President Mnangagwa was yesterday sworn in as the third President of the Republic of Zimbabwe and Second Executive President since the Constitutional amendments of 1987.Canaan Banana was the first ceremonial President from 1980 until 1987 when former President, Robert Mugabe took over as the first Executive President after the Constitution was amended.

Taking oath of office, President Mnangagwa promised a new Zimbabwe in the Second Republic underpinned by servant leadership where corruption and unnecessary bureaucracy in service delivery will not be tolerated.

The Second Republic was born yesterday following President Mnangagwa’s inauguration as the Second Executive President of Zimbabwe at the National Sports Stadium in Harare.

In the new Zimbabwe, he said, all citizens will be equal before the law and prosecution of corrupt cases will be done without fear or favour.

Addressing a bumper crowd at the giant National Sports Stadium, President Mnangagwa said those appointed to serve in public offices should also adopt his servant leadership approach to transform the country.

“I am your listening President, a servant leader,” President Mnangagwa said.

“In this vein, those who will occupy public office at any level, under my Government will be required to exercise servant leadership in the execution of their duties and to be humble and responsive in their interactions and dealings with the citizenry.

“Equally, the bureaucracy in the Second Republic will be expected to be development oriented, responsive to the people’s needs as well as exhibit high principles of professional ethics and integrity.

“My administration will therefore expect public sector officials to deliver quality and timely services to the people as well as facilitate business, trade and investment. Bureaucratic bottlenecks, unnecessary delays, lethargic and corrupt activities will not be tolerated.

“We must as a society encourage and inculcate the culture of hard honest work. The prosecution of perpetrators of corruption will be carried out without fear or favour. In the Second Republic, no person or entity will be allowed to steal, loot or pocket that which belongs to the people of Zimbabwe. No one is above the law. This is a New Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe we all want.”

Mnangagwa continued: “As per our pledge during the campaign trail, my Government will be implementing the Constitutional provisions with regards the devolution of Government powers and responsibilities. Provinces will now be expected to plan and grow their provincial economies.

“Economic development at every level is the ultimate goal. I therefore challenge local authorities in the Second Republic, to be the engines of local economic development and growth. My Government will not stand by and watch people suffer due to dereliction of duty, corruption or incompetence within our local authorities.

“It will not be easy, but as the Holy Bible teaches us: ‘For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.’

“We have indeed endured; we have toiled; and now as we walk in unity the path that lies ahead, we will reap a better and more prosperous future.

“As I have repeatedly said in the past months, real change does not happen overnight. However, inspired by our national anthem, we must work together, nothing is beyond our reach. With love and unity, we will reach the Promised Land, we will build the Zimbabwe we all want, brick upon brick, stone upon stone.”

President Mnangagwa said he was humbled by the confidence reposed in him by the people of Zimbabwe and would do everything in his capacity to bring positive change in the country.

“I am emboldened and inspired by your collective hopes, dreams and desires; and the trust reposed in me. I will work tirelessly, as a servant leader, to improve the quality of life for all of us,” he said.

“To all my colleagues and other political parties who contested in the just ended harmonised elections, especially those represented in Parliament, I exhort us to commit ourselves to collectively develop our motherland. We are all Zimbabweans; what unites us is greater than what could ever divide us.

“Let me assure you that tomorrow is brighter! Let us look forward to the journey ahead, a journey we will walk together as one people, a united people. A journey of development, progress and prosperity in our New Zimbabwe. Together, let us explore new frontiers in every facet and sphere of our economy and society. Let us endeavour to climb new heights. Let us arise and shine, for indeed our light has surely come.”

State Media

The Second Republic was born yesterday following President Mnangagwa’s inauguration as the Second Executive President of Zimbabwe at the National Sports Stadium in Harare.
In the new Zimbabwe, all citizens are equal before the law and prosecution of corrupt cases will be done without fear or favour.

Addressing an overflowing crowd at the 60 000-seater giant stadium, President Mnangagwa said those appointed to serve in public offices should also adopt his servant leadership approach to transform the country.

“I am your listening President, a servant leader,” said President Mnangagwa.
“In this vein, those who will occupy public office at any level, under my Government will be required to exercise servant leadership in the execution of their duties and to be humble and responsive in their interactions and dealings with the citizenry.

“Equally, the bureaucracy in the Second Republic will be expected to be development oriented, responsive to the people’s needs as well as exhibit high principles of professional ethics and integrity. My administration will therefore expect public sector officials to deliver quality and timely services to the people as well as facilitate business, trade and investment. Bureaucratic bottlenecks, unnecessary delays, lethargic and corrupt activities will not be tolerated.

“We must as a society encourage and inculcate the culture of hard honest work. The prosecution of perpetrators of corruption will be carried out without fear or favour. In the Second Republic, no person or entity will be allowed to steal, loot or pocket that which belongs to the people of Zimbabwe. No one is above the law. This is a New Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe we all want.”
President Mnangagwa continued: “As per our pledge during the campaign trail, my Government will be implementing the Constitutional provisions with regards the devolution of Government powers and responsibilities. Provinces will now be expected to plan and grow their provincial economies.

“Economic development at every level is the ultimate goal. I therefore challenge local authorities in the Second Republic, to be the engines of local economic development and growth. My Government will not stand by and watch people suffer due to dereliction of duty, corruption or incompetence within our local authorities.

“It will not be easy, but as the Holy Bible teaches us: ‘For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.’

“We have indeed endured; we have toiled; and now as we walk in unity the path that lies ahead, we will reap a better and more prosperous future.

“As I have repeatedly said in the past months, real change does not happen overnight. However, inspired by our national anthem, we must work together, nothing is beyond our reach. With love and unity, we will reach the Promised Land, we will build the Zimbabwe we all want, brick upon brick, stone upon stone.”

President Mnangagwa said he was humbled by the confidence reposed in him by the people of Zimbabwe and would do everything in his capacity to bring positive change in the country.

“I am emboldened and inspired by your collective hopes, dreams and desires; and the trust reposed in me. I will work tirelessly, as a servant leader, to improve the quality of life for all of us,” he said.

“To all my colleagues and other political parties who contested in the just ended harmonised elections, especially those represented in Parliament, I exhort us to commit ourselves to collectively develop our motherland. We are all Zimbabweans; what unites us is greater than what could ever divide us.

“Let me assure you that tomorrow is brighter! Let us look forward to the journey ahead, a journey we will walk together as one people, a united people. A journey of development, progress and prosperity in our New Zimbabwe. Together, let us explore new frontiers in every facet and sphere of our economy and society. Let us endeavour to climb new heights. Let us arise and shine, for indeed our light has surely come.” – state media

A TOP Bulawayo lawyer Mr Mlweliwenkululeko Ncube faces civil imprisonment over a debt of more than $4 400 in unpaid legal costs.
The legal costs emanate from a four-year legal battle in which Mr Ncube was fighting Bulawayo businesswoman Ms Sipiwo Nkomo who sold him a BMW X5 in 2013.

Mr Ncube has since 2014 been fighting a $12 000 claim and denying that he failed to pay for the car, which cost him $23 825, claiming Ms Nkomo had brought forward a malicious claim.

In papers before the court, Mr Ncube was cited as the defendant while Ms Nkomo is the plaintiff under case numbers HC 2281/18 and HC2282/18 filed at the Bulawayo High Court.

The debt emanates from taxed costs which were recovered by Ms Nkomo from a bill of costs dated July 5, 2017 following High Court judgments delivered in her favour on January 24, 2014 and March 3, 2015.

A writ of execution signed by the assistant registrar of High Court on behalf of Chief Justice Luke Malaba was in June this year issued directing the Sheriff of the High Court to attach and take into execution the movable goods of Mr Ncube.

Mr Ncube, is obliged to either pay $4 419,70 or face civil imprisonment of up to 90 days in jail.
The court will conduct an inquiry into Mr Ncube’s financial position and depending on the circumstances, it may commit him to prison or alternatively give him further time to pay the money in instalments over a specified period.

In 2015, Ms Nkomo filed an application at the Bulawayo High Court for a rescission of a default judgment which was erroneously ruled in favour of Mr Ncube on October 12 in 2014.

The late Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Andrew Mutema rescinded the judgment and subsequently ordered Ms Nkomo to file her notice of opposition and opposing affidavit under HC548/14

According to court papers, Mr Ncube paid a deposit of $11 000 for the car but the balance of about $12 000 plus £109 was to be paid before September 30 in 2013 at an interest of five percent per annum.

