The
10
CCC
members
led
by
Aquilina
Kavidza
Pamberi
as
the
first
applicant
with
nine
others
Tinashe
Kambarami,
Memory
Ndlovu,
Promise
Dalubuhle
Mkwananzi,
Caroline
Mapako,
Garikayi
Mugova,
Kwanele
Bango,
Brian
Gumbo,
Gladys
Mathe
and
Tawanda
Ruzive
respectively,
filed
an
urgent
court
application
accusing
the
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
(ZEC)
of
depriving
them
the
opportunity
to
submit
their
party
list
nomination
papers.
The
ten
CCC
members
asked
the
Bulawayo
High
Court
to
order
ZEC
to
enable
them
to
submit
their
candidate
names
and
reverse
the
subsequent
election
of
the
Zanu
PF
provincial
council
candidates
who
stood
unopposed.
They
cited
ZEC
Bulawayo
Provincial
Elections
Officer
(PEO),
Innocent
Ncube
as
the
first
respondent,
as
he
was
the
presiding
officer
of
the
Nomination
Court,
while
ZEC
is
the
second
respondent.
The
other
respondents
cited
are
the
Zanu
PF
candidates
who
were
duly
elected:
Manala
Motsi,
Eddie
Dube,
Kundai
Nyika,
Golden
Ndlovu,
Mnothisi
Nsingo,
Moleen
Dube
and
Mlungisi
Moyo,
who
are
third
to
tenth
respondents
respectively.
ZEC
refuted
CCC’s
allegations
with
the
PEO
claiming
the
opposition
party
had
three
party
lists
for
Senatorial,
National
Assembly,
and
Youth
quotas
but
none
for
Provincial
Council.
According
to
the
PEO,
CCC
attempted
to
submit
its
provincial
council
party
list
while
submitting
amendments
to
its
initial
nomination
papers,
which
was
prohibited.
Nqobizitha
Ndlovu
of
Cheda
and
Cheda
Associates
told
CITE
that
lawyers
argued
the
matter
on
July
3
before
Justice
Bongani
Ndlovu
who
reserved
judgment.
“It
means
judgement
will
be
delivered
in
due
course.
We
argued
the
matter
but
the
judge
didn’t
deliver
judgment
there
and
then.
The
judge
needs
time
to
go
over
the
arguments
and
write
it.
When
judgment
is
ready
he
will
tell
us
and
deliver
it,”
he
said.
Ndlovu
said
as
things
stand
now,
CCC
still
has
no
nominated
members
in
Bulawayo’s
Provincial
or
Metropolitan
Council,
adding
that
the
judgment
will
definitely
come
as
a
matter
of
urgency.
“It’s
a
matter
of
urgency
because
of
the
election.
The
judgement
has
to
come
way
before
the
elections.
We
are
looking
at
it
coming
in
the
coming
week,
so
most
probably
it
will
be
out,”
said
the
lawyer.
In
their
application,
the
CCC
members
claimed
before
the
PEO
could
make
a
decision
on
the
nomination
papers
submitted
from
them,
“there
was
sudden
pandemonium
inside
the
nomination
court”
and
by
the
time
order
was
restored,
the
“PEO
had
apparently
lost”
their
forms.
However,
in
its
notice
of
opposition,
through
its
lawyers,
Nyika
Kanengoni
and
Partners,
ZEC
said
there
is
no
valid
application
before
the
court
warranting
the
relief
sought
by
the
disgruntled
CCC
members.
The
PEO
said
the
decisions
he
took
during
the
sitting
of
the
Nomination
Court
was
made
in
terms
of
the
Electoral
Act,
even
where
CCC
alleges
that
he
acted
contrary.
Ncube
said,
“When
I
came
to
the
party
lists
for
the
CCC,
the
party
had
three
party
lists
for
Senatorial,
National
Assembly
and
Youth
quota.
They
did
not
have
one
for
the
provincial
council.
After
checking
the
papers,
I
sent
their
representative
back
to
make
corrections
on
anomalies.”
He
added
that
at
around
8
pm
when
CCC
representatives
returned
with
the
corrected
party-list
nomination
papers,
he
noted
that
they
had
now
added
the
provincial
council
party
list,
which
was
not
part
of
the
original
submission.
“The
factual
narration
given
by
the
applicants
is
thus
not
correct.
I
did
not
lose
their
nomination
papers
as
they
allege.
There
is,
thus,
no
basis
for
this
application
at
all.
I
acted
fully
within
the
law,”
Ncube
said.
Ncube
argued
the
High
Court
lacks
jurisdiction
in
the
matter
so
the
matter
should
be
struck
off
the
roll,
because
it
lacks
a
legal
basis
to
issue
an
order
that
effectively
makes
a
new
proclamation
or
supplements
the
one
already
made
by
the
President,
who
is
the
only
one
with
the
authority
to
proclaim
when
Nomination
Court
meets.
The
PEO
also
contended
his
decision
cannot
be
interfered
with
in
any
manner
by
any
court
lest
that
court
goes
against
the
clear
provisions
of
a
statute.
“Nominations
for
party
list
candidates
are
not
considered
in
terms
of
section
46
(7)
of
the
Electoral
Act.
They
are
considered
under
Section
45E
of
the
same
Act,”
he
argued.
ZEC
lawyers
argued
that
in
terms
of
Rule
12
of
the
electoral
(applications,
appeal
and
petitions)
Rules
S.I
74
of
1995,
the
applicants
were
afforded
all
the
facilities
and
rights
prescribed
in
terms
of
Section
45E
of
the
Electoral
Act.
“They
were
not
denied
a
right
to
file
nomination
papers
in
terms
of
the
law.
An
attempt
at
late
filing
is
not
filing
as
contemplated
in
terms
of
the
Electoral
Act.
The
letter
requesting
corrective
measures
is
dated
22
June
2023,
a
day
after
the
sitting
of
the
Nomination
Court
at
which
point
the
nomination
officer
was
already
‘functus
officio’
(an
officer
or
agency
whose
mandate
has
expired),”
said
the
lawyers.