Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court disregarded evidence placed before it, the European Union Election Observer Mission (EU EOM) has said.

Publishing its final report on the July 30 polls, the group said the Constitutional Court disregarded applicant, Nelson Chamisa’s evidence.

The court insisted on the “best evidence rule” and yet in the past it had not demanded such.

The EU said: “While the Court made extensive reference to the “best evidence rule” and repeated the need for the applicant to have produced “primary source evidence”, either from a recount or through an analysis of the content of the unsealed ballot boxes through an application to the Electoral Court, and stressed that the applicant chose not to exercise his right to obtain the necessary evidence, it completely disregarded the value of the evidence placed before it. Yet, the evidence which the Court mentioned as the acceptable evidence would still not have been made easily available, as it had to be applied for – it is notable that when recourse has been made to that in the past, no application had succeeded.

The EU also expressed concern that the Constitutional Court did not refer to judgements passed by the High Court despite the court acknowledging the cases.

It said: In regards to the pre-election violations alleged, of concern is the fact that although the Court acknowledged the existence of some pre-election High Court judgments pertaining to the conduct of postal voting, the design of the ballot paper, the release of the voter roll with photos and the voting of civil servants, it did not refer to other judgments, such as the one of the Electoral Court related to the distribution of agricultural seed under the guise of it being the presidential inputs scheme, 101 or the one of the High Court banning the President of the National Council of Chiefs from making political statements supporting ZANU PF and declaring unconstitutional the conduct of campaigns by traditional leaders.”