admin
Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
LAWYERS representing MDC-T lea-der Mr Morgan Tsvangirai yesterday dissociated themselves from the politician’s statements impugning the integrity of the court.This came as the Constitutional Court is today expected to rule on whether or not President Mugabe was duly elected President in the July 31 harmonised polls following the withdrawal of the election petition by Mr Tsvangirai.
Asked to comment on averments made in the affidavit by Mr Tsvangirai and other papers filed in the court in which he allegedly impugned the integrity of the court, Advocate Deepak Mehta, representing the MDC-T leader, dissociated himself from the statements.
The instructing lawyer Mr Chris Mhike of Artherstone and Cook also confirmed through Adv Mehta that he was not part of the “attack on the Judiciary”.
In dissociating himself from the case, Adv Mehta struggled to state his position until Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku — who was sitting with eight judges of the Constitutional Court — came to his rescue.
“In other words you are saying these are beliefs of your client and you disassociate yourself and your colleagues from the statements made in the affidavit?”
The lawyers confirmed the position to the court, leaving Mr Tsvangirai exposed. Mr Tsvangirai last Friday withdrew a petition in which he was challenging President Mugabe’s victory, before it could be heard in the court on Saturday.
President Mugabe thumped Mr Tsvangirai in the presidential poll after garnering 61,09 percent of the valid votes cast against 34,94 percent for the MDC-T leader.
The court yesterday nullified Mr Tsvangirai’s purported withdrawal of the poll challenge.
Justice Chidyausiku ruled that the withdrawal was not supported by any law and proceeded to hear arguments on the main petition.
The court, however, reserved judgment on the petition to today.
The withdrawal was nullified because it did not comply with the law.
It was the court’s finding that whenever a presidential election petition is filed, the matter has to be heard and determined before the swearing in of the winning candidate.
The withdrawal, according to the court, was not provided for in the laws of this country, therefore the petition should be heard and determined.
“This court is satisfied that there has to be a determination and there has to be a hearing.
“In an ordinary application, a withdrawal means the end of the matter, but in a presidential election petition, arguments have to be heard and a determination is made,” said Justice Chidyausiku.
In the petition, PM Tsvangirai incorporated and attached the so-called “dossier” which was prepared by MDC-T.
The dossier accused the Judiciary of failure to comply with Sadc guidelines and being biased towards Zanu-PF.
Part of the dossier reads:
“Judiciary is not independent from the executive, and politically, from Zanu-PF.
“Since 2010, the President has appointed or elevated 23 judges to the High Court, Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court without consulting Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, contrary to the requirements of the GPA and the Constitution.
“Consequently, the opposition does not view the judiciary as independent of Zanu-PF.”
The document also accuses the courts of contributing to the delay in the announcement of the election date.
“Although Sadc recommended an extension of time for the election date, this was strongly resisted by Zanu-PF with the concurrence of the courts.”
The dossier alleged widespread rigging implicating various individuals, organisations, traditional leadership and members of the national army as the culprits.
Mr Tsvangirai also challenged the involvement of an Israeli firm Nikuv in the alleged manipulation of votes and produced some statistics showing that the company had received payments amounting to US$10 578 335 for the elections-related services offered.
The dossier was attached to the petition by Mr Tsvangirai as Annexure A and forms part of his affidavit.
During yesterday’s proceedings, lead counsel for President Mugabe Mr Terence Hussein argued that Mr Tsvangirai did not have faith in his own petition hence he should be slapped with an order for costs of the suit on a higher scale.
Mr Hussein, who was representing President Mugabe with the assistance of Advocate Fred Gijima, argued that the winning President could only be sworn in after the court rules on the petition.
If the court rules in President Mugabe’s favour, he should take an oath of office within 48 hours, according to teh Constitution.
President Mugabe on Sunday hinted that a swearing in ceremony where he will be inaugurated as Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces could take place as early as Thursday.
Online Reporter