    The MDC T filed a court application challenging the numbers of police given special voting rights, as according to pay roll records, there are 44,113 police employed and not the 69,222 who were granted special votes. Their application was dismissed. The special vote was chaotic, with the legally allocated two days being hastily extended, but with more than 40% of special voters nonetheless failing to cast their votes because of ZEC’s logistical failures. ZEC was granted an application by the Constitutional Court that those 40% who had not voted should be allowed to vote on 31 July, although this is in express contravention of the Electoral Act as it opens the possibility of double voting. It remains unclear to date what measures ZEC undertook to ensure that those 60% who had voted during the special vote did not cast a second vote on 31 July, which places the reliability of the entire poll in question. 7. MOST EGRESIOUSLY: Failure to provide an electronic copy of the voters’ roll to all candidates. This breached Section 21(6 and 7) of the Electoral Act, which states that every registered candidate must be provided with an electronic copy of the roll in good time before the election. Such copy should be in a format that “allows its contents to be searched and analysed.” MDC T was forced to apply to the High Court on 30 July (the eve of the election) with an urgent demand that ZEC give candidates and parties the electoral roll, which it had not yet done! Only a paper roll was provided, after the court ruled ZEC must produce the roll, with ZEC stating that a ‘technical fault’ precluded handing over the electronic roll. To date, the electronic roll has not been handed over which is a hindrance in the multiple constituency appeals that have been placed before the courts. 8. Campaigning –Intimidation: The Electoral Act Section 134 forbids intimidation in all forms, both verbal threats and physical violence. There were multiple and in some constituencies widespread reports of threats of death, violence and destruction of property in the event of ZANU PF not winning in certain constituencies.114 There were isolated reports of election related violence, both preceding and following the poll. In the wake of the violence of 2008, the impact of threats cannot be under estimated in assessing voting patterns. 9. Campaigning ‐ Bribery: The Act Section 136 states that it is specifically forbidden to offer material rewards to voters in return for their votes, yet ZANU PF consistently and country wide ‘treated’ voters in the form of tonnes of food handouts, with the promise of more after the elections in the event of the Mugabe family still being in power. People were allegedly promised land in some instances. Any person who: “makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement to or for any person in order to induce such person to procure or to endeavour to procure the return of a candidate at an election or the vote of a voter at an election” has committed the offence of bribery, according to the Electoral Act 136 (1)(c).115                                                              114 Sokwanele website lists 222 self reported incidents of intimidation. 115 Specific material promises differ from policy promises during a campaign. Effectively, to offer material goods in exchange for a vote, is a bribe. This is different to handing out campaign material, including t‐shirts, caps etc, which is a form of advertising used world‐wide during campaigns. Tonnes of maize meal, cooking oil, rice and other food commodities were distributed at ZANU PF rallies, with specific promise of more in the future if ZANU PF won the election. This was above and beyond the provision of food for immediate consumption that routinely accompanies rallies in Zimbabwe. Conversations with voters in rural Matabeleland show that this ‘treating’ in a region where people are starving was influential in voting patterns.   53