Simple my dear friends. Mphofu did not need to bring truck loads of evidence like many other people want to think.
Simple ZEC has to compile figures from polling stations and find a person who get a total of 50% plus one vote. From that return it must announce such figure in five days after election.
Simple it is this figure and the declaration that causes one to lodge an application. This has to happen in five days.
Simple ZEC did announce a figure on the fourth day. Despite the figure not being on an official return of v23 for purpose of arguement lets take the declared figure which brings in the starting point of the process to application.
Simple by the fifth day the applicant had objected and his days to petition had started ticking up. He was not objecting the CD version because it was not yet there.
Simple ZEC on the 6th day after election published what was to be a v23 on a cd. The return was different in both material and fact to what was announced.
Simple the applicant was objecting the results announced as incorrect and not verified before announcement. It was no important to go into v11 to prove these two facts against the declared results.
What form of evidence did you require to prove that ZEC did not announce actual results from polling stations because its admission proves to the fact.
What form of evidence would one want to prove that the results declared were never verified.
Simple going into the second option results and start to analyse was not for the purpose of using such results as second option but to prove shame because even on second attempt to come up with a second figure which cannot stand at law too, those figures proved to have more errors like double counting or ghost polling stations or identical figures. These are new facts brought in by ZEC after declaration and after more8 than 48hours.
How could the applicant for tell those errors in the return that came two days after declaration of results in order for him to object them? Just as the refused to take the applicant’s bundle of evidence and regarded them as nul and void why would the court use the results brought in as second option two days after as legitimate as they are?
The court spend the whole day listening to errors not of the declared results but errors of another second option.
In that second option there were errors that ZEC admmitted and does not require the court to help them bunk responsibilities and other errors one can put debate on and spend pages and pages trying to justify.
This is were I see most people giving themselves title of analysts.
Thats rubbish. The simple point is it is the declared results that the applicant has to oppose not this second option.
The second option came as a ready evidence to his point of point one.
Simple the court has strict options to give as determination.
I will only look at those options people are scared of which is to uphold the declaration or to declare a winner.
Simple upholding the declared results has fallen because ZEC has admitted the declared results were wrong and no basis can the court uphold that status.
The second part is declaring a winner. This option can come after going into the data and verify the results. It is not just a matter of taking a table that is infected with errors of different kind then declare a winner.
By the time ZEC brought up this second option results the applicant had already objected and ZEC was no longer a neutral part in this matter. One cannot use a respondant’s figure brought outside the normal process of electioneering and declare with it a winner.
In its own admission through its lawyer they say these figures came up after investigations.
Well one cannot investigate himself and find his faults but want to use such result against others. Thanks that the investigation opened more indicators. It is this second result which still could not stand the test which the court all need to cancell election.
The court will never have any basis to declare a winner be it Chamisa or Mnangagwa. There is no source of information to use for the declaration.
Simple
The applicant was only required to prove that the results announced was not correct and could not be relied on in declaring a winner as it was not accurate and not verifiable. He had no obligation to give a second option. Bring V11 and v23 was going to bring up a second option of results. This burden was equally shared with ZEC if they wanted to prove their second option as valid.
In this case I do not see where v11 would work to an already dead case.
Evidence is only handy when it is serving your arguement and proving your point. ZEC had brought a second version of results it could also have brought the v11 to surport it. That second figure still fall short of legitimacy to be used to declare.
Simple we ended up having a third version which was not a correction of the second option. Even that third version still had issues that need to be addressed. Things like the 300 000 people voting in one hour. The court cannot better explain that which ZEC could not explain about those 300 000 people.
The court cannot witness those people stampeding into polling stations within one hour better than ZBC which was there and missed such valuable news worthy event.
Simple with just that the declaration is cancelled without option.