IRI/NDI Zimbabwe International Election Observation Mission Final Report 19 Legal Framework and Electoral System Legal Framework Zimbabwe adopted a new constitution in 2013 following a negotiated process (primarily between the ruling ZANU-PF party and the MDC-Tsvangirai faction of the MDC) and was approved by the public through a referendum. The 2013 Constitution significantly enhances personal freedoms over the previous constitution. However, many elements of the 2013 Constitution have yet to be realized in practice either due to the continued existence of legislation that contradicts the new constitution or government practices that do not conform to the new constitution. For example, the draconian Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) have been neither repealed nor amended, undermining constitutional protection of freedom of assembly and information. Similarly, media freedom remains curtailed as the authorizing agency has only approved private electronic media licensees for pro-ruling party outlets. The 2013 Constitution required the alignment of subsidiary electoral legislation. After considerable debate in Parliament over the course of several years, the 2018 Electoral Amendment Act was gazetted on May 28, just two months before the July 30 elections. The 2018 Electoral Amendment Act contained a number of improvements compared to the previous law, including the provision of a BVR system, the extension of the allowable period of non-residence in a constituency from 12 to 18 months before removal from the voter registry, repeal of the requisite channeling of foreign funding for voter education initiatives through ZEC, the establishment of Multi-Party Liaison Committees (MPLCs), the establishment of additional polling stations and the capping of excess ballot papers to 10 percent per station, for example. While the amendments sought to bring the relevant provisions of the Act in line with the letter and spirit of the electoral principles enunciated in the 2013 Constitution, a number of CSOs, including Zimbabwean Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and Veritas, maintained that the reforms were inadequate to achieve the requisite alignment. In addition, the Electoral Amendment Act was passed very close to Election Day, which was not in accordance with best practice. Concerns also persist about the ability of Zimbabweans living outside the country to exercise their right to vote; repressive laws such as AIPPA and POSA that curtail Zimbabweans ability to fully realize their constitutional rights; and provisions in the Electoral Act that could undermine the independence of the ZEC and judiciary. Zimbabwe has a well-established judicial system, with four High Courts, a Supreme Court, a Constitutional Court and more than 200 Magistrate Courts. Electoral Courts were constituted by the Electoral Act as a division of the four High Courts around the country. Serious concerns have been raised about the independence of the judiciary historically and during the electoral period. The Electoral Act does not contain administrative complaints mechanisms except as they pertain to voter registration. Therefore, election-related disputes are resolved by the judiciary, which does not prescribe an expedited timeline to adjudicate election-related cases before Election Day. Though best practices dictate that electoral disputes be properly investigated and resolved in a timely manner, many electoral-related cases filed during the pre-election period were not resolved due to the absence of time limits for hearing and delivering of judgments, and did not always provide an effective legal remedy for petitioners. For politically motivated violence and intimidation cases, the Judicial Service Commission designated more than 50 magistrates to prioritize cases of political violence with assistance from