18 case. Specifically, Mr. Nhema called no witness to controvert the testimony that Railway Block had sustained an organized attack by Zanu (PF) supporters. On the issue of liability, the respondent insisted that because he was often in Harare on business, the respondent depended mainly on his election agent, Ruzivhe, and area Chiefs to carry out preelection activities. Therefore, he concluded that he couldn’t possibly be guilty of corrupt practices during the campaign. As in the three previous election petitions Devittie presided over, the respondent relied on personal ignorance of corrupt practices committed by “war veteran militias” and Zanu (PF) supporters. Far from denying the instances of violence at the hands of the “war veteran” militias, the respondent did all he could to separate himself and his campaign from the machinations of the militia. Mr. Nhema insisted that these “war veterans” were neither funded nor encouraged to engage in violent activities by himself or anybody on his campaign team. In any case, Devittie refused to accept the respondent’s claim that he was unaware of the violent campaign being waged by war veterans in Shurugwi, though he was unprepared to make a conclusion on the issue of agency- whether Nhema and the war veterans were manifestly linked. Indeed, the judge is dismissive of the respondent’s use of ignorance as a defense when he states: I do think that merely standing by and doing nothing in the face of organized violence and intimidation designed to benefit a candidate constitutes strong evidence of agency. No doubt, Devittie discerned common cause between the respondent and the war veterans. However, he found that the evidence presented by the petitioner in this regard was lacking and therefore the allegation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, Devittie believed that the petitioner’s counsel had failed to follow procedure in presenting its case properly. Most importantly, the petitioner failed to call upon persons whose conduct during the election campaign, as argued at trial, was relied upon to void the election. Why weren’t the respondent’s election agents called to explain their actions, to respond to the allegations levied against them? More troubling was the fact that the petition as initially pleaded never relied on conduct that was eventually testified to in oral evidence. Because the respondent’s agents were neither called to testify at trial, nor implicated in the petition itself, a notice of trial was not served within the prescribed time on either of the respondent’s express agents, David Ruzivhe, the election agent, or Gunpowder, the polling agent. As a result of the many procedural lapses, Devittie dismissed the argument to nullify the election on the grounds of corrupt practices committed by Nhema’s formally appointed election agents. The Result This petition ultimately failed. But not because Justice Devittie did not make a finding that violence and intimidation did, in fact prevail in Shurugwi constituency. On the contrary, a pattern of violence did emerge, though concentrated mainly in Shurugwi’s urban areas. Indeed, it was found by the Judge that “war veteran” militias and other Zanu (PF) supporters had perpetrated acts of violence and intimidation in order to deprive or deter opposition supporters the free exercise of their legitimate franchise in Shurugwi. The fact that the urban areas only make up 10% of the constituency did not automatically persuade Devittie that the violence and intimidation perpetrated was too localized to meet the legally proscribed standard of being general or pervasive. In fact, Devittie stated: AMANI TRUST: Neither Free nor Fair: High Court decisions on the petitions on the June 2000 General Election.