26 philanthropic, and was in response to pleas for help from the Deputy Mayor of Chinhoyi. The situation of these squatters had been of some concern since December 1999. The respondent denied any collusion with war veterans who were occupying commercial farms and who had allegedly prevented the MDC from campaigning in the area. The Result In arguing the two sides, two interpretations emerged on the issue of onus. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the charges against the respondent were of a civil nature and, therefore, the evidence needed to be proven simply on a balance of probabilities that the respondent had engaged in corrupt practices. The respondent’s counsel however, argued that the charges before the court if proven, could incur serious penalty, including possible criminal prosecution and therefore, as in all criminal proceedings, must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Garwe made his determination on this matter by turning to the relevant sections of the Electoral Act. Sections 104 and 106 provided the Judge with a guiding definition of the offences of Treating and Bribery respectively. If these offences were to be proven, the act would require the Judge to take certain concrete steps, namely to: Void the election of the respondent (section 124 (a)) Notify the Speaker of Parliament that corrupt practices had been committed (section 136 (4)) Send a statement with evidence taken at trial to the Attorney -General in case it is decided that separate criminal prosecution should be pursued. (section 137) Bar the respondent and/or his agent from holding office or voting for a period of five years (section 124 (b)) In his assessment of the possible consequences to the respondent, Garwe stated, “to find on the preponderance of probabilities that someone committed a corrupt practice, in itself a criminal offence, would be grossly unfair and a contradiction.” Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that the charges before the respondent constituted civil offences emerged unsustainable. On the bribery charge, Garwe ultimately found the petitioner’s case circumstantial, relying on inference and second-hand evidence. Two witnesses that had allegedly observed the respondent distribute bribes at a rally failed to come forward to testify. Only one witness was brought forward who claimed that the loan application forms were in circulation around the parliamentary election and therefore intended to influence voters. Moreover, it was established that the application’s closing date was 29 March 2000, and that loans to Zanu (PF) members were on offer from the respondent as early as February 1999. According to Garwe, nothing in the evidence contravened the respondent’s testimony that the loan forms were withdrawn during the Zanu (PF) primary elections as a result of complaints from other nominees. Because the loan forms were not proven to have been intended specifically for the general election, Garwe dismisses the charge of bribery. Garwe also dismissed the charge of treating, where the respondent allegedly “thanked” constituents by fulfilling a pre-election promise to feed them. There was no evidence led that such a pre-election promise had been made. In any event, when the petitioner was pressed under cross-examination, he made no objection to the principle of handing out charity to the needy. While Garwe listened with gravity to the allegations of electoral irregularities, he found that there were no “fundamental breaches of the principles of the [Electoral] Act” and that non-compliance had not affected the election as a result. Indeed, Garwe attributed the alleged irregularities as administrative lapses, insufficient in degree, or extent, to void an election. AMANI TRUST: Neither Free nor Fair: High Court decisions on the petitions on the June 2000 General Election.