By Elizabeth Nyaguyo
The Constitutional Court today dismissed an application, lodged by MDCT leader Douglas Mwonzora, to have the 2023 Delimitation Report prepared by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission set aside for unconstitutionality, and therefore the consequential application for postponement of elections has fallen away.
Senator Mwonzora was seeking to have the ConCourt set aside the delimitation report gazetted by President Emmerson Mnangagwaon 20 February 2023; and order ZEC to redo the delimitation exercise and submit a new report and finally, he was seeking a consequential relief to have the ConCourt postpone the general election by interdicting Mnangagwa from making the election proclamation, pending ZEC’s submission of a new and acceptable delimitation report. On 4 May 2023 this TL indicated that Mwonzora’s application was likely to fail on a technicality that he would be found to lack the locus standi to prosecute the matter on its merits because – as a presidential candidate, he is unaffected by ZEC’s new electoral boundaries!
Addressing journalists, Mwonzora said that the court has handled his case unfairly from his expectations.
“The Constitutional court has dismissed our application and their argument is that they don’t have jurisdiction.
“In other words they said that they don’t have the power to hear the case the constitutional court has made a political judgement it is an unfair judgement and we do not accept the judgement,” he said.
He went on to say that, he is not going to let the issue go so easily because all he wants is free and fair elections.
“I have received legal advice and the matter is not going to stop it is going to continue with our struggle for democracy we want free and fair elections in Zimbabwe.
“They will never be free and fair elections where the delimitation report is so fundamentally flawed this is a recipe for disaster,” he said.
Professor Lovemore Madhuku, who was representing Mwonzora said that the constitutional courts could not listen to their matter as they had their expectations.
“The Constitutional court has decided not to go into the merits of the matter they said we have not pleaded in a way that accommodates them to hear.
“They indicated that we were seeking two things one application, and they thought we would seek one thing,” he added
