The Electoral Court has dismissed an election petition filed by a Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) member Patrick Dube, who was challenging Zanu PF MP Omphile Marupi’s election in Gwanda South last year, saying he exaggerated the matter to ‘upset’ the election that could have been conducted fairly, clearly and transparently.
Dube claimed Marupi, who was appointed Deputy Minister of
Information, Publicity, and Broadcasting Services benefitted from various
electoral irregularities such as voter intimidation, malpractices, rigging and
vote buying.
The unsuccessful CCC member, represented by Mathonsi Ncube
Law Chambers, had asked the court to overturn Marupi’s victory as the MP and
order fresh elections in Gwanda South.
However, in his ruling, Judge Justice David Mangota sitting
at the Electoral Court on February 29, 2024, dismissed Dube’s election petition
with costs.
“The petitioner states that the election which took place
in the constituency occurred in 11 wards. Judicial notice is taken of the fact
that each ward had/has a number of polling stations. Whilst the number of
polling stations which were set up in the constituency have not been mentioned,
it is, in my view, improbable that the petitioner and his four agents were able
to observe the conduct of an election which took place in the whole Gwanda
South constituency,” said the judge.
Justice Mangota said Dube appears to have exaggerated this
aspect of his case with a view to upsetting the result of the election which,
“to all intents and purposes, might have been conducted in a fair, clear and
transparent manner. “
“His narration of events on this aspect of the case appears
to be more improbable than it is possible, let alone probable,” said the judge.
“(Dube), it is
observed, couches his petition on this aspect of the case in vague terms. He
alleges, on the one hand, that voting in the constituency was marred by the
illegal practice of such a serious magnitude as to upset the entire election
process which took place in the constituency on 23 August, 2023.”
The judge said Dube in the alternative, insists that he
complied with the rule when he submitted V23 Forms which show the list of votes
he intends to object to.
“The long and short of his stated conduct is to invite me
to go on a fishing expedition with him, so to speak. The clear message which
comes out of the observed position is that the petitioner is certain of what he
wants to achieve but is not sure of how he should go about to achieve it,” said
Justice Mangota.
“He cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate on one and
the same matter as he is doing: Mare v Deas, 1912 AD 242 at 259. He should take
a clearly defined course of action and proceed with it to its final conclusion.
He cannot be allowed to suggest that, if the court is not with him in his first
line of prosecuting his petition, then it should buy his alternative.”
According to the judge, such conduct by Dube is consistent
with that of a person who is prepared to have it all at all costs regardless of
whether his petition has merit or has no merit. “That conduct should be frowned
upon in the extreme sense of the word. The petitioner submitted only two V 23
Forms which accompanied his petition and, with only those, he seeks to persuade
me to nullify the election which took place in the whole constituency on the
strength of the two forms,” said Justice Mangota.
“(Dube) is encouraged to be candid with the court when he
files such a petition as he filed. If his intention was to object to the votes
which appear in the two forms which he makes reference to, he was at liberty to
state as such.” CITE
0 comments:
Post a Comment