Judgment No. CCZ 4/18 6 Case No. CCZ 3/18 1. Whether the Constitution of Zimbabwe, directly or indirectly, allows for the ‘diaspora vote.’ 2. Whether s 23 of the Act violates s 67 (3) of the Constitution. 3. Whether s 72 of the Act violates subs 56 (1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution. 4. Whether international conventions and electoral laws have any influence in the interpretation of our electoral laws as currently phrased. Whether the Constitution of Zimbabwe directly or indirectly, allows for the ‘diaspora vote’ The papers before the court point to one major point of dissent between the parties, and that is whether or not the Constitution, in the way it is worded in relevant parts, or in the import of such wording, envisages or anticipates a situation where Zimbabweans based abroad by dint of their own volition, can vote during the country’s harmonized general elections. In other words, does the Constitution allow or not allow the so-called diaspora vote? The applicants’ view is in the affirmative while the respondents firmly subscribe to the opposite view. My view is that this is the issue that must be determined first before one can consider the question of whether or not the impugned provisions of the Electoral Act violate the relevant provisions of the Constitution. This is particularly so where it is alleged, as in casu, that certain statutory provisions violate a particular constitutional provision, and where the meaning of such provision is the subject of dispute between the parties. Section 67 deals with ‘Political Rights’ and in its subs (3) reads as follows: “67 Political rights (1) ….