16 Justice Devittie viewed the events of 15 April 2000 as a sequence of events put into play by persons actively engaged in the respondent’s election campaign, and whose participation the respondent “recognized and accepted.” Though these agents were not officially nor formally appointed deputies, they nevertheless acted on behalf of the respondent in relation to the election. Justice Devittie did however accept the respondent’s assertion that neither he nor his election agent committed corrupt practices personally. He also accepted that the killing of Mabika and Chiminya was not committed at the sanction of either the respondent or his election agent. However, though the Judge grudgingly gave the benefit of the doubt in terms of whether the respondent took all preventative measures to thwart or discourage the commission of corrupt practices, a whiff of culpability remains hanging over the respondent. Willful ignorance, in Devittie’s opinion, is a weak argument for innocence, and, rather, carries a strong suggestion of liability and collusion on the respondent’s part. Indeed, Devittie acknowledged the suspicion surrounding Manyonda’s role in the killings even though, from the evidence led, he could not come to definitive conclusion on what that role entailed. Accordingly, Justice Devittie found that the respondent’s agents guilty of undue influence. He declared the killing of Chiminya and Mabika a “wicked act.” Having already found the election void through the first charge, Judge Devittie found it unnecessary to consider the second challenge to the election on the grounds of general violence and intimidation. 5.4 J Devittie: Shurugwi This petition, like the previous ones Judge Devittie presided over, centred on three questions: 1) did the respondent, Mr. Francis Nhema commit corrupt practices in the election campaign? 2) Is the respondent, through his agents, guilty of committing corrupt practices? And finally, 3) was there general violence and intimidation in the constituency to the degree that the election was unduly affected? According to the petitioner, the respondent, Mr. Nhema, was not only cognizant of the violence and intimidation in Shurugwi, but that he had consciously set into motion a campaign of terror aimed at ensuring a Zanu (PF) victory in the constituency. His instruments in implementing this campaign were his election agents, the surrogate campaign team, and the “war veteran” militias. As in the previous petitions, an expanded definition of agency was put forward. It was argued that since Zanu (PF) party structures had provided the financial wherewithal to the respondent to carry out campaign activities in the constituency, he must have therefore allocated some of these funds to the operations of the war veterans, their base camp near the Shurugwi Police Station and their violent campaign of intimidation, particularly in the town of Shurugwi itself. Through the alleged allocation of such funds, the respondent implicitly recognized the agency of the war veteran militias who campaigned on his behalf, and thus had to be held, by law, responsible for their actions. Indeed, from the testimony presented before Judge Devittie, a grim picture does emerge. The petitioner, Ms. Lucien Gladys Mativenga, and her witnesses, testified that war veteran militias had set up a base camp next to the police station in Shurugwi Town Centre from which campaigns of violence and intimidation were planned and executed. Various MDC officials, campaigners, and supporters, including the MDC District Chairman, Cotton Ndlovu, and MDC supporter Eliphas Ndiwani, were terrorized and made to leave the constituency for safety. It was common for these militias to demand their victims to name other MDC supporters, or provide lists of MDC officials. These names were sought, presumably, so that these militias could go out and terrify these people to refrain from exercising their legitimate right to vote. Although most of the violence was concentrated in the urban area of Shurugwi, incidents of violence and intimidation did occur in the communal areas, which make up 90% of the AMANI TRUST: Neither Free nor Fair: High Court decisions on the petitions on the June 2000 General Election.