Mr Ncube allegedly failed to pay the balance until October when he was charged a further $1 200 collection fee.

The lawyer, in reply to Mr Nkomo’s claim, said at some point he offered to return the car to Ms Nkomo and her son and that she retains $3 000 of his $11 000 deposit but she refused.
Instead, the lawyer claimed, Nkomo offered to extend the payment period by six months.

Ms Nkomo’s lawyer, Mr Godfrey Nyoni of Moyo and Nyoni Legal Practitioners said Mr Ncube has been evading paying the balance including legal costs prompting the plaintiff to issue summons for civil imprisonment against the defendant.

Mr Ncube was in January 2014 ordered by Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Maxwell Takuva to pay Ms Nkomo $12 175 together with five percent interest and legal costs. – state media

Zimbabwe’s justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi provided no solid grounds for his refusal to grant permission to SA lawyers Jeremy Gauntlett, Dali Mpofu and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi to represent MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa in Wednesday’s constitutional court hearing, fresh details have emerged.

This comes as the nine-member constitutional court bench will on Friday deliver judgment on Chamisa’s application to nullify President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s victory in the July 30 election.

Gauntlett told Business Day South Africa that he was denied permission to argue in the court despite having previously appeared before Zimbabwe’s courts a number of times.

“I have appeared [with Law Society support and ministerial assent] on eight previous occasions in Zimbabwe’s courts.

“I have only once before been refused the right to appear. This was when I was briefed against the government of Zimbabwe in 2008 to have the Sadc [Southern African Development Community] tribunal’s award against land seizures registered in the high court in Harare.

“By statute, any foreign legal counsel appearing in a Zimbabwe court must have the support of the Zimbabwe Law Society and the assent of the minister of justice. This assent requires the minister to consult a member of the Legal Education Council and to confirm that the country in question is a ‘reciprocating country’ with Zimbabwe as regards admission,” he said.

Repeated efforts to contact Ziyambi on Thursday night were fruitless. Mpofu and Ngcukaitobi could also not be reached.

Sources from Harare told Business Day Ziyambi’s actions were inconsistent, after he appeared to have granted Gauntlett permission, before making a U-turn.

In a letter on Monday to Chamisa’s attorneys in Harare, the minister’s office had first suggested it had not been given required supporting documents for the admission applications. However, it conceded this did not apply to Gauntlett.

“Thereafter, the minister said there was a delay because the Legal Education Council member needing to be consulted was ‘out of the country’. It was not explained why the ‘consulting’ could not be done by e-mail or telephonically,” said Gauntlett.

“Shortly before 10am he [the minister] notified the Chamisa attorneys, as the challenge was about to start, that he in fact had refused all the applications on the grounds that these had been made too late and because South Africa is not a ‘reciprocating country’ with Zimbabwe,” Gauntlett said.

In an interview in Harare, Chamisa’s spokesperson, Nkululeko Sibanda, said denial of permits to the SA lawyers was not a surprise as Ziyambi acted as Mnangagwa’s electoral agent in the election.

“The minister involved was the election agent of President Mnangagwa and he was certainly compromised.

“The law in Zimbabwe also clearly states that no-one should be denied the chance to use a lawyer of their choice, and this provision was clearly breached,” he said.

Business Day SA

VIDEO LOADING BELOW…

VIDEO LOADING BELOW…

Zimbabwe’s main opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa, has refused to accept a court ruling that upheld Emmerson Mnangagwa’s victory in last month’s presidential elections.

In his first comments since the country’s highest court overturned the opposition’s challenge to have the results annulled, Chamisa vowed yesterday to lead “peaceful protests”.

“I have a legitimate claim that I am supposed to lead the people of Zimbabwe,” the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party said. “Yes, judgment has been made, but as far as we are concerned we have a view that is contrary to the view of the constitutional court.

“The court’s decision is not the people’s decision. The people who voted do not believe in [Mnangagwa]. We have got a clear majority.”

In a verdict widely predicted by analysts, Chief Justice Luke Malaba strongly criticised the MDC’s case and upheld Mnangagwa’s win.

Robert Mugabe’s successor as leader of the ruling Zanu-PF party won the election on 30 July with 50.8% of the vote – just enough to meet the 50% threshold needed to avoid a run-off against Chamisa, who scored 44.3%. The elections were largely judged to be free of the violence that had characterised previous elections in the country.

Chamisa insists he won more than two-thirds of the vote. “The legal door is not the only door to happiness,” he said. “Using our constitutional right, we have a right to peaceful protests. This is the route we will take. One of them.”

Mnangagwa took over from Mugabe after the long-time ruler was ousted following a short military takeover in November 2017 after 20 years as president. He vowed to hold free and fair elections and repair strained relations with the west, but his plan was marred when soldiers fired at protesters on 1 August, killing at least six people.

His inauguration is scheduled to take place on Sunday (today).

The Observer

THE government employed a cocktail of crippling measures which severely weakened MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa’s Constitutional Court (ConCourt) case in which he is challenging President-elect Emmerson Mnangagwa’s slim electoral victory, including denying his South African legal team practising certificates shortly before the matter kicked off, throwing it completely off balance.

Chamisa alleges that Mnangagwa, who was declared winner of the July 30 presidential election with a wafer-thin 50,8% of the total vote, was the beneficiary of a calculated vote rigging mechanism by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec).

Commentators noted that the government’s refusal to grant temporary practising certificates to Chamisa’s South African lawyers, coupled with the highly inquisitorial approach of the nine-member ConCourt bench led by Chief Justice Luke Malaba, appeared to reinforce widely-held perceptions that there was no level playing field in the justice system.

Across the length and breadth of the country, people discussed the court’s adversarial approach against Chamisa’s lawyer Thabani Mpofu, with some saying it was overly aggressive and even bordered on hostility. Lawyers representing Zec and Zanu PF were not subjected to the same level of grilling, it was noted.

The judges repeatedly pressed Mpofu to produce what they termed “primary evidence” in the form of electoral residue such as V11 and V23 forms without which they said his case would not meet the evidentiary dictates of such an election petition. In any case, the court said, such evidence should have been attached to the founding affidavits on application and any other documents adduced thereafter would be deemed inadmissible.

Malaba struck off affidavits supporting Chamisa’s petition, saying the respondents should have filed separate petitions challenging the election outcome.

The court is set to make a ruling today and, in the event that a winner is confirmed, inauguration is likely to take place on Sunday in accordance with a constitutional stipulation that the investiture take place within 48 hours of a declaration of the winner by the ConCourt.

Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi denied Chamisa’s South African advocates Dali Mpofu, Jeremy Gauntlett and Tembeka Ngcukaitobi practising certificates, claiming the neighbouring country did not pass the test of reciprocity as outlined in the Legal Practitioners Act.

The law stipulates that lawyers residing outside the country but willing to represent a client in Zimbabwe for a specific case ought to obtain a certificate of exemption.

The Zimbabwe Independent has established that the South African lawyers had prepared their arguments to corroborate lead attorney Thabani Mpofu’s verbal submissions, but were reduced to helpless bystanders upon being denied the certificates.

Thabani Mpofu was assisted by top Harare lawyer Sylvester Hashiti and three other local attorneys.

This forced Thabani Mpofu to improvise and deviate from the original plan, disregarding the long hours they had invested in preparing for the case with his South African colleagues.

The South African lawyers had, in fact, been denied entry into the courtroom, but were only allowed in later as bit-part counsel.

During the court proceedings, Thabani Mpofu endured long periods of grilling from the nine ConCourt judges pressing him to prove allegations of electoral fraud which Chamisa levelled against Mnangagwa and Zec and did not have the benefit of joint oral submissions with his South African colleagues as had been planned.

An urgent chamber application which sought relief for the team of legal experts was also thrown out.

Dali Mpofu, the most senior of the three expatriates, confirmed the predicament to the Independent.

“The client had already expressed his choice as to which one of us should be making submissions and we had divided up the arguments. My colleague here (Tembeka Ngcukaitobi) was going to deal with a certain section; I was going to deal with another and Advocate Mpofu as well. So it does obviously affect that planning. It becomes clear that the plan is not going to work. Until last night (Tuesday) we didn’t sleep, preparing on the basis that perhaps this morning that sanity would prevail, but unfortunately that did not happen,” Dali Mpofu said.

