|
Court upholds Moyo’s election
By Fidelis Munyoro 10/03/2009
Tsholotsho legislator Professor Jonathan Moyo’s bid to nullify Mr Lovemore Moyo’s election as Speaker of the House of Assembly failed after the High Court yesterday threw out the challenge.
Prof Moyo and three MDC MPs — Mr Moses Mzila Ndlovu, Mr Patrick Dube and Mr Siyabonga Ncube — challenged Mr Moyo’s election as Speaker, saying the process was fraught with irregularities.
Prof Moyo immediately filed a notice to appeal against Justice Bharat Patel’s decision in the Supreme Court.
The trio had claimed Mr Moyo’s election was chaotic and in breach of secret ballot requirements.
However, Justice Patel dismissed the application with costs. He said Parliament generally regulated its own proceedings without external interference.
He also noted that as a rule, the courts should not interfere with the internal proceedings of Parliament unless there was a failure to comply with constitutional structures.
"In the instant case, I do not perceive any such failure and unable to find any other basis for setting aside the election of the Speaker," Justice Patel said.
The court noted that the appellants failed to justify their claims.
The judge agreed that the overall scenario prevailing in the House on the day in question could reasonably be described as not ideal.
"Nevertheless, despite the imperfections alluded to . . . it cannot be said that the process was disorderly as to be utterly chaotic," said Justice Patel.
Turning to how some voters had displayed their votes, Justice Patel said on evidence before the court, there was nothing to show that MPs did not cast their votes in secret or that those who did display their votes did so under threat or duress.
He said it was clear that Mr Tendai Biti (MDC-T) took the lead in showing his vote and that several of his colleagues were then emboldened to emulate his "impo-litic" example.
This, the judge said, they did so of their own volition after casting the ballots in secret.
Clerk of Parliament Mr Austin Zvoma, who was cited together with Mr Moyo as a respondent, denied that the voting process was improper.
Prof Moyo filed a notice to appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court.
Through his lawyer, Mr Terrence Hussein of Hussein Ranchod and Company, Prof Moyo argues that the lower court erred in finding that a proper election of Speaker of Parliament was conducted in terms of the Constitution and at law.
"The learned judge erred in condoning the first respondent’s failure to implement and enforce his own procedures for the election," Mr Hussein said.
He also argues that Justice Patel got it wrong when he made a finding that the participant’s exposure of their completed ballot papers was not in violation of the secret ballot. |
|
|
