60 Election dispute resolution mechanisms 4.3 Alternatives for election dispute resolution in Zimbabwe Due to the fact that election-related disputes vary due to the timing, the nature and the issues involved, different institutions have capacity to hear and determine them. In Zimbabwe, the courts, and other organs and institutions play a central role in election dispute resolution. 4.3.1 Constitutional Court As currently constituted, the constitutional court has 9 Judges. It was fully constituted after the new Constitution came into effect on 22 May 2013.6 It hears petitions relating to the election of the President and violations of the Bill of Rights. In all the electionrelated cases that have been filed in the Constitutional Court, violations of the Bill of Rights have been alleged. 4.3.1.1 Timing of elections Nyikadzino v President of Zimbabwe & Ors,7 Phiri v Mugabe & Ors,8 Chinamasa N.O v Mugabe & Ors,9 Tsvangirai v Mugabe & Ors CCZ 37/13 These cases – more commonly known as the “Super Application” - were filed to challenge the timing of elections as set out in the Mawarire judgment, which has been discussed previously in this report. Phiri approached the Constitutional Court under case number CCZ28/13 and CCZ32/13 seeking to assert her citizenship rights and the right to vote. She wanted the President to be compelled to proclaim an election date that would not infringe on her right to register as a voter within the mandatory thirty-day special and intensive voter registration exercise. Nyikadzino approached the court seeking to compel the President to follow due process in proclaiming an election date and ensure that none of his rights were violated in the process. Subsequently, a proclamation was issued for the elections, much to the protestations of the two formations of the MDC. This issue was taken to SADC, which urged the parties to jointly approach the Constitutional Court and seek an extension of the time within which to hold an election. Chinamasa, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, filed this application, stating that in so far as he (representing the President) was concerned, he had complied with the judgment according to law and did not require an extension but had only approached the court for such an extension at the behest of SADC. Welshman Ncube filed a counter application to this pointing out that what Chinamasa had done was to set the stage for his own application to be dismissed. Tsvangirai filed a separate application to the same effect, and giving further grounds necessitating the required postponement. 6 7 8 9 D Nemukuyu “Supreme Court complies with Constitution” The Herald (24 May 2013) p 4. Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe 31/13 & CCZ 34/13. Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe unreported case 28/13 & CCZ32/13. Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe unreported case 35/13.