“Even this morning (Wednesday), it was made clear that as far as the court was concerned everything was ready but the politicians chose not to grant us,” he said, describing Ziyambi’s decision to deny Chamisa legal representation of his choice as a travesty of justice.

“Our colleague Thabani Mpofu did an amazing job under the circumstances. He was able to improvise from our original plan. We are quite satisfied, this is not actually a difficult case. It is an important case because of the significance but, as far as the legal issues are concerned, it is a simple case,” he said. “If we had had time, we could have raised it in a separate court application. But the prejudice is not ours; we are just professionals doing our work. The prejudice is for the client who is being denied representation of his choice.”

The Independent also established that one of the three lawyers, Gauntlett, actually had all his papers in order but was still not permitted to represent Chamisa.

Chamisa’s spokesperson, Nkululeko Sibanda, said Zanu PF had attempted to sabotage the MDC Alliance’s chances of winning the case.

“Obviously Zanu PF would like to try by all means to frustrate us. This is an attempt to frustrate President Nelson Chamisa’s chances of getting befitting legal representation and to the best of our ability he is getting enough representation,” he said.

It also emerged from documents seen by the Independent yesterday that the MDC Alliance made a last-ditch attempt to subpoena Zec to bring to court information on its server, as Chamisa’s lawyers sought to solidify their case.

Chamisa’s lawyers also sought an urgent meeting with Malaba on Tuesday, but the chief justice turned down the request, saying since the trial date had already been set, time for such meetings had lapsed.

The lawyers had not raised the issue in their founding affidavits and had also not highlighted them during the pre-trial meetings held last week.

Documents show that MDC Alliance lawyers Atherstone and Cook on Monday sought a court order compelling Zec to bring the material from its servers.

“You are required and directed to attend before the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe at Harare on Wednesday, the 22nd August 23, 2018 at the hour of 10 o’clock in the forenoon, and so from day today until the above case is tried, to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and also to bring with you and produce all details of the Zec server from the 30th of July 2018 to the 3rd of July 2018,” reads the order, which was sought by the alliance lawyers dated August 20, 2018.

On the same day, the registrar of the ConCourt, Anita Tshuma, wrote back to Chamisa’s lawyers advising them that the court could not accept the subpoena.

“Kindly note that we are unable to accept the subpoena duces tectum (court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial) in question since there is no provision for its issuance in the pre-trial conference order issued by the Honourable Chief Justice on 16 August, 2018,” reads the letter.

The lawyers immediately wrote back to the ConCourt, requesting a meeting with Malaba.

“We have seen the letter by the chief registrar concerning the subpoena we issued. Pursuant to our previous correspondence, we contend that it is still an issue to be dealt with by the chief justice and we kindly request audience with him,” the lawyers wrote.

Malaba turned down their request on Tuesday.

“We placed the letter before the Honourable Chief Justice who advised that he is no longer meeting any lawyers and that if there are issues, they should be raised in court,” Tshuma wrote.

This comes as it also emerged that Chamisa, sensing that the state was bent on derailing his challenge, adroitly altered his earlier pleading from seeking to be declared an outright winner to seeking a presidential election run-off.

He then reached out to three other losing presidential candidates, Elton Mangoma, Noah Manyika and Daniel Shumba, whom he had cited among respondents to back his application for the invalidation of the presidential election in favour of a run-off.

There was an agreement that Mangoma, Manyika and Shumba would throw their weight behind Chamisa in the event of a run-off and, in return, Chamisa had promised to reward them with senior appointments in his government, in the event he prevailed.

Sources within the legal fraternity say the relief sought by Chamisa from court to be declared the outright winner was a ruse to convince the court to declare a run-off election.

“It is almost clear that there was no outright winner in the first round of the election. Neither Mnangagwa nor Chamisa garnered the required 50% plus one vote to be declared an outright winner,” a source from the Coalition of Democracy (Code) led by Mangoma said.

“Chamisa’s real plan was to get a ruling calling for a run-off. This was supported by various respondents who were supporting his petition challenge.”

The plan also fell through after the court refused to entertain the trio, arguing they could not support another presidential candidate after they had been cited as respondents.

The court ruled that they could have filed their own separate papers challenging the results or a joinder with Chamisa.

However, Manyika and Mangoma reiterated yesterday that they had supported Chamisa out of principle.

“I did my submissions out of principle. Everything else is not accurate,” Mangoma said.

Manyika said: “I have no arrangement with anyone. I am not looking for a job.”

During the court hearing, which lasted nearly seven hours, the bench insisted on Chamisa’s legal team to furnish the court with substantial evidence to corroborate allegations of massive electoral fraud.

Zimbabwe Independent

The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on Friday dismissed Chamisa’s petition challenging the Zanu PF leader’s victory after the judges unanimously ruled that he did not provide enough evidence to overturn the election outcome.

After the ruling, Mnangagwa took to Twitter posting: “Nelson Chamisa, my door is open and my arms are outstretched.”

Chamisa yesterday told journalists in Harare that while he respected the ConCourt ruling, it did not solve what he termed a legitimacy crisis facing the president.

“Mnangagwa must know that the court decision is not the people’s decision,” he said.

“We have a majority in the urban areas. Over 50% of the people do not believe in Mnangagwa.

“We control over 90% of those who contribute the tax revenue. Mnangagwa must understand the reality in this country.

“We have a disputed election, a legitimacy issue and a constitutional crisis around the elections in Zimbabwe.”

Chamisa, who got 44,3% of the vote against Mnangagwa’s 50,6%, claims the election was rigged.

Yesterday he said Zanu PF was not celebrating because the party knew the election was stolen from him.

“The first problem we must resolve for this country to move forward is the return to legitimacy. Let the will of the people be respected. Zanu PF could not celebrate because they know it’s fiction. President Mnangagwa knows who won the election,” said Chamisa.

“Vice-President [Constantino] Chiwenga is convinced of who won the election, ask him. They must give the people of Zimbabwe the actual election result.”

Chamisa said the ConCourt ruling did not mark the end of their challenge against Mnangagwa’s election.

“We are sticklers to rule of law, constitutionalism and democratic practices,” he said.

“We felt we needed to exhaust all the available constitutional remedies within the confines and dictates of peace.

“The legal route has led us to a dead end in the context of the result of that court, which does not accord with the legitimate case we put before the court.

“We respect the ConCourt not only because it is expected to respect issues of law and constitutionalism.

“I am alive to my professional code to respect the decisions of the court. These do not mean accepting.

“I respectfully disagree and reject the position that was arrived at by the ConCourt.”

He said regional leaders who would attend Mnangagwa’s inauguration today would be endorsing an “illegitimate leader”.

“We cannot resolve these issues with a disputed leader. Mnangagwa is a disputed leader,” he added.

“I have legitimate claim that I am supposed to be leading the people of Zimbabwe. Sadc and AU may come, but they will be simply endorsing an unacceptable outcome.”

He said he could not negotiate anything with Mnangagwa before the election dispute was resolved.

There was speculation that there were behind-the-scenes negotiations that could culminate in a deal that might appease Chamisa and the MDC Alliance.

“You cannot steal my goats and then ask me to come and share them with you,” Chamisa said when asked about the alleged talks.

“Give me the goats first, then we can talk about sharing.

“I wrote to Mnangagwa before the elections and the only response I have seen was a tweet from a handle I don’t know whether it’s his.

“I wrote to Sadc and the AU and we have not received any response.

“We hope they will attend to our issues.

“A phantom inauguration will not change the reality.”

Chamisa said insisted they had evidence that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission rigged the election, which could have been obtained through a subpoena against Zec.

The MDC Alliance wanted the court to force Zec to allow them access to their server so they could scrutinise the election data.

“Our subpoena would have revealed why we insist we won this election by 2,6 million votes and that President Mnangagwa got less than two million votes,” Chamisa added.

Chamisa said he was shocked that the ConCourt had not quizzed Zec on why it had declared three sets of results and other anomalies raised by his legal team.

He argued the ConCourt had confused his representatives by insisting on re-opening of ballot boxes when the same court had ruled against this a few years ago.

“In the (2013 Jameson) Timba case, the MDC-T went to the court to seek a re-opening of the election residual material,” Chamisa said.

“It was ruled that one cannot ask for the re-opening of election ballot boxes, but now the same court says we should have requested for the re-opening of the ballot boxes.

“But we did not want this as we had a clear case and did not need the election material,” fumed the opposition leader.

