Zanu-PF activist challenges Kasukuwere’s presidential bid at High Court

Zanu-PF activist Lovedale Mangwana has approached the High Court with an urgent application challenging former cabinet minister Saviour Kasukuwere’s presidential candidature saying he was away from Zimbabwe for 18 months and so, “does not qualify to be a candidate to the election of the president of the Republic of Zimbabwe”.

Mangwana cited the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) as a respondent saying that he was “puzzled” that Kasukuwere’s papers were accepted at the nomination court last week on Wednesday.

Kasukuwere, a former MP and Zanu-PF political commissar, is seeking to dislodge President Emmerson Mnangagwa in the upcoming presidential election to be held on the 23rd of August this year.

In Mangwana’s application, Kasukuwere is the first respondent followed by ZEC, Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe respectively.

“This is an urgent court application in terms of rule 107 of the High Court Rules, 2021. I approach the court in my personal capacity on the strength of section 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe 2013.

“I ask whether the court may be pleased to find and declare that: (a) the decision of the Nomination Court sitting at Harare on 22 June 2023 to accept first respondent as duly nominated as a candidate for election to the office of President of the Republic of Zimbabwe in the general elections set to be held on 23 August 2023 is a violation of provisions of section 91 (1) (c) and (d) as read together with paragraph 1 (2) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 as read further together with section 23 (3) of the Electoral Act, and

“(b) that as a result of this violation, the decision is a violation of my right to an election that is not only free and fair but is conducted in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe and to the protection of the law and is therefore a breach of my rights as set out in section 56 (1), 67 (1) (a) and 67 (3) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,” read part of the application.

“In consequence of these findings and declarations, I ask whether the court may be pleased to set the impugned decision aside and other consequential relief. I have brought this matter as an urgent court application in reliance upon the provisions of the provisions to rule 59 (6) of the High Court Rules, 2021 in consideration of the fact that the relief that I crave is final in nature and not returnable.

“It is incapable of being sustained in the form of interim relief on a provisional order in an urgent chamber application. Counsel’s advice is that this procedure is permissible in this court and that there are several matters that have been determined by this court in the manner I ask. Counsel will advert to the relevant authorities in argument.”

Mangwana further said: “I have indicated that I am aware that the first respondent has been away from the republic for a period in excess of 18 months. I add that this a continuous period of absence. In other words, he has been out of the republic for each day of the past 18 months.

“I add that this is in fact a matter of public record. I dare him to indicate otherwise. I understand that his absence from the country for that period of time has much consequence at law. I draw attention to provisions of section 23 (3) of the Electoral Act which enacts:

“(3) A voter who is registered on the voters roll for a constituency, other than a voter who has been registered in that constituency in terms of the proviso to subsection (1), shall not be entitled to have his or her name retained on such roll if, for a continuous period of eighteen months, he or she has ceased to reside in that constituency:

“Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent his or her name from being struck off such voters roll — (a) on his or her being registered in another constituency; or (b) if he or she becomes disqualified for registration as a voter.

“I submit that the absence of first respondent from the country for more than 18 consecutive months has the effect that his name ceased to be retained on the voters’ roll. I add that this occurred by operation of law.

“I submit that the decision to accept first respondent’s nomination papers is contrary to the law set out in this provision in that first respondent, being a non-voter, cannot be nominated for election to any office.” Mangwana argued.