JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 106 ____________________________________________________________________ be proved by “clear evidence”, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt it perhaps going too far. Though election petitions may have penal consequences, they remain civil, not criminal, cases. Conclusion The general picture is one of a government trying by all means to prevent the proper hearing and decision of election petitions that threaten its continued existence. At every stage there have been delays and obstacles placed in the way of the petitioners. More than two years have passed since the 2000 general election and few of the contested petitions have been brought to finality. It is unlikely that all of them will have been completed by 2005, when the current Parliament must be dissolved. It hardly needs to be pointed out that this seriously offends against democratic principle. While the election petitions remain unresolved, persons who may or may not have been duly elected are able to sit, speak and vote in Parliament. And most of them can expect to continue doing so for the lifetime of this Parliament. If election petitions can be delayed so long, there is little incentive for unscrupulous candidates to abide by the rules laid down in the Electoral Act. So long as they are reasonably discreet and act through intermediaries, they can intimidate their opponents and bribe their supporters in the confident expectation that (provided they belong to the ruling party after the election) they will be able to block any attempt to unseat them until it is too late. The Presidential election petition This topic has not covered the election petition filed by Mr Tsvangirai in which he disputes the result of the Presidential election in March 2002. That petition has not yet been heard, but results of the preliminary skirmishes have not been encouraging. The MDC has been denied access to an electronic version of the electoral roll used in the election, on the ground that the Electoral Act does not require such a roll to be provided. And the petitioner has been ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of $2 million, more than the respondent requested.