Chamisa hinted the MDC Alliance could roll out protests against Mnangagwa, saying “the legal route is not the only route to freedom”.

Meanwhile, Chamisa’s lawyers will reportedly launch a petition with the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights protesting against the way the ConCourt handled his case.

The Standard

By Paul Nyathi|Losing presidential candidate and leader of opposition Alliance for the People’s Agenda APA, Nkosana Moyo has expressed appreciation of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s election victory.

In a statement, Moyo says that the final endorsement of Mnangagwa as the president of the country clears the illegitimacy of the November 2017 coup.

“Whilst it must be clear that APA firmly stood against the unconstitutional take over of power, we nevertheless acknowledge that an election has taken place on the basis of which the Constitutional Court has affirmed President Mnangagwa’s win as indicative of the will of the people,” said Moyo.

“As such, APA would like to congratulate President-elect Emmerson Mnangagwa on his recent electoral win.”

Below is the full APA statement.

Below are the results from a poll on who the best lawyer was in the election petition hearing at the Constitutional Court which was concluded last Wednesday afternoon:

A CHURCH founded by Malawian Prophet Shepherd Bushiri, Enlightened Christian Gathering church (ECG) in Zimbabwe, has come under fire from HIV and Aids and child activists after it exposed a child living with HIV, by posting a picture of him on their Facebook page, claiming to have healed the minor of the disease.

So daring was the church that it even took a jab at science, saying that through the power of God, HIV had been eliminated, through faith.

Some human and child rights organisations have since condemned the church, saying it was a reckless, negligent act, solely and pitiable aimed at luring congregants to the church. The pictures, with the boy carrying an HIV self testing kit, were posted on 9 July this year under the caption:

“Thulani Dube* (not real name) since birth the young boy was born HIV positive but today when Apostle declared healing he is now HIV negative,” read the caption.

The church also posted another picture of a man whom it claimed to have been living with HIV for the past 11 years:
“…Indeed our God is a specialist for impossibilities, where science says no, God says yes; where man says it can’t, our great physician shows himself up expressing his great love and power and embarrassing his people with mighty miracles. A man being diagnosed with HIV 11 years ago has lived all these years positive but by the move of God and the touch of God, the tables have turned for him.

“He tested once again and in astonishment his results came out negative. Doctors and nurses came up front overwhelmed by the power of God that embarrassed the word of science that says ‘HIV cannot be cured’. God of Major 1 is indeed not a man that should lie, when he says he is Jehovah Rapha, the great physician,” read the caption.

Contacted for comment, the church professed ignorance, referring all questions to its headquarters in Pretoria, South Africa.

“It’s best you seek comment from head office in Pretoria. You may speak to the director, Apostle Mishech. I don’t have his direct contacts, you may use the general office number your paper has used before,” said one Pastor Nyathi from the church.

Childline Zimbabwe said it was deplorable for the church to post such pictures without the consent of the child or his guardians.

“At the moment, we have not seen the page neither have we verified if the page actually belongs to the church in question or if the incident is real since we also have fake news going around a lot.

“However, we have noted with concern similar trends online, where images of children are posted online either reporting violence or sharing anything the child had done. This is done by parents, guardians, teachers, other children or neighbours who record or capture something and share without the consent of the child involved.

“This shows our limited understanding of consent and online abuse. When a child’s identity is associated with a certain image or video online that child will have to live with the trauma of being associated with that incident till they become an adult and this can have serious negative effects on the child,” said Childline Zimbabwe communications and documentation officer Miss Daphne Jena.

She said it was imperative for adults, organisations and or guardians to protect children from such cases.

“It is actually the role of adults and to ensure that the privacy of a child is protected instead of compromising a child’s privacy in the name of sharing information or jokes. For some of us who grew up before the Internet, we can ask ourselves how many pictures were taken of us as children that we are not proud of sharing?” added Miss Jena.

A lawyer from a human rights organisation in Bulawayo said the church should be held accountable for its negligence and that as a custodian of the people it had no right to display or publish such pictures.

“It is disappointing to note that a church could have done such, all in the name of luring congregants. They are trusted with protecting people yet instead it is the one entity that has gone against the value of upholding people’s rights. It is just appalling and they ought to be brought to book,” said the lawyer requesting anonymity.

State Media

VIDEO LOADING BELOW…

VIDEO LOADING BELOW…

https://www.facebook.com/ZimEye/videos/648549202211944/

The applicant was MDC – Alliance candidate Mr Nelson Chamisa; the first respondent was the winner of the July 30 presidential poll, Zanu-PF candidate President-elect Emmerson Mnangagwa; respondents 2 to 22 were the other presidential candidates; respondents 23 and 24 were the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and its chairperson, Justice Priscilla Chigumba; respondent 25 is the Chief Elections Officer.

This is a unanimous judgement of the court. It must be noted however that it does not at the moment contain the full reasons thereof. These will be issued in due course when a full-dressed judgement taking all the legal issues of the law reports will be considered.

This is a unanimous judgement of the court. It must be noted however that it does not at the moment contain the full reasons thereof. These will be issued in due course when a full-dressed judgement taking all the legal issues of the law reports will be considered.

On the 30 of July 2018 the Republic of Zimbabwe held harmonised parliamentary, local government and presidential elections. The applicant and the first respondent participated as presidential candidates along with 21 others. On 3 August 2018, the 24th respondent acting in terms of section 110 Subsection 3 paragraph F(ii) of the Electoral Act declared the first respondent as the candidate who had received more than half the number of votes cast to be duly elected as the President of Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from that date.

The applicant was aggrieved by the declaration of the first respondent as having been duly elected as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

He lodged an application in terms of section 93 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013, which I shall call from now on the Constitution challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent as the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.Section 93 provides as follows: Challenge to Presidential election Subsection (1) subject to this section any aggrieved candidate may challenge the validity of any election of a President, or a vice president by lodging a petition or application with the constitutional court within seven days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election.

Subsection 2; the election of the vice president may be challenged only on the ground that he or she was not qualified for election.

Sub section (3) The Constitutional Court must hear and determine a petition or an application under sub section (1) within 14 days after the petition or application was lodged and the court’s decision is final. The applicant seeks the following relief, Paragraph 1 The declaratory to the fact that:

(i) The Presidential election 2018 was not conducted in accordance with the law and was not free and fair.

(ii) The election results announced by the commissioners of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission on the 2nd of August 2018 and the concomitant declaration of that same day by each chairperson to the effect that Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa was to be regarded as the duly elected President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the 2nd of August 2018, is in terms of section (93) Subsection (4) paragraph (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as read together with section (III) subsection (2) paragraph (b) of the Electoral Act, declared unlawful, of no force or effect, accordingly set aside.

(iii) That the applicant Nelson Chamisa is in terms of section (93) subsection (4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe declared the winner of the presidential election held on the 30th of July 2018.Paragraph 2. An order to the following effect (i), the 25th respondent shall publish in the Government gazette this order and the declaration of the applicant to the office of the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Alternatively (ii) in terms of section (93) sub section (4) paragraph( b) an election to the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe shall be held within 60 days of this order and (iii) cost of this application shall be born by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and any such respondent as opposes it.

The application was opposed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 25th respondents for reasons that will be set out in the full judgement.

The court ruled that the opposing papers filed by the 5th, 6th, 17th, and 20th respondents were (i) not properly before the court and (ii) should be expunged from the record with no order as to costs.

The 6th and 18th respondent indicated that they would abide by the decision of the court. We go to the first question whether the application is properly before the court. The respondents took several points in limine including that the application filed by the applicant is not properly before the court.

This was so because although filed within seven days as stipulated by Section 93 of the Constitution, the application was served on the respondent on the 8th day in violation of rule 23 sub rule (2) of the rules of the Constitutional Court 2016.

The Constitution does not refer to weekdays but days. This is to be taken to mean seven calendar days and includes Saturdays and Sundays. In terms of section (23) subsection (2) of the rules, the application shall be lodged with the registrar and shall be served on the respondent within seven days of the declaration of the results of that election.

The 1st respondent was declared the duly elected President on the 3rd of August 2018. In terms of section (93) subsection (1) of the constitution as read with rule 23 sub rule 2 of the Constitutional Court rules, the applicant had until the 10th of August 2018 to file and serve the application on the respondent.

It appears to have been cognisant of the reckoning of days and time limitations prescribed by the Constitution and waited until the last day to file his application shortly before closing the Constitutional Court registry on the 10th of August 2018. He was entitled by law to do so.

