Zanu PF activist Lovedale Mangwana has filed an urgent court application seeking to have independent presidential candidate Saviour Kasukuruwere removed from the August 23 ballot.
(viii) Relief sought 31 I submit on the strength of the complaints above, that the decision to accept first respondent’s nomination paper is contrary to section 91 (1) (d) of the Constitution as read with paragraph 1 (2) of the Fourth Schedule thereto as further read with section 23 (3) of the Electoral Act. 32 Given this nature of complaint and standard, I ask for relief in the form of a declaration to the effect that the decision of the Nomination Court to accept first respondent’s nomination paper and his candidature for election to the office of President of the Republic of Zimbabwe is a violation of section 91 (1) (d) of the Constitution as read with paragraph 1 (2) of the Fourth Schedule thereto as further read with section 23 (3) of the Electoral Act.
I further ask, as consequential relief, for an order setting aside the decision to accept first respondent’s nomination paper and an order, for the avoidance of doubt, that he is in fact not a candidate for election to the office of President of the Republic of Zimbabwe in the election to be conducted on 23 August 2023.
(x) Urgency 33 The matter is urgent and deserves the court’s urgent intervention. I have indicated that the Nomination Court sat on 22 June 2023. It is on that date that it made the decision the subject of these proceedings. On that date, I inspected the record and filed my objection against the decision to accept first respondent’s nomination paper.
My lawyers pursued the issue through written correspondence on 23 and 24 June 2023 despite it being a weekend. All-in-all, I have come to court in two working days of the decision that I complain against. I submit that I have been diligent in pursuing this matter. I ask whether the court may be pleased to indulge me with an urgent hearing of the matter.
I also point out that there are other serious considerations that bear on the urgency of this matter. I point out that the decision of the Nomination Court to accept first respondent’s candidature in forthcoming elections is going to be the basis of the entire election process. This includes the preparation of ballot papers and other processes. Ballot papers require huge expenditure to be prepared.
The financial resources will derive from the people of Zimbabwe, like myself. 35 I submit that it is urgent that there be an answer to the question whether first respondent should be part of the candidates whose names will appear on that ballot paper.
This ought necessarily to be done before ballot papers are designed and printed lest the expenditure be for an invalid process. 36 I further submit that a delay in the determination of this matter would in these circumstances result in a situation where I will not need the court to pronounce itself anymore. We are two months away from the election and the normal processes of setting down matters will most likely see me heard after the date of election.
I will not need to be heard for the simple reason that the harm that I fear would already have occurred, ie first respondent would already have participated as a candidate in the same election. I submit that the only way to avoid this circumstance is to treat and hear this matter as urgent. 37 I humbly pray in the circumstance that the court may afford me an urgent hearing. (xi) Case management 38 Consistent with judgments of this court in urgent court applications, and on the basis of the needs of the matter, I ask whether there may be an urgent case management meeting with the Honourable Judge where the following timelines may be adopted for filing of pleadings and set down of the matter:
Respondents must, if inclined, file and serve their opposing papers within 2 days of service upon them of this application. 38.2 As the applicant, I would then be required to file both his answering affidavit and heads of argument within 2 days of service or receipt of respondents’ papers. 38.3 Upon receipt of my heads of argument, the Registrar must set the matter down within a further 2 days. 38.4 Respondents will in the intervening period file their own heads of argument.
I accordingly pray that the court may be pleased to grant me an urgent hearing in accordance with these proposed timelines. (xii) Costs 40 I am aware that in matters that engage constitutional rights of parties, the general rule is that there should be no order as to costs. It is that rule which I submit should regulate the question of costs in this matter. In all the circumstances, I ask whether the court may be pleased to grant the application on the terms of the draft order annexed.
LOVEDALE MANGWANA
I certify that the deponent has confirmed before me that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of his knowledge both true and correct. This affidavit was signed and sworn before me at HARARE on the date stated above, and that the relevant laws of Zimbabwe regulating the taking and administration of the oath were fully complied with.
