JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 67 ____________________________________________________________________ On the other hand, when he was still in the High Court Mr Justice Chidyausiku openly expressed his wholehearted support for land reform. He strongly castigated the Gubbay-led Supreme Court, accusing it of bias in favour of white commercial farmers and of deliberate obstruction of land resettlement by its judgments in these cases. This criticism foreshadowed the approach that he would adopt in the Supreme Court. In the final interdict case, heard before a reconstituted Supreme Court, his views have prevailed. The majority decision has provided the legal legitimacy from the Zimbabwean courts that the government had been seeking for its land “programme”. The decision has allowed the government to claim that the entire programme is lawful, constitutional and in accordance with the rule of law. This is certainly not true. Topic 2 2. THE LEGAL STANDING CASES121 The High Court judgment in the Stevenson case (Stevenson v Minister of Local Government & Ors 122) Introduction Section 80 of Urban Councils Act123 allows the Minister to appoint commissioners to run the affairs of a council area where the elected councillors have been suspended or dismissed. The commissioners appointed by the Minister can hold office for a maximum period of six months, pending the election of new councillors. The Minister had dismissed the Harare City Council and replaced the councillors with commissioners to run the affairs of the city. A period well in excess of the maximum period of six months had elapsed since the commissioners were appointed, but no elections of mayor or councillors had been called. The applicant was resident in the Harare area and a ratepayer. She was also a Member of Parliament for a Harare constituency. She applied for an order obliging the holding of mayoral and council elections in Harare to elect councillors to replace the Commissioners appointed by the Minister.