Having done so, the applicant was then faced with a further obligations to serve the process on all respondents on the day. The applicant could only do so through the Sheriff of Zimbabwe in terms of Rule 9 sub rule 7 of the Constitutional Court rules.

The applicant indicates that he did so. The sheriff had until 10pm that same evening to effect service in compliance with the rules. The affidavit submitted by the respondents show the applicant had in fact attempted service in their own capacity and without the assistance of the sheriff on the 10th of August 2018.

It is common cause that the application was eventually served on the respondents on the 11th of August 2018, outside the time frames stipulated in the Constitution and contrary to the provisions and contrary to the Constitutional Court rules.

The same limitation applied to the respondents who were served with the application on Saturday the 11th of August 2018. The notices of opposition would have been due within three days from that date being the 14th of August 2018.In terms of section 336 subsection 2 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe: “Subject to this constitution whenever the time of doing anything in terms of this constitution ends or falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday the time extends to, and the thing may be done on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday.”
The notices of opposition both had to be filed the on the next business day thereafter being the 15th of August 2018. They were dually served and properly logged with the central registrar in terms of the law.

The applicant however clearly breached the rules of the court and filed a defective application. However, due to the importance of the matter and the public interest, the court has the power and to condone non-compliance rules in the interest of justice. An application for condonation of this non-compliance albeit opposed by the respondents, was made for the applicant.

This court is prepared to, and hereby does, grant the application due to importance of the matter and the public interest involved.The other points in limine raised by the respondents will be fully addressed in the judgment to come. (Merits) On the merits, the applicant alleges that the first respondent did not win the election due to the fact that the run-up to the election the 23rd and the 24th respondents were involved in a litany of the constitutional and electoral law violation all of which had the effect of undermining the just conduct of the election. Some of the alleged violations relate to: (i) Lack of Independence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ii) Failure of the state owned media to comply with section 61 subsection 4 of the Constitution (iii) Conduct of the traditional leaders and rogue security elements. iv Failure to abide by general principles affecting conduct of the elections (v) ZEC’s responsibility to compile voters rolls. vi Wearing partisan clothing, vii Failure to provide a complete voters roll. viii Voter education, (ix) Design of presidential ballot papers Fixing of polling station returns (V11 forms) on the outside of polling stations (xi) Postal ballots (xii).

Counting of presidential ballot (xiii) Undue influence, threats, injury, damage harm or loss to voters xiv Bribery, provisional seed and fertilizer packs.

The court knows that the High Court of Zimbabwe was in recent months seized with and determined issues pertaining to:i) Conduct of postal voting (ii) Design of presidential ballot (iii) Release of voters roll with voters photographs to the parties iv) The 23rd respondent’s obligation to facilitate the voting by civil servants engaged in election duties on election day.

The court will therefore not at this juncture address the applicant’s contentions in respect of these issues. The court will also not in this abridged version of this judgement address the totality of the allegations made by the applicant as listed above. This will be done in the main judgment.Standard of proof in election petition.

In terms of authority of this and other courts the declaration of results in terms of the section 110 subsection 3 paragraph f(ii) of the act reacts a presumption of validity of that declaration. The honours and burden of proof in this application therefore rests with the applicant and it is for him to prove to the satisfaction of the court that there were irregularities in the conduct of the election.

The general position of the law is that no election is declared to being valid by the reason of any act or omission by a returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the appropriate election rules, if it appears to the court the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law governing elections, and that the electoral omission did not affect the election result.

As an exception to this general position, the court will declare the election void when it is satisfied from the evidence provided by the applicant that the legal trespasses are of such a magnitude that they have resulted in substantial non-compliance with the existing electoral laws. Additionally the court must be satisfied that this breach has affected the results of the election.

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.

The best evidence in this instance would have been the contents of the ballot box themselves; that is the primary source evidence. Evidence of the contents of the ballot boxes compared to the announcements by the electoral commission, and the evidence within the applicant’s own knowledge, would have given the court a clear picture of any electoral malpractices, if any had occurred.

No such proof was adduced by the applicant to support his allegations. The electoral law is designed to protect the vote. The protection of the ballot cast by every single citizen who participated in the election is fundamental.

It is the one that the court should guard jealously. The avenues availed to an aggrieved candidate are meant to ensure that he or she has all the evidence available to him or her to assist the court.

It follows that when the results were declared in early hours of Friday 3 of August 2018, the applicant may not have known the exact or precise reason why he was aggrieved but the makers in their wisdom created an avenue for the applicant to ensure that he had all the evidence necessary to prove his case if he so wished to exercise his right to challenge the result.

The time was on his side to obtain such evidence from the residue. The applicant’s remedies to access the ballot and election residue are in the Electoral Act under Section 67 subsection (a) and Section 70. Under Section 67(a) the applicant would have sought a recount of the votes within 48 hours whilst under Section 70, he would have approached the Electoral Court for an order of unsealing the ballot boxes.

These remedies are designed to protect each aggrieved candidate and to dispose of any doubt whether or not the election itself was properly conducted on the electing day and whether the true expression of Zimbabwean voters will was announced by the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission.These remedies are for the benefit of the aggrieved candidate.

They are meant to ensure that no unnecessary disputes or litigation relating to the validity of an election are undertaken. They are also meant to ensure that the aggrieved candidate, who then becomes the applicant, has the necessary evidence to prosecute successfully his or her application. So these are the remedies not for the respondents’ benefit.

They are meant to protect the rights of those who are aggrieved by the results of the presidential election. Armed with the evidence either from a recount where the figures are alleged to be incorrect or the analysis of the sealed boxes, the applicant would have a clear indisputable picture of the outcome of the election.

He would have been clear whether any irregularities relating to the actual votes and the results could be substantiated. He chose not to exercise this right.

The electoral law protects the voter and the candidate in the process involved. This is from the delivery of the ballot papers to the polling station, to the collection of the results, right down to the sealing of the ballot boxes at the end of the election.

The applicant was at large therefore to extend his polling agents or to send his polling agents to each and every polling station around the country. Observers were also free to participate in the process.

The applicant’s agents observed the voters arriving, being given the ballot papers as applicants for these papers before the presiding officers, going on to vote in secrecy in the booths and having the votes counted in their presence if they were there.

At the end of the counting, all agents in terms of the law who are present are required to sign if they so wish the V11 forms, copies of which are then given to them.Thus, if the applicant had placed before the court the V11 forms from all the stations that he had a right to have his agents present, a simple analysis of these V11 forms against the V11 forms in the ballot boxes which would have been unsealed would easily have done the following:a) It would have disposed of any questions regarding the numbers of votes for any given polling station or constituency. b) It would have addressed any question of over voting. c) It would have debunked allegations of over voting or upsurges of voters after a particular time, for instance what is alleged to have happened in Mashonaland Central.d)

It would have addressed the issues of differences in voting patterns and numbers of votes for parliamentary and presidential elections.e) It would also have addressed issues of improbability of similar and identical results at polling stations.f) It would have addressed questions regarding the accuracy of the result and data provided by the commission.

In essence, the entire challenge to the figures would have been easily resolved and if there was any irregularity, it would have been easily detectable.

When pressed why that evidence was not adduced, the applicant’s practitioner gave a bold and unsubstantiated allegation that the ballot was tampered with.It was argued by the applicant’s counsel that the ballots were a poisoned chalice. In other words, by the time you would have sought to have them unsealed, they would already have been manipulated.

That was the argument. This exercise therefore according to this argument, it was argued would have been futile. However, this position faces the following counters:The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission contends that the prescribed procedures were complied with. Logic therefore dictates that if the applicant and his agents or any other political candidate whose agent had the forms, had the V11 forms in their custody, they could easily have compared them against the residue and further compared them against the result declared. Even assuming that the applicant did not have agents at every polling station, a sample of constituencies could have been used so that the same constituencies where the applicant now disputes the figures would have been compared.

If there were instances where for one reason or another the forms were not recorded as they should have been, specific evidence detailing the gaps and the discrepancies should have been filed before this court.

This could have been connected to the allegations of malpractice against the commission.In the second incident, the applicant urges or argues that the crux of his case stays even without the primary evidence.

It was argued that an attack on the figures produced by the electoral commission itself would suffice to invalidate the election. Even then, all the allegations made against the commission were debunked to some degree by the electoral commission, specifically and systematically.

