JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 75 ____________________________________________________________________ In his founding affidavit the applicant alleged that the Registrar-General of Elections in his organisation of the forthcoming presidential election had repeatedly been heavily biased in favour of the President Mugabe and against him. This had resulted in serious breaches of the Declaration of Rights of himself and his supporters. The applicant alleged that the President not only had all the State personnel and machinery at his disposal in order to assist him in his campaign, but he had also used his considerable powers under s 158 of the Electoral Act to gain an unfair advantage in relation to presidential elections. Section 24(1) of the Constitution provides that if any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him that person may apply to the Supreme Court for redress. The application was filed in the Supreme Court on 7 March 2002 and was heard on the following day, which was the day before the commencement of the election. Despite the urgency of the matter the Supreme Court reserved judgment. It finally handed down its judgment more than a month after the presidential elections. The judgment of the majority (Chidyausiku CJ with the concurrence of Cheda JA, Malaba JA and Ziyambi JA) The majority of the Court decided that the applicant had failed to establish that he had legal standing to bring his application under s 24(1) of the Constitution. A bald, unsubstantiated allegation of breaches of the Declaration of Rights does not satisfy the requirements of s 24(1), the majority held. In his founding affidavit an applicant was obliged to aver facts, which, if proved, would establish that a fundamental right enshrined in the Declaration of Rights had been contravened in respect of himself as opposed to some other person. He had to set out clearly in his affidavit that a fundamental right enshrined in the Declaration of Rights had been or was likely to be infringed in respect of himself and the material facts which established this allegation. As regards the applicant’s contention that there had been a violation of the right to protection of law, the applicant had not shown that his right to protection of the law