Even more drastically, but possibly justifiably in the light of previous experience, the Commission could be given the power to order the postponement of the entire election if there is convincing evidence that the conditions prevailing in the country do not permit the holding of free and fair elections. Conclusion It will be apparent from the foregoing discussion that, on the whole, the Amendment Bill introduces welcome changes to the law, which, if properly implemented, will go some way towards remedying the defects in the Zimbabwean electoral system. The qualification “if properly implemented” is an important one, however. Many of the malpractices that have marred elections in previous years have been illegal, that is to say have been carried out in defiance of the provisions of the Electoral Act. For example, in the 2005 election to the Senate, many voters found that their names had been removed from the voters roll on the ground that they, or their parents, had been born outside Zimbabwe and so were not Zimbabwean citizens. This was done without informing the voters concerned, in contravention of the Electoral Act, and without ascertaining whether or not the voters had indeed lost their Zimbabwean citizenship. As a result, the voters concerned were unable to cast their votes in the election. Most of the voters have since been restored to the roll, but there is nothing in the Amendment Bill that will prevent or, indeed, that can prevent their being disenfranchised once again, capriciously and illegally. Legislation alone cannot prevent such malpractices. Even positive provisions that existed previously were sometimes ignored. The best remedies against them are, firstly, an impartial, efficient and active Electoral Commission; secondly, rigorous observation and monitoring of all stages of the electoral process; and thirdly, impartial and professional enforcement of the laws by law enforcement agencies. Whether the Amendment Bill will provide these remedies is open to doubt. 21