The election result and the admission by ZEC On the 3rd of August 2018, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced that Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa having achieved the required fifty percent plus one vote from the election, was declared to be the duly elected President of Zimbabwe.

The declaration was made in terms of Section 110 (3) paragraph f(ii) of the Electoral Act. It states (f), subject to paragraph (h), after the number of votes received by each candidate as shown in each constituency return has been added together in terms of paragraph (e), the chairperson of the commission or in his or her absence, the deputy chairperson, or in his or her absence, a commissioner designated by the chairperson shall:1. Where there are two candidates, forthwith declare the candidate who has received the greater number of votes to be duly elected as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the day of such declaration. OR2. Where there are more than two candidates forthwith declare the candidate who has received more than half the number of votes to be duly elected as President of the Republic of Zimbabwe with effect from the day of such declaration. OR3.

Where there are more than two candidates and no candidate has received more than half the number of votes forthwith declare that a run-off Presidential election shall be held on the date fixed by the President in terms of Section 38(1) paragraph A (iii) that is to say “a fixed date not less than 28 and not more than 42 days after the polling day or last polling day as the case may be of the original election provided that the electoral court on the application of the commission may for good cause extend the period at court. Now the declaration as set out for this provisions is the legal event.

This is upon any candidate reaching the 50 percent plus one vote threshold. Whether or not a candidate has reached this threshold is a question of fact. It not a question of figures.

The declaration can only be changed and altered by this court in terms of section 110 subsection 3 paragraph (i) which says, “A declaration by the chairperson of the commission or in his or her absence the deputy chairperson, or in his or her absence a commissioner designated by the chairperson under paragraph (h) shall be final, subject to reversal on petition to the electoral court that such declaration will be set aside or to the proceedings relating to that election being declared void.

Therefore the declaration itself is final subject to requirements prescribed reversal requirements. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission made a critical admission that the exact figures were incorrect and minor adjustments were made after data capturing errors were corrected. It was submitted that this affected the figures relating to the 1st respondent’s win by 0,1 percent but it did not affect the result of the election. It is important to understand what the result of an election is.

The result of an election is the declaration of a winner having reached the 50 percent plus one vote; no other thing. Any votes after that point have no bearing on the result of the election.

The amendment by ZEC has no effect at all on the result of the election and the declaration as interpreted in this case. In fact, an error in counting and amendment of figures is envisaged in the Act itself which makes the provisions of section 110 subject to those of section 67 (a). The law therefore allows for that adjustment and again if the applicant was aggrieved by the counting and the figures availed he should have utilised remedies availed to him by the Act.

In this case the applicant in our view needed more evidence than the mere admission by ZEC on the inaccuracy of the mathematical figures. On the case presented by the applicant on the irregularities allegedly committed by the ZEC, the applicant made several generalised allegations of electoral malpractices against the electoral commission. He made a startling submission that these generalised allegations would suffice to prove this case of irregularities without resort to the primary source evidence.

The electoral commission nonetheless took time to analyse allegations against it and produced clear and tangible evidence to refute the allegations making it incumbent on the applicant to discharge the onus which was on him. The onus to prove the case is not on the person accused.

The accused person doesn’t have to prove anything, doesn’t have to prove innocence and therefore the respondent in this case needed only to respond.ZEC proved through the V11 forms produced that allegations on some forms had been signed and not populated was false and there appears to have been a deliberate fabrication of evidence with an intent to mislead the court.

Without access to the sealed ballot boxes residue, this allegation simply remains as refuted.Disenfranchisement of 40 000 teachers. The applicant alleged that some 40 000 teachers were denied their right to vote on the Election Day and that this had direct effect on the results.

The allegation, needless to say, was very general and unsubstantiated. It is not clear how the figure 40 000 was calculated.

There was no evidence from the teachers themselves that they were registered voters who wanted to exercise their right to vote and were posted against their will.

On the contrary, it was shown by ZEC that some teachers had deliberately opted not to vote in favour of being posted to stations where such right could not be exercised.

The Constitution gives every Zimbabwean who is eligible to vote a right to vote, it is not an obligation under our Constitution to vote. There was no evidence therefore how many of these teachers were registered voters.

There was no evidence of the fact of this allegation. Even if it was proven that it has affected the result, there was no guarantee that every teacher would have voted for the applicant.

The allegation relating to on ghost polling stations or polling stations created at the time of voting lacked specificity and particularity and were in any case disproved by the evidence adduced for the 23rd and 25th respondents. And these are the kind of allegations that would have been easily proven by the access to the evidence in the sealed ballot boxes.

In the final analysis, the court finds that the applicant has failed to place before it clear, direct, sufficient and credible evidence that the irregularities he alleges marred the election process materially existed. In other words there was no proof of these irregularities as a matter of fact.

There would be therefore be no purpose for this court to go further and enquire into question whether such irregularities materially affected the election results. As already indicated it is an internationally accepted principle of election dispute that an election is not set aside easily merely on the basis that irregularities occurred.

There is a presumption of validity of an election. This is so also because as long as an election was conducted substantially in terms of a Constitution and governing laws it would have reflected the will of the people. It is not for the court to decide elections, it is the people. It is a duty of the courts to strive in public interest to sustain that which the people have expressed their will in.

Therefore their application ought to be dismissed.In the result, the following order is made: The application is dismissed with costs.

In terms of section 93 subsection 4 sub-paragraph (a) of the Constitution, Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is duly declared the winner of Presidential elections held on the 30th of July 2018. As indicated there will be a fully dressed judgement in due course on these issues. We have come to the end of these long proceedings.

We thank all those have who participated. As I said at the beginning, we thank the lawyers. At the end of the day, it is their submissions regardless of which side there were that has helped this court to arrive at this decision.

Lawyers are not there to win. Lawyers are officers of the court and the integrity lies in your status as a lawyer and therefore be proud to uphold those principles in which the public looks up to.

I thank the public for having shown confidence in the judiciary whatever views they take at the end of the day we are all Zimbabweans and we have a right to the law.

Media Statement|The South African Government has noted the decision of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, handed down today, 24 August 2018, in the case brought by the MDC Alliance in which the results of the elections held on 30 July 2018 were challenged. The court has validated the results as released by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) on 02 August 2018.

The South African Government urges all those involved in the court case, in particular the applicants and the respondents, to accept the decision of the court. It is important, going forward, hat all parties work towards lasting peace, unity and prosperity in Zimbabwe.

President Ramaphosa has congratulated President Emerson Mnangagwa, the winner of the elections as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and has recommitted South Africa’s readiness to work with the Government of Zimbabwe in the pursuit of closer political, cultural, economic and trade ties for the mutual benefit of the peoples of South Africa and Zimbabwe.

ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Inserted by Khusela Diko, Spokesperson

Former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan will receive a state funeral and burial in Ghana on September 13, the Ghanaian president said on Friday, calling it “a major event for our country”.

The announcement was made by President Nana Akufo-Addo following a meeting with Annan’s family in the capital Accra.

Annan, a Ghanaian national and Nobel peace laureate, died on August 18 at the age of 80 after a short illness.

“Kofi Annan was one of the most illustrious people of this generation. He was like an elderly brother,” Akufo-Addo said.

“It’s going to be a major event for our country… I expect many leaders to be present,” he said, adding that Annan will be buried in Accra’s new military cemetery.

Born in Kumasi, the capital city of Ghana’s Ashanti region, Annan devoted four decades of his working life to the UN and was the first chief from sub-Saharan Africa.

A career diplomat, he projected quiet charisma and was widely credited for raising the world body’s profile in global politics during his two terms as head of the UN from 1997 to 2006.

Following Annan’s death in Switzerland, where he lived not far from the UN European headquarters in Geneva, Akufo-Addo announced a week of mourning for “one of our greatest compatriots”.

Annan was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001, as the world was reeling from the September 11 attacks in the United States, jointly with the UN “for their work for a better organised and more peaceful world”.

Another Nobel laureate, retired South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, described Annan as “an outstanding human being who represented our continent and the world with enormous graciousness, integrity and distinction”.

The first chief to rise from within the organisation’s ranks, Annan left the post as one of the most popular UN leaders ever, and was considered a “diplomatic rock star” in international diplomatic circles.

After ending his second term as chief, he kept up his diplomatic work, taking high-profile mediation roles in Kenya and in Syria, and more recently leading an advisory commission in Myanmar on the crisis in Rakhine state.

