In other words, an applicant must prove that the entire election process is so fundamentally flawed and so poorly conducted that it cannot be seen to have been conducted in substantial compliance with the law.
Additionally an election result which has been obtained as a result of fraud will necessarily invalidate the election.The court will invalidate presidential elections in very limited and specific circumstances if:(1) The results are a product of fraud(2) The elections were so poorly conducted that they could not be said to be in substantial compliance with the law.
It is for the applicant to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the election was conducted in a manner which fails substantially below the statutory requirements of a valid election and that the result was materially affected warranting a nullification of the result or invalidation of an election.
The need for the applicant to have produced source evidence. A significant part of the applicant’s challenge related to the results and figures announced by the electoral commission. Allegations were made that the results announced were incorrect and did not reflect the true will of the people of Zimbabwe.
In so doing the applicant alleged irregularities relating to voter patterns, polling station retains, inflation of votes, over voting, ghost voting, among other infractions, which will be dealt with.In short, it is alleged that there was rigging. The applicant made general allegations against the first respondent.
No allegation of direct manipulation of the process was put forward against 1st respondent or allegations were made without particularity and specificity. This would have been required to prove allegations of complicity by the winner of the election alleged to be the deliberate beneficiary of the alleged improper election.
Nevertheless, if the applicant had proved that the electoral commission had committed irregularities and made legal requirement of such a petition to the requisite standard of proof, this alone would have been sufficient to invalidate an election even in the absence of direct involvement by the 1st respondent.
The applicant made several allegations of irregularities against the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which were said to be related to its failure to discharge its obligations in terms of the law.
No proof or evidence was adduced by the applicant himself of these allegations. The court decides matters based on facts and evidence placed before it. In an application of this nature, it is even more incumbent on an applicant to ensure that he or she exercises his or her rights in terms of the law to the fullest measure to ensure that almost no reasonable doubt can be left in the mind of any court that allegations of malpractices or fraud as the case may be are true to justify the court setting aside the election together with every vote cast by the millions of Zimbabweans who exercised their constitutional right to vote.
Continued next page
(741 VIEWS)
0 Comments