20 regard, perhaps her expectation of them was misplaced. It certainly must have been a harrowingly intimidating experience going to the High Court having not been schooled in proper court protocol or procedure and with little knowledge of their own legal rights. Ziyambi’s assessment of the evidence put forth by these witnesses, already seemingly tainted by her ambivalence towards them, was as follows: Because the petition had not been served on any of the specific individuals named by witnesses to be involved in violence, corrupt practices or intimidation, no finding could be made against them. These alleged perpetrators were not given the opportunity to answer these accusations. If the respondent was not directly implicated in acts of violence, corrupt practices or intimidation, then these instances were not sufficient to unseat an elected official. Some of the violent incidents, namely the two assaults in Maglas Township, were crimes not of a political nature. This assessment is bolstered by the fact that the assaults desisted with the appearance of either a Zanu (PF), or CIO official. Witnesses’ testimony about the incident at Mushaya Business Centre was riddled with contradicting evidence. The contradictions centred on where the lorry carrying Zanu (PF) supporters stopped before these people disembarked. The respondent was allegedly in the lorry watching the assault, but the questions around where the lorry stopped undermines witness testimony that they had seen him. Some evidence lead in court by the petitioner was missing in the written affidavit that was submitted shortly after the parliamentary elections in mid-2000. Ziyambi’s contention was that such evidence, being fresh in the petitioner’s mind, should have not gone unnoticed when the petition was drafted. Evidence given by Godfrey Sithole that he was bribed in front of the High Court was dismissed. Ziyambi could not understand why the respondent would choose to bribe a witness whose testimony never directly implicated the respondent. Furthermore, the alleged $500 given to Sithole had already been spent. Alleged electoral irregularities were dismissed, since there were no complaints initially reported to the constituency registrar’s office. The Response The respondent’s main line of defence was that the Zanu (PF) leadership in Zvishavane had never accepted him as the rightful parliamentary candidate for the area. In fact, there were three primary elections that pitted Mbalekwa against the leadership’s favored candidate, Cephas Msipa, the local patron for ex-combatants. In these primary elections, “war veterans” threatened and intimidate Mbalewkwa and his supporters. For this reason, having already borne the brunt of the “war veterans” tactics of intimidation, he could and would never encourage similar activities against his political opposition. Rather, he had preached non-violence and co-existence. He dismissed his participation on the attacks at Mushaya Business Centre, mainly because excombatants did not campaign for him. The bribe in front of the High Court was dismissed as well. Mbalekwa asserted that Sithole had asked him for lunch money which he gladly obliged. This was corroborated by Lovemore Shoko. AMANI TRUST: Neither Free nor Fair: High Court decisions on the petitions on the June 2000 General Election.