He enjoyed some success in ending post-election turmoil in Kenya in 2007, and the two main players in that crisis, former president Mwai Kibaki and his opposition rival Raila Odinga celebrated his efforts this week.

Annan’s death was met with an outpouring of tributes from world leaders.

Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed his “wisdom and courage”, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel celebrated the “exceptional statesman in the service of the global community”.

Former US president Barack Obama said Annan “embodied the mission of the United Nations like few others”.

Current UN chief Antonio Guterres described his predecessor as “a guiding force for good”. “In many ways, Kofi Annan was the United Nations,” he said.

The UN high commissioner for human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein described him as a “friend to thousands and a leader of millions”.

“Kofi was humanity’s best example, the epitome of human decency and grace. In a world now filled with leaders who are anything but that, our loss, the world’s loss becomes even more painful.”

– AFP

By Paul Nyathi|Latest information from ZEC Commissioner Dr Qhubani Moyo’s house in Bulawayo where gunshots were heard on Friday evening indicates (as claimed) that the case may have been a suicide attempt by a police detail guarding his home.

Moyo revealed this in a follow up social media post after stating that gun shots were heard at his house before a police detail was found in a pool of blood.

Initial indications were that the officer died from the shooting incident. Latest details however indicate that the officer is still alive in hospital.

“Now at home and have established that gunshots were from a police officer who shot himself.In bad shape but alive in hospital,” wrote Moyo.

ZimEye.com efforts to get a comment from police in Bulawayo have not been successful as officers claim that the matter is still being investigated.

PRESIDENT-elect Emmerson Mnangagwa will be sworn into office on Sunday at the National Sports Stadium in Harare in line with the law after the Constitutional Court dismissed MDC Alliance leader, Nelson Chamisa’s presidential challenge on Friday.

Mnangagwa was declared winner of the elections by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission with a revised 50.67% percentage of votes against Chamisa’s 44.3%.

However, Chamisa disputed the results and approached the ConCourt to determine his case.

Chief Justice Luke Malaba, sitting with eight other Constitutional Court judges, dismissed the case and declared Mnangagwa the legitimate President of Zimbabwe.

In an interview with state media
On Friday, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi said Mnangagwa will be inaugurated within two days after the court’s ruling.

“The constitution says the inauguration should be held in 48 hours. So the judgement was delivered around 4PM, which means by 4PM on Sunday that (inauguration) process must be complete. I think the programme is being made to ensure that by 4PM we are through,” said Minister Ziyambi. He said Government departments have started preparing for the swearing-in ceremony.

“The relevant departments, the Foreign Affairs Ministry is already busy contacting the foreign dignitaries we had previously invited so that on Sunday the process must be completed,” he said.

Meanwhile, Zanu-PF party hailed the Constitutional Court’s declaration of Mnangagwa as the winner of the July 30 presidential polls. The party’s national secretary for information and publicity, Cde Simon Khaya Moyo, said they were elated by the judgment while calling for peace.

“Following the epoch making unanimous verdict by the Constitutional Court declaring unequivocally that, the winner of the Presidential election held on 30 July 2018 is President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, the revolutionary party Zanu-PF and its entire membership across the country and in the Diaspora is elated with superlative geniality,” said Cde Khaya Moyo.

“The people spoke during the recently held harmonised elections and now the ConCourt’s full bench, after a transparent legal process televised live, has endorsed the people’s will. The moment of truth is upon us, celebrations are beckoning, peace must prevail, we must embrace each other, it has been worth the democratic effort, we are a proud nation and real work now begins. We must deliver and live by our party’s motto ‘Unity, Peace and Development.’ Together we cannot fail.

State Media

By Paul Nyathi|The Thokozani Khupe led MDC-T Deputy President Obert Gutu has appeared celebrating loss at the Constitutional Court by MDC Alliance leader Nelson Chamisa on Friday.

In a Twitter message which has attracted a huge barrage of condemnation by mostly MDC Alliance supporters, Gutu without mentioning names declares in a celebratory tone that it is not as easy to get into statehouse.

“You grab power through violence,chicanery and blackmail and you think you can land at State House through the same crooked means! Forget it!

Ku State House kure…lol.,” wrote Gutu.

Gutu led by Khupe split from the Chamisa led MDC early this year shortly after the death of founding MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai.

The splinter group accused Chamisa of unconstitutionally grabbing power from Khupe who was Co-Deputy President with Chamisa.

VIDEO LOADING BELOW

VIDEO LOADING BELOW

Press Statement|Today, Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court declared Emmerson D. Mnangagwa the winner of the election and Zimbabwe’s next President and dismissed MDC Alliance’s challenge of the July 30 presidential election results. The United States urges all parties to respect the Zimbabwean constitution and the rule of law.

The IRI-NDI Zimbabwe International Electoral Observation Mission reported “several improvements to the electoral process compared to Zimbabwe’s past elections, though equally important problems gave rise to deep concerns that the process thus far has not made the mark.” Further reforms are necessary to meet standards Zimbabweans expect and deserve and which reflect regional and international best practices for democratic elections.

The United States remains concerned over politically motivated human rights violations and abuses, and acts of post-electoral retribution in Zimbabwe. Violence and unlawful activity should not be part of the political process, and those responsible for such transgressions must be held accountable. Human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression and association, must be respected, and victims and witnesses of human rights violations and abuses deserve protection under the law.

The United States encourages the Government of Zimbabwe to hold substantive discussions with all stakeholders and implement electoral and broader political and economic reforms. We stand ready to continue our dialogue with Zimbabwe’s political, economic, and civil society leaders to foster inclusive democratic governance for the betterment of all citizens.

Heather Nauert
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC

August 24, 2018

VIDEO LOADING BELOW

Good afternoon Zimbabweans. I am going to read out the DECLARATION.

We, who represent the majority members of the Zimbabwe diaspora numbering: 5,653,400 people, do declare as follows:

That we have valid reasons to prove to the world that the Zimbabwean nation, its government, and its courts have been captured by electoral fraud of a very serious magnitude and sophistication that has violently and criminally robbed the MDC Alliance and the majority of Zimbabweans of their legitimate vote.

We have undeniable evidence and proof to avail that Nelson Chamisa’s party on the 30th July 2018, won the popular vote by a wide majority against Emmerson Mnangagwa’s Zanu PF.

We further have reason and evidence to show that Nelson Chamisa’s party the MDC Alliance on the 30th July 2018, won the elections by a majority, nationally.

That we have reason and proof to show that at local government level that Nelson Chamisa on the 30th July 2018, won the elections by a majority nationally.

That we have reasons to show that there is a horrific state capture, and one of a very serious and a criminal nature perpetrated by ZANU PF and their counterparts in the army and the police and we hereby invoke criminal law proceedings at a local and international level. We further invoke electoral laws as provided by the Zimbabwe Constitution at national level. The Constitution is the only charter that provide the citizens’ fundamental rights and obligations and we are hereby exercising those rights which must be respected as provided for by law.

We invoke and engage SADC and African Union (AU) protocols on elections who are the legal custodians and responsible bodies of these protocols in any electoral challenges.

Above all this, we invoke public interest, and human morals – public interest to the Zimbabwean people locally and also as a matter of public interest to the international community;

We declare that as is reflected, there is no government in Zimbabwe, either awaiting or constituted in Zimbabwe at the present moment. We show cause with undeniable evidence that there is a criminal regime at present acting with impunity as state actors and harassing innocent citizens who are denied their fundamental rights as citizens to air their grievances . We also want to show cause why we believe that there is a terrorist organisation called ZANU PF running Zimbabwe illegitimately under military dictatorship since the ouster of the former president Robert Mugabe in a coup de tat in November 2017 . The same have of late captured the executive and interfered with the judiciary matters i.e courts of Zimbabwe. Their heavy handedness is in dealing with the voices of dissent cannot be ignored by the international community.

This is the group which began killing people on Wednesday the 1st August 2018, and have continued to terrorise our communities and at worst denying any responsibility of their actions but instead blaming the opposition.The list of continued terrorism is hereby noted.

We declare that ZANU PF leader Emmerson Mnangagwa by declaring himself Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court Judge who will rule and rule while people who oppose him continue suffering under his scorched earth policies, has revealed that he possesses extra judicial powers to interfere with judicial verdicts, as was seen with the Tendai Biti case for public violence. We further deplore the actions of the Zambian gvt to ignore a court order and this is nevertheless a surprising trend in African politics that the governments meddle in judicial verdicts.

