JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE
76
____________________________________________________________________
had been infringed by the legislation he sought to impugn. He had alleged that the
members of the electorate who might vote for him were denied the right to register as
voters after 10 January 2001, while those who supported President Mugabe’s party
were allowed to register right up to 3 March. If true, this would possibly have entitled
those persons who were denied the right to register to approach the Supreme Court for
redress in terms of s 24(1). However, the applicant was not entitled to bring an
application on behalf of these people. Section 24(1) provides it is only when a person
is unable to bring the application himself because he is being detained that another
person is entitled to bring an application on his behalf. See United Parties v Minister
of Justice & Ors 1997 (2) ZLR 254 (S).
As regards freedom of expression, the applicant was required to allege that his own
fundamental right to freedom of expression has been contravened by the legislation in
question. None of the “jumbled and vague” allegations made in the applicant’s
affidavit satisfied the Court that the applicant’s fundamental right to freedom of
expression had been, or was likely to be, contravened.
The applicant took issue with s 4 of the Notice which restricted postal voting to
members of disciplined forces on duty and persons away from Zimbabwe in the
service of the Government of Zimbabwe. To establish that this provision had violated
the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, he would have had to make an
allegation such as that he had applied to the Registrar-General for a postal vote and
was denied such a vote because of s 4.
The minority judgment (per Sandura JA)
In his minority judgment, Sandura JA held that the applicant had legal standing to
bring the application.
He pointed out that the applicant had contended that President Mugabe had used his
immense powers under s 158 of the Electoral Act to make radical alterations to the
electoral law passed by Parliament, thereby drastically changing the conditions under
which the presidential election was to be held. This had allowed President Mugabe to
gain an advantage over him in what was supposed to be a fair election.
Select target paragraph3
Add to table of contents