What they said on election date ruling

YESTERDAY'S ruling by the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has set an election cliff. The landmark ruling, which drew mixed reactions from parties involved, is binding to other stakeholders.

"This is a well-reasoned judgment, which essentially puts closure to the convoluted debate on the question of the date for the holding of our harmonised elections," said Mr Farai Mutamangira, a legal expert

"It affirms the position long-held by one of the parties to the inclusive Government, that is Zanu-PF, that the holding of elections ought to have been on or before the 29 of June 2013 or in any event soon thereafter.

"The judgment also binds the other stakeholders in the inclusive Government such as the Sadc and AU and completely supplants the 'so-called' election roadmap. It therefore becomes the roadmap to harmonised elections because it has set an election cliff."

President Mugabe's lawyer Mr Terrance Hussein also welcomed the ruling.

"We believe the Constitutional Court has acted accordingly in terms of its mandate and the Constitution. We respect and accept its decision. The Constitutional Court felt that it had to step in to prevent a constitutional crisis and its reasoning is not contrary to our interpretation of the Constitution as we understood it," Mr Hussein said.

"It's a pity it has come to this. Parties to the GPA should have agreed on their own to the timing of the elections. It's a good thing that our Constitutional Court stepped in to create the necessary certainty that the public always expected and deserved."

Mr Mawarire's lawyer Mr Joseph Mandizha said: "I'm very happy for my client and as a lawyer I am eternally grateful to the Constitutional Court for prioritising the Constitutional application and for it to be heard on an urgent basis, which resulted in this judgment today," he said.

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's lawyer Mr Chris Mhike deferentially took note of the Constitutional Court's judgment.

"Of course, we must respect the findings of the highest Court of Law on the land," said Mr Mhike.

"We are surprised that the honourable court orders and directs the President to proclaim dates for general elections in terms of the old Constitution, that is the 1980 Constitution, when as a matter of fact, the new Constitution of Zimbabwe explicitly provides that the next elections should be conducted in terms of the new basic law, not the old."

He said the necessary processes that are stipulated in the new Constitution were yet to be realised, among them intensive voter registration.

Mr Mhike, however, said the jurisprudence espoused by the judges the Constitutional Court in the case, certainly enhances the ongoing constitutional debate.

Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who appeared for Professor Welshman Ncube, said he was yet to study the judgment.

"There are three separate opinions on the issue from three eminent judges. I need to go through the three opinions and come up with my own humble view on the matter," he said.

Said a jubilant Mr Mawarire: "I'm happy with the ruling. This ruling is very important so that this country is not in election mood in perpetuity. I'm happy that there is now certainty about the holding of elections. Even those who are campaigning now know the dates."

The constitutional case which was brought by Mr Mawarire sought to compel the President to fix the election dates and for the court to clear confusion over the holding of the harmonised elections. The Court ruling cleared the confusion and wrangling among the country's major political parties over the interpretation of the law governing the holding of elections after the dissolution of Parliament next month.

President Mugabe had wanted elections to be held by June 29 while PM Tsvangirai had proposed September 16 as the ideal date on which Zimbabwe could hold harmonised elections.