Election date case takes new twist

The lawyers representing Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai are now pushing for President Robert Mugabe, who set the July 31 election date, to proclaim a new one, with the first and other parties seeking to be the applicants in the matter.

Justice and Legal Affairs Minister, Patrick Chinamasa, had filed an application last month in which he was seeking a two week delay to the July 31 date for elections.

However, Tsvangirai and MDC President, Welshman Ncube, filed counter applications in which they alleged Chinamasa acted unilaterally.

They were contending that their applications should be heard jointly with Chinamasa’s.

The Constitutional Court later on ruled that the applications by Chinamasa, Tsvangirai and Ncube would be consolidated with those filed by human rights activist, Nixon Nyikadzino and a Bulawayo woman, Maria Phiri.

The Constitutional Court ruled that President Robert Mugabe was not represented in the proceedings and had not been cited in the applications when in fact he was part to the court case on election dates.

Nyikadzino is arguing that the July 31 date for elections does not give him enough time for reforms necessary for the holding of free and fair polls while Phiri’ says she is being deprived of her right to register to vote as she is considered alien.

Tsvangirai’s lawyer, Advocate Lewis Uriri, told The Zimbabwean that his client, Ncube, Nyikadzino and Phiri would be the principal applicants when the Constitutional Court hears the case on Thursday.

Mugabe, Chinamasa, Jealousy Mawarire, the Attorney General’s Office, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and Deputy Prime Minister, Arthur Mutambara, have been cited as respondents.

Uriri said the applicants in the matter will be seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Mugabe’s proclamation of election dates.

Mawarire successfully obtained an order calling on Mugabe to proclaim election dates by July 31 last month.

“What we have agreed is to have Tsvangirai, Ncube, Nyikadzino and Phiri as the principal applicants and the rest will be respondents.

What has changed primarily is that the applicants contend that Proclamation Number 2 of 2013 (setting the election date) is unconstitutional.

“That is the major argument that the President has to vacate Proclamation Number 2 of 2013 and proclaim a new date,” said Uriri.