Largely because of the failure by ZEC and the Registrar General of Votes to timeously avail the voters’ roll to interested parties during an election period. It is quite clear from the wording of the Constitution that its framers sought to eliminate the confusion surrounding the voters’ roll by exclusively vesting all processes related to the voters’ roll with ZEC and removing any reference to the RGV. Despite the clarity of provisions in the Constitution, the Electoral Act, in its present form fails to reflect the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Whilst recent amendments to Sections 18 and 19 of the principal Act purported to capture the essence of the Constitution, a closer scrutiny of the finer print betrays the shortcomings that still exist in the subsidiary law. Primarily, the retention of the role of the Registrar General (RG), though somewhat in a qualified role, is problematic, given the past challenges associated with that office and its management of the voters’ roll. The Electoral Act must specifically bestow ZEC with the sole mandate of electoral management, in line with the Constitution. Several provisionsv of the current electoral law purport to give the Commission leeway to delegate a number of its functions to other offices in a way clearly not contemplated by the Constitution. As matters stand the Act through the last amendmentsvinot only fails to align the principal Act with the Constitution but seems to introduce provisions that further undermine the intention of the Constitution. The Electoral Act seems to still retain a role for the abolished office of the registrar general, which is referred to as the former Registrar General of Voters. Its retention even in a qualified role is troubling; given the troubled history of the RGV’s office and the role it has played in overseeing disputed elections in the past decade. The amendment restores the very mischief the Constitution sought to address. It is quite clear that the Constitution sees no role for the office of the RGV in election management bodies. The retention of the role of the RGV in the Electoral Act is, with respect, unconstitutional and the relevant provisions should be repealed. The point has been made above, that the integrity of the electoral process depends on the reality and perception of an independent and impartial election management body. Any involvement of other state actors that also become political contestants in an electoral process inevitably casts a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the whole process. It is for this reason that certain provisions in the Electoral Act that purport to give some roles to the Minister should be revisited. Section 18(5) of the Electoral Act gives the Minister power to make regulations, after consultation with the Commission and the former Registrar-General of Voters, These regulations may provide for a wide array of issues that include providing for a mandatory automatic and electronic voter registration.vii This provision is problematic. Firstly, the powers given to the minister are not supported by any constitutional provision. Secondly, from the reading of the provision the minister is given a free reign to come up with the regulations without taking into consideration of the views of the Commission, as confirmed by the use of the words, “after consultation.” This is strange considering that the regulations may affect the operations of ZEC, which is supposed to be an independent, 3 Policy Brief: A Call For Alignment Of Laws With The Constitution ©ZESN 2017