Opinion / Columnist
Is SADC and AU Fit for resolving election discontent in Zimbabwe?
03 Nov 2023 at 17:12hrs | Views
There exists a significant question surrounding the capabilities of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union (AU) in resolving the discontent arising from the recent elections held by the Citizens' Coalition for Change (CCC) in Zimbabwe. A thorough examination has been conducted to ascertain whether these organizations have a history of effectively resolving disputed election outcomes within their member states. However, to date, no precedent or case has been identified wherein the AU or SADC successfully resolved such a dispute.
Upon scrutinizing the mandates of the AU and SADC concerning the elections they observe in member states, it has been found that their roles predominantly encompass observation and recommendations. There is a distinct absence of provisions allowing these bodies to overturn election results or mandate new elections in any sovereign member state. The recommendations they make are not legally binding, lacking the authority of parliamentary or court-drawn decisions. Consequently, member states are not legally bound to implement these suggestions, leading to a conclusion that the scope of influence these organizations hold in altering election results appears limited.
These organizations primarily serve as dispute resolution bodies, lacking the authority to legislate or enforce alterations in a member state's constitution or voting system laws. Their recommendations serve as reflections of past occurrences and suggestions for future improvements, yet they do not carry the weight of court rulings or legislative mandates.
In the context of the current discontentment surrounding CCC's elections in Zimbabwe, it becomes apparent that the AU and SADC may not be the appropriate entities to address the issue effectively. Rather, the most viable and effective route for resolution would likely be through legal recourse, provided that the CCC can present sufficient evidence in a competent Zimbabwean court to substantiate claims of election rigging or seek a recount or new elections based on justifiable grounds of dispute.
While acknowledging the importance of courts in resolving such disputes, the question arises as to why the matter of recalled CCC MPs and councillors has been forwarded to the Zimbabwean courts rather than being resolved through the AU or SADC. This raises concerns regarding the autonomy of the judiciary in Zimbabwe, which remains a separate issue requiring exploration.
Ultimately, from a neutral perspective, it appears that while SADC and the AU play vital roles in observing elections and offering recommendations, their limitations in effecting change or enforcing their suggestions pose significant constraints in resolving election disputes. The legal route, particularly through a competent court in Zimbabwe, seems to be the most effective recourse for addressing such discontentment.
*Article by Njabulo*
*Email: libertyatliberty@gmail.com*
Upon scrutinizing the mandates of the AU and SADC concerning the elections they observe in member states, it has been found that their roles predominantly encompass observation and recommendations. There is a distinct absence of provisions allowing these bodies to overturn election results or mandate new elections in any sovereign member state. The recommendations they make are not legally binding, lacking the authority of parliamentary or court-drawn decisions. Consequently, member states are not legally bound to implement these suggestions, leading to a conclusion that the scope of influence these organizations hold in altering election results appears limited.
These organizations primarily serve as dispute resolution bodies, lacking the authority to legislate or enforce alterations in a member state's constitution or voting system laws. Their recommendations serve as reflections of past occurrences and suggestions for future improvements, yet they do not carry the weight of court rulings or legislative mandates.
In the context of the current discontentment surrounding CCC's elections in Zimbabwe, it becomes apparent that the AU and SADC may not be the appropriate entities to address the issue effectively. Rather, the most viable and effective route for resolution would likely be through legal recourse, provided that the CCC can present sufficient evidence in a competent Zimbabwean court to substantiate claims of election rigging or seek a recount or new elections based on justifiable grounds of dispute.
While acknowledging the importance of courts in resolving such disputes, the question arises as to why the matter of recalled CCC MPs and councillors has been forwarded to the Zimbabwean courts rather than being resolved through the AU or SADC. This raises concerns regarding the autonomy of the judiciary in Zimbabwe, which remains a separate issue requiring exploration.
Ultimately, from a neutral perspective, it appears that while SADC and the AU play vital roles in observing elections and offering recommendations, their limitations in effecting change or enforcing their suggestions pose significant constraints in resolving election disputes. The legal route, particularly through a competent court in Zimbabwe, seems to be the most effective recourse for addressing such discontentment.
*Article by Njabulo*
*