29 All agreed that evidence of violence perpetrated by both political parties may serve to strengthen the inference that the freedom of election was violated. The judges and the witnesses Judge Devittie’s view of the witnesses was unique among the three judges in that he was explicitly cognizant of the witnesses’ modest social and educational status. He recognized their courage and steadfast demeanour, and seemed generally impressed by their inability from straying from the truth, even in the face of intimidating cross-examination tactics. Judge Ziyambi’s demeanour and attitude towards the witnesses however, was dismissive and apathetic. At no time, either in court or in her opinion, did she take into account their social status, nor their limited access to education. She never considered that it could be intimidating for them to testify at the High Court in front of one or more of their alleged tormentors. At many moments when the respondent’s counsel was cross-examining some of the petitioner’s witnesses, the judge allowed the respondent’s counsel to badger and intimidate the witness. On a few occasions, she even laughed at some of the witnesses’ testimony. Attitudes on procedural aspects of the petitions The most common fault in all of the petitions was the failure to serve and call upon individuals implicated in corrupt practices, violence or intimidation. When these individuals were not properly called upon, each judge was not able to make a finding against that person, or any determination on the event or act testified to. Justice Devittie, in his Shurugwi opinion, admitted that had the petition been properly served on the alleged perpetrators, the outcome of his decision could have been different. Additionally, Justice Devittie suggested that future petitions should include maps noting the localities where violence or intimidation occurred. This may help illustrate to the Court the extensiveness and general nature of the violence and intimidation that is alleged. He also suggested that police evidence could help corroborate allegations of violence and intimidation by police officers testifying to reports made of incidents, whether they were acted upon (or not), localities affected, or incidents witnessed. xxvii Here, of course, the amnesty promulgated by President Mugabe was of crucial importance, since this amnesty allowed very large numbers of persons to escape criminal prosecutionxxviii, and the evidence from criminal prosecutions would have undoubtedly been central to all the allegations by the petitioners that large-scale violence had been perpetrated during the election. The knowledge that an amnesty had been given perhaps should have influenced the judges more, and the understanding that government’s only pass amnesties to excuse their own actions led to a greater interest in the testimony of the victims. Attacks on the Judiciary In November 2000, Patrick Chinamasa, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs stated, “Few fundamental and revolutionary changes have been brought through the legal process. Secondly, I belong to a generation which brought fundamental revolutionary change not through the law or a legal process, but through the barrel of a gun.” xxix Chinamasa said this in his denunciation of non-black judges who had made judgments or statements criticizing the government’s fast-track land redistribution program. xxvii Devittie, J. Shurugwi Election Petition, p.8-9 See ZIMBABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM (2000), Report on Pre-election Violence in Mberengwa, HARARE: ZIMABWE HUMAN RIGHTS NGO FORUM. xxviii xxix The Herald, Wednesday November 29, 2000, p.9 AMANI TRUST: Neither Free nor Fair: High Court decisions on the petitions on the June 2000 General Election.