By Allen Khumalo
Former Zifa Southern Region chairman, Musa Mandaza, has filed an appeal at the High Court challenging the outcome of elections that saw him losing his post to Andrew Tapela by seven votes to 20 in October.
Mandaza’s application cited the Zifa Electoral Committee as the first respondent, Zifa as the second respondent, Tapela as the third respondent, Fiso Siziba (fourth respondent), Bryton Malandule (fifth respondent), Tizirai Luphahla (sixth respondent) and Mehluli Thebe as the seventh respondent.
“I am of the respectful view that the elections conducted by the first respondent which resulted in the election of the third to seventh respondents as the Southern Region board members were fatally defective and must be set aside.
Not only that, having filed an appeal as provided in terms of the second respondent’s electoral processes, and which appeal was not dealt with in terms of the said processes, I now believe that it is no longer within the power of the first respondent to deal with such appeal and that consequently, it is now within the powers of this honourble court to set aside the election and order the second respondent to conduct fresh elections for the entire board of the Zifa Southern Region,” reads Mandaza’s application.
Mandaza alleged that the Zifa Electoral Committee committed serious irregularities by allowing non-affiliate or non-eligible members to participate in the voting process.
He further alleges that the committee failed to disqualify candidates running for office whilst holding office in lower affiliate structures, which he said is contrary to the standing statutes.
He contends that failing to hear his appeal as provided in the electoral code renders the first respondent’s act of omission an illegal act in terms of the said electoral code.
“It must be declared as such by the court with the inevitable result that a fresh election must then be conducted as suggested in terms of the draft order. In the alternative, I believe it would still be within the powers of this honourbale court to compel the first respondent to hear my appeal.” The Chronicle