As a result of this sham election and massive electoral theft by ZANU-PF, facts are more than clear that Emmerson Mnangagwa has not only violated the Constitution of Zimbabwe but he is in blatant disregard and flagrant breach of the citizens’ fundamental rights and his contempt of court displays the kind of tyranny that has gripped the nation as whole.

We declare that Zimbabwe has fallen into the abyss of a failed and pariah state and we urge the international community not to pay lip service to the problems affecting our country but action must be taken to bring those responsible for the human rights abuses and those defying the rule of law to be identified and punished. It is unfortunate that our country Zimbabwe has fallen prey to a person and a party that is in perpetual violation of the constitution and frustrating the wishes of the majority.

This declaration is backed by millions of Zimbabweans who are in the diaspora and eager to see change and have their voices heard backed by millions who are suffering locally.

This declaration is made by the nearly 6 million Zimbabweans who are based in the diaspora who are not necessarily affiliated to Nelson Chamisa(many who are Emmerson Mnangagwa’s own supporters), but are Zimbabweans acting on legal, constitutional, moral and public interest grounds.

This declaration is made today on the 11th August 2018.

SIGNED BY:

Paul Nyathi|MDC Alliance President Nelson Chamisa has sent a message of hope to Zimbabweans following the shock Constitutional Court ruling on Friday.

The court ruled that Chamisa had failed to provide evidence that the July 30 presidential election was rigged against him.

Wrote Chamisa on his Twitter page on Friday evening.

“I hear your cries and feel your pain. I know you feel cheated, but take heart — your victory is not lost. Your will is sacred and we’ll listen to you on the path of peace and course of action to be taken to rescue our beautiful Zimbabwe from the jaws of poverty, corruption and dishonesty.”

EU Media Statement|Today, Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court dismissed the petition filed by opposition leader Nelson Chamisa challenging the results of the 30 July presidential election, thereby confirming Emmerson D. Mnangagwa as the winner of the poll.

It is important that everyone respects the Zimbabwean Constitution and the rule of law. Acknowledging the verdict of Zimbabwe’s highest court, all stakeholders should call for calm and restraint in both victory and defeat.

The recent increase in politically motivated human rights violations, including some acts of post-electoral retribution, is unacceptable. All cases need to be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. The fundamental rights of all citizens need to be respected and the physical integrity and safety of the victims and witnesses protected.

The electoral process revealed improvements as well as challenges. A truly inclusive approach is the key to designing and implementing reforms that stand the test of time. It is important that the new government engages all stakeholders in substantive discussions on the necessary reforms, including on further electoral reforms.

The Heads of Mission stand ready to continue to work with Zimbabwe to foster democracy to the benefit of all its citizens.

EU

AN off-duty soldier from the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA)’s elite Special Air Service (SAS) unit last week sparked a major security scare at the Heroes’ Acre after he tried to smuggle a loaded Sig Sauer P226 Browning High Power handgun before he was foiled by alert security details.

President-elect Emmerson Mnangagwa officiated at the annual event.

The incident took place shortly before Mnangagwa arrived at the Heroes’ Acre for the annual Heroes’ Day commemorations.

Security staff manning final entry point at the national shrine detected the gun lodged inside the man’s clothes and immediately arrested him and took him into custody at Harare Central Police Station.

According to intelligence sources, state security agents, in co-ordination with police officers, effected the arrest, but a few hours later, officers from the British-modelled army’s SAS unit whisked him away from formal police custody and he is now believed to be under military detention at Inkomo Barracks in Harare.

“A loaded handgun was detected at a standard security screening point and caused a major security scare at the Heroes’ Acre. It was later discovered that the man was a member of the SAS. This was after he had been taken to Harare Central Police Station. People from that army unit then came in the evening and took him away from police custody and that is why you have not seen him appearing in court,” a security source close to proceedings said.

“Currently, no one knows what then happened to him. It could be that he may face internal army disciplinary measures or they have set him free altogether. But the effect of that incident was that the whole programme at the shrine had to be hurried and some items on the programme were omitted for security reasons. If you noticed, the president, after his speech, only went to pay respects to the tomb of the Unknown Soldier and left the place without the customary visits to graves of some iconic heroes like Joshua Nkomo. It was deemed too risky for him to spend more time at the shrine,” the source said.

Another source from the military said: “Since the Bulawayo incident (where Mnangagwa narrowly survived a grenade attack at a rally ahead of the July 30 general elections) guns are tightly controlled and those in the army particularly know this. We wonder why he went there with a gun.”

National police spokesperson Charity Charamba said she was not aware of the arrest.

“I am not aware of that, you may have to check with the army,” she said.

ZNA spokesperson Overson Mugwisi demanded written questions which he did not respond to.

The incident has heightened the security fears around Mnangagwa which became self-evident since the grenade attack. For instance, on the Defence Forces Day commemorations, 24 hours after Heroes’ Day, Mnangagwa turned up at the National Sports Stadium with over 40 plain clothed security officers who completely surrounded his vehicle, itself a recently imported armour-plated and blast-proof Mercedes-Benz S-Class Pullman sedan, complete with all safety features to protect the occupants from any damage.

Mnangagwa shocked the crowd as he avoided walking on the red carpet which had been rolled out for him, preferring to walk on grass.

This comes amid grave infighting within security agencies and escalating political brinkmanship between Mnangagwa and his highly ambitious deputy, Constantino Chiwenga, due to unresolved leadership issues within Zanu PF and over the control of levers of state power.

The Independent has previously reported on the tensions between Mnangagwa and Chiwenga, and also among security forces.

An equivalent of the Unite States marine regiment, the SAS is a highly skilled special forces unit of the army, which undertakes a number of roles including covert investigation, counter-terrorism, direct action and hostage taking and hostage rescue.

It is the most highly trained military unit with cutting-edge expertise in weapon use, parachuting, sky diving and hijack reversal.

Independent

The MDC Alliance’s South African legal team have described Zimbabwe’s legal system as almost ‘xenophobic’ saying the legal embargo the minister of Justice Ziyambi Ziyambi triggered was against the letter and spirit of regional integration as well the tenets of pan-Africanism.

Speaking to South Africa’s eNCA news media today, Advocate Dali Mpofu and Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who formed part of Chamisa’s legal team in a case which the plantiff challenged the presidential poll results said they are taking the matter to the South African government and SADC for a unfair treatment.

“We have made an appeal to our law bodies in South Africa to take this matter up; we are going to make an appeal to the South African government to take it up, SADC. The buzz word in SADC meetings is’ regional integration’, regional integration, how can you have regional integration if you are going to disallow people from practicing, how can you have regional integration if you are going to talk about permits, when Zimbabweans are here?

“Now you want to introduce almost a xenophobic legal practitioners appearance regime, we can’t do that we are one,” said Mpofu.

Mpofu said the judiciary denied Chamisa’s right to a fair and personal legal representation choice.

“He was denied a fundamental right of human beings to be represented in court by council of their choice.”

Mpofu further said he did not see logic in government denying them a green light saying a good number of Zimbabwean lawyers received training in South Africa and some are operating in South Africa.

Mpofu lashed at the irony of the new dispensation saying it signifies the former President Robert Mugabe who ruled with a heavy fist for a record of 37 years.

“The so called the new dawn they say they have there looks like it’s also a fake new dawn,” he said. “I spoke to minister Chinamasa outside the court he was boasting that he is the one who put in this law to restrict our appearance.”

Mpofu’ colleague, Ngcukaitobi, also added that government’s change of goal posts on what they required to in order to participate in court reflected that they were played a political game.

“The reasons kept shifting. Original we were told that we need permission of the law society of Zimbabwe we ultimately got the permission from the law society of Zimbabwe, we were then told that we had to submit some certificates, degree certificates and other documentation from local universities and local bars, we then complied with that.

“The ultimate reason which was communicated to us literal with an hour before the start of the court, was that South Africa is not a reciprocate country with Zimbabwe,” he said.

“The minister completely conflates the requirements in section 7. Under section 7 of the legal practitioners act of Zimbabwe if you are a reciprocating country you have automatic rights of appearance in the Zimbabwean courts.”

In response, Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi denied that the government refused to issue permits saying there was no proof and they can take the matter wherever they want.

“I don’t know who denied them, I don’t even know that. There was no letter which was written, can they show the proof,” he said.

AFP

VIDEO LOADING BELOW…