The Supreme Court threw out Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tsvangirai’s application to have it take over his 2002 presidential election challenge from the High Court, where it had languished for years.
Tsvangirai asked the Supreme Court to take the petition in November 2005, arguing that his right to an expeditious hearing had been contravened by a High Court judge’s refusal to give reasons for a ruling against Tsvangirai in June 2004.
Although the Supreme Court ruled against Tsvangirai, it found that the High Court judge made mistakes.
Full cable:
Viewing cable 06HARARE185, SUPREME COURT REJECTS TSVANGIRAI ELECTION CHALLENGE
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.
170947Z Feb 06
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000185
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
AF/S FOR B. NEULING
SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2015
TAGS: ASEC PGOV PHUM PREL ZI MDC
SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT REJECTS TSVANGIRAI ELECTION CHALLENGE
REF: A. REF A: HARARE 159
¶B. REF B: 2004 HARARE 987
Classified By: Ambassador Christopher Dell for reasons 1.5 b/d
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court on February 12 rejected
MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai’s application to have it take
over his 2002 presidential election challenge from the High
Court, where it has languished for years. Strapped for
resources, the MDC will likely scale back its strategy of
challenging the conduct and results of elections in a court
system that has shown itself unwilling to address
politically-charged issues. End summary.
¶2. (U) The Supreme Court on February 12 dismissed MDC
President Morgan Tsvangirai,s application requesting that
the Court take over his Presidential Election Petition.
Tsvangirai asked the Supreme Court to take the Petition in
SIPDIS
November 2005, arguing that his right to an expeditious
hearing had been contravened by a High Court judge,s refusal
to give reasons for a ruling against Tsvangirai in June 2004
(ref B). Although the Supreme Court ruled against the
opposition leader, it found that the High Court judge made
mistakes.
¶3. (C) Tsvangirai,s attorney Bryant Elliot told Post on
February 16 that the judgment was “disappointing but not
unexpected.8 Four days after its issuance, however, he had
yet to review the entire judgment. He expressed concern over
delays the legal team experienced with both the High Court
and the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, he said it was important
that they tested both levels of the justice system and put
their issues on record in the top court. Tsvangirai,s
attorneys will seek reconsideration of the decision and
simultaneously proceed with the next phase of the Petition in
the High Court, during which he expects to present evidence
that the GOZ tampered with the 2002 presidential election
results.
¶4. (U) In a possible allusion to the MDC,s parliamentary
election appeals, the state-controlled media reported that
High Court Justice Chinembiri Bhunu declared on February 14
at the opening of the legal year that &the courts will not
help spring anyone into power or help anyone remain in power.
Those who desire political office must go to the people and
not the courts.8
——-
Comment
——-
¶5. (C) The dismissal presents another blow, albeit not
unexpected, to the MDC, this time in the judiciary. The
party’s dozens of election challenges since the 2000
parliamentary elections have long represented a drain on the
MDC,s already shrinking resources, without yielding more
than symbolic victories in most instances. Some donors have
discreetly provided funding for the election challenges, but
outside assistance is drying up. MDC tests of the legal
system and associated publicity can be expected to fade in
the opposition’s overall strategy, especially if the party,s
chief legal strategist, David Coltart, is contemplating
taking a year off (ref A). The GOZ likely will continue to
delay the MDC’s remaining docket so as to absorb and distract
Tsvangirai and the party’s legal team. More importantly, the
SIPDIS
delays have caused election petitions to be ever more
irrelevant — delayed for several years, a number of ongoing
challenges to the June 2000 parliamentary elections were made
redundant by the March 2005 vote. In contrast, the courts
have demonstrated a willingness to expedite cases in some
instances when it suits the GOZ, such as the High Court’s
November ruling that overturned Tsvangirai’s suspension of
rebel MDC MP Job Sikhala, which took less than one week. The
contrast is striking and serves to underscroe manipulation of
the judiciary by ZANU-PF for its own political purposes.
DELL
(34 VIEWS)
0 Comments