In regards to the pre-election violations alleged, of concern is the fact that although the Court acknowledged the existence of some pre-election High Court judgments pertaining to the conduct of postal voting, the design of the ballot paper, the release of the voter roll with photos and the voting of civil servants, it did not refer to other judgments, such as the one of the Electoral Court related to the distribution of agricultural seed under the guise of it being the presidential inputs scheme, 101 or the one of the High Court banning the President of the National Council of Chiefs from making political statements supporting ZANU PF and declaring unconstitutional the conduct of campaigns by traditional leaders. In its unanimous decision of 24 August (CCZ 42/18), the Court ruled that the applicant failed to adduce “clear, sufficient, direct, and credible evidence” that the alleged irregularities “materially existed”. The Court reserved to address the totality of the allegations in the main judgment.102 The Court opined that a declaration of results under the Electoral Act creates a presumption of validity of the said declaration, and that “the onus and burden of proof rests with the applicant”, who had to “prove to the satisfaction of the Court” that the entire election process was so poorly conducted that it was not “in substantial compliance with the law”. In accordance with the common law approach, the Court placed the onus probandi on the applicant to provide firm and credible evidence of the departure of the ZEC from the prescriptions of the law. While the Court made extensive reference to the “best evidence rule” and repeated the need for the applicant to have produced “primary source evidence”, either from a recount or through an analysis of the content of the unsealed ballot boxes through an application to the Electoral Court, and stressed that the applicant chose not to exercise his right to obtain the necessary evidence, it completely disregarded the value of the evidence placed before it. Yet, the evidence which the Court mentioned as the acceptable evidence would still not have been made easily available, as it had to be applied for – it is notable that when recourse has been made to that in the past, no application had succeeded. In juxtaposition to the constitutional requirement that the elections “must be free from violence and other electoral malpractices” and that “the ZEC must ensure that whatever voting method is used, it is simple, accurate, verifiable, secure and transparent”, the Court did not consider ZEC’s lack of transparency in the publication of the detailed election results or the lack of accuracy in the figures announced (see Results section for commentary on the errors in the announced results). Importantly, the Court was satisfied that ZEC produced clear and tangible evidence to refute all allegations and ruled that ZEC made a critical submission that the exact figures announced were incorrect and minor adjustments were made, which did not affect the result of the election. Ultimately, the Court found that the applicant did not prove the alleged irregularities and subsequently dismissed the application with costs. 101 Pre-election matter brought against the ZANU PF candidate in Murewa South. The Electoral Court heard the matter on 24 July 2018 and ordered the candidate not to use inputs distribution as part of the campaign. 102 At the moment of writing this report, the full judgment has not been made available yet. 44