In Tsholotsho North the prominent and controversial politician Jonathan Moyo was the ZANU PF candidate. He had successfully run as independent in the constituency in 2005 and 2008 and had later re-joined ZANU PF. The Bulawayo High Court stopped the recount on procedural grounds and the MDC-T candidate kept the seat. 14.3 The MDC Constitutional Court Petition MDC-T did not accept the results of the elections. Already in his press conference on 3 August, Morgan Tsvangirai denounced the harmonised elections as “a huge farce” and “null and void.” He said that the party would use the legal possibilities and file a petition with the Constitutional Court. On Thursday 8 August 2013 Mr Tsvangirai lodged two applications with the Electoral Court, seeking access to voting materials that were in the custody of ZEC in order to back his election petition challenging the validity of the presidential election. On the day after, within the Constitution’s seven-day deadline, Mr Tsvangirai filed his election petition challenging the presidential election result at the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 93 of the Constitution. The petition asked for the presidential election to be set aside as invalid, and the respondents listed were President Mugabe, the ZEC, the Chair of the ZEC Ms Rita Makarau, and the Chief Election Officer. The petition listed the following grounds for the claim: • T  he elections had been held in breach of the Constitution, as the date was set without consultations and the legislation was passed by the President, not the parliament. • Voters were disenfranchised through restrictive voter registration, leaving “countless people […] in queues to register”. • Candidates were refused a copy of the voters’ roll. • There were duplications of names on the voters roll. • The special voting system was abused. • The Chief Election Officer released the postal ballot papers to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs only on 17 July, leaving only a few hours for them to be legally returned. • There were cases of intimidation and violence, by e.g. uniformed forces and traditional leaders. • There were cases of voting under duress, cfr. the problem of assisted voters. • Voters were turned away at polling stations. • There was rampant misuse of voter registration slips. • There was a lack of transparency in regard to ballot papers. • There were cases of bribery, e.g. distribution of food etc. during the campaign. • State media were grossly biased. 52 On 14 August, the Chief Justice held a case management meeting to settle the procedure for hearing the election petition. The Chief Justice directed that • all parties had to file their papers, including heads of argument, by 8 pm on Friday 16 August; and • the hearing of the case would commence at 10 am on Saturday 17 August. Later on 14 August Justice Bhunu, sitting in chambers, heard arguments on Mr Tsvangirai’s application for access to material in ZEC’s custody for use in his election petition. The ZEC’s lawyer objected that under the new constitution only the Constitutional Court can deal with matters connected with a petition challenging the president’s election. The response was that under the Electoral Act only the Electoral Court can permit access to the sealed ballot boxes and packages in which Mr Tsvangirai was interested. Justice Bhunu reserved his decision indefinitely – and it had still not been handed down by Friday afternoon when the notice of withdrawal of the petition was filed. On 16 August the MDC-T National Executive Committee meeting decided to withdraw their petition. The Committee cited the Electoral Court’s delay in setting down, and its failure to rule on, Mr Tsvangirai’s application for access to the ZEC material, which they said had seriously undermined his election petition, as the reason for the withdrawal. It complained that the handling of the Electoral Court case and the petition itself was not in accordance with constitutional guarantees of a fair hearing and administrative justice. Mr Tsvangirai’s notice of withdrawal was filed accordingly, stating also that the timelines imposed by the Chief Justice’s direction of 14 August meant that Mr Tsvangirai was obliged to file all his papers without knowing the position of the respondents – particularly of ZEC, which had still not provided an electronic copy of the voters’ roll and had “deliberately taken a position which is inconsistent with a just determination of this matter and which position obviously prejudices me.” ZEC’s uncooperative stance “effectively aids the first respondent [President Mugabe] and “makes it completely futile to pursue this petition.” In addition President Mugabe at the Heroes’ Day celebrations on 12th August had made “certain unsavoury comments in which he criticised my decision to approach this court. The fact that the Chief Justice was in attendance on the day and the fact that he is expected to preside over my petition does very little to inspire my confidence in the possibility of my constitutional right to a fair hearing. In this regard I make no imputation, gratuitous or otherwise, about the integrity of the Honourable Chief Justice. My concern is with the conduct of the first respondent [President Mugabe].” He also cited that adverse pre-trial publicity in the State media, particularly The Herald newspaper, had been prejudicial and inconsistent with the fair trial guarantee in the Constitution. Nothing had been done to stop it, which “gravely undermines the process which I had been prepared to submit to.” 53