in limine including that the application filed by the applicant is not properly before the court.

This was so because although filed within seven days as stipulated by Section 93 of the Constitution, the application was served on the respondent on the 8th day in violation of rule 23 sub rule (2) of the rules of the Constitutional Court 2016.

Continued next page

(740 VIEWS)