Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum CHAPTER FOUR THE RULE OF LAW: THE ELECTORAL ACT AND ITS MANIPULATION Altering Institutionalised Functions ‘The legal framework for the elections is provided by the Constitution of Zimbabwe, principally through Articles 58-61 (on elections) and Articles 11-26 (‘The Declaration of Rights’), the Electoral Act and related laws, such as the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act. While the legal framework has provided the basis for several elections, it contains serious deficiencies. It sets up significant overlaps among electoral authorities, possibilities for duplication of efforts and insufficient transparency and guarantees of impartiality.’xli While the Electoral Act makes the Registrar General the primary person responsible for conducting the elections, the President is given sweeping powers to control the election process. Article 158 specifically empowers the President to suspend or amend any provision of the Electoral Act and to alter any time period specified by the Electoral Act. The President changed the Electoral Act using his temporary powers in a number of ways, including: (1) Modification of the postal ballot system.xlii The changes in the postal ballot system, decreed on 7 June, limited postal votes to government employees stationed abroad or members of the security forces, including the police, working abroad or within the country. Previously, any Zimbabwean outside the country at election time could vote by post. This change deprived a potentially significant number of Zimbabwean nationals abroad of their right to vote. Registration for and the use of postal votes in the general election gave rise to particular concern by human rights activists. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights condemned the amendments to the Electoral Act by which Zimbabweans overseas were denied a postal vote on the grounds of expense. Some police serving outside their constituencies during the election were reported to be unhappy about having their details recorded before their postal votes were issued. The Registrar-General admitted issuing postal votes to soldiers before receiving their applications and without the necessary witness signatures. He averred that soldiers would be registered in their home district constituencies.xliii He refused to answer questions about monitoring postal votes, which, he said, would be dealt with by other, unspecified ‘authorities’.xliv The Movement for Democratic Change petitioned the High Court to have the postal votes voided for the RegistrarGeneral’s admitted non-compliance with the requirements of the Electoral Act, but Justice Devittie ajudged his procedures as ‘substantial compliance’. His judgement was later overturned by the Supreme Court sitting as the Constitutional Court. In Mutare Central constituency, massive irregularities led all candidates to a common agreement to reject all postal votes. Here instances of multiple voting, in person and by post by unauthorised people, were recorded. What happened to postal votes in other constituencies was not clear, but they were all voided by the Supreme Court. 21