Zimbabwe – Ready for Elections? 59 contested in past elections. Ahead of the 31 July 2013 election, several pre-election disputes have already arisen. Some of the issues that have already arisen include the constitutionality of the proclamation and actual timing of election, political party funding, the Diaspora vote, nomination challenges and disputes relating to the Special Vote. Most of these issues have been dealt with by the courts – both the Electoral Court and the Constitutional Court. Polarisation and heavy contestation remain major challenges and, as already experienced, some election-related disputes have arisen amongst political parties and police have effected arrests subsequent to litigation, although these have been regarded as selective. Following the amendment of the Electoral Act in 2012, the number of institutions that have a mandate to deal with election-related disputes has increased. Some of these institutions already existed prior to Constitution Amendment number 19. Article 22(1) of the GPA also established another organ, the JOMIC, which was supposed to play a role in mediating politically motivated disputes that arose between the three political parties in the IG. JOMIC is now not functioning after ZANU PF pulled out. The Electoral Act provides for election dispute resolution mechanisms that now not only include the Electoral Court4 and the Multi-Party Liaison Committees but also the police and the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC).5 However, the existing laws do not clearly spell out the parameters of engagement of these institutions when it comes to election dispute resolution and there is a real potential that there may be duplication of roles or confusion by litigants on which institution has the proper mandate to effectively address disputes. It is important to note that lawyers – and particularly lawyers who have been involved in election-related litigation – have come under immense strain and attack as a result of taking up cases on behalf of political parties and voters across the political divide. It cannot be stressed enough, that every person has a constitutional right to protection of the law and access to the courts where there is a violation or a potential violation of their rights. Asserting such rights therefore, no matter how ”political” this may seem, is a legally recognised process and must be respected. Likewise, lawyers are protected from being identified with the cause of their clients and their professionalism as officers of the court must be respected. Consultations between lawyers and their clients are privileged in order to allow disclosure of full facts and the discussion of legal strategy. Those who attack lawyers and/or seek to interfere in such processes are therefore impeding the justice delivery process and the administration of justice. 4 5 Section 162(1) of the Electoral Act. Section 113H of the Electoral Act.