Zim Judiciary under spotlight

By Simbarashe Tembo | Jul. 26, 2023 | 3 Min read

Justice David Mangota held that Kasukuwere had indeed lost his registered voter status during his absence.

SINCE assuming power in 2017 through a coup and the subsequent controversial election victory in 2018, President Emmerson Mnangagwa's rule has been marred by allegations of compromising the independence of the Judiciary.

The constitutional safeguards that once protected the Judiciary's autonomy have seemingly been dismantled, leaving the current system a mere shadow of its former self.

Threats to the Judiciary are not new, the reign of late former President Mugabe also thrived on this, the current administration has shamelessly gone the extra mile, using the courts as a tool to dismantle opposition and deny activists their right to bail, signalling obvious judicial capture.

As we brace for the upcoming elections, the Judiciary has been thrown at the centre of politics as it is being called upon to adjudicate upon numerous election-related applications and appeals.

Is it too late to call for impartiality in these matters? One would even question the wisdom of the opposition to appear before the courts whose decisions almost always sound predetermined. But what other choice do they have?

With the presidential ballot barely 30 days away, the spotlight is on the anticipated race between President Mnangagwa of Zanu PF and Nelson Chamisa of Citizens Coalition for Change.

However, the entrance of Saviour Kasukuwere as an independent candidate has sent ripples across the Zanu PF camp. Uncharacteristically, Zanu PF has been in panic mode.

Various tactics to bar Kasukuwere from contesting the election have been employed from invoking by-laws to vandalising his campaign billboards and making flimsy court applications to bar him from entering the race.

Keep Reading

One such attempt resulted in a controversial ruling by the High Court.

A Zanu PF surrogate sought to prevent Kasukuwere's candidacy, arguing that Kasukuwere is not a registered voter due to his continuous absence from the country for a period of 18 months.

Justice David Mangota held that Kasukuwere had indeed lost his registered voter status during his absence.

This finding is laughable. While I do not wish to dwell on the merits of this case, it is important to stress that the question of whether one is a registered voter is factual, if one’s name can be found on the voters roll, then that person is undoubtedly a registered voter.

There is no such thing as deregistration or expungement by operation of law.

The applicant in this case ought to have pursued the correct procedure to have Kasukuwere’s registration expunged from the voters roll with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission first.

The matter will be heard on appeal today and the Supreme Court faces the crucial task of evaluating the previous ruling.

The Judiciary must strive to prevent any further embarrassment and restore confidence by allowing the democratic process to unfold, enabling the electorate to witness a fair contest between Mnangagwa and Kasukuwere in the elections.

In the face of political uncertainty and heightened tensions, the world will be watching closely as Zimbabwe navigates this critical juncture in its democratic journey.

The hope is for a Judiciary that stands firm on the principle of independence, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard and respected regardless of political affiliation.

Only time will tell if the Judiciary can rise to the occasion and protect the democratic values that lie at the heart of a truly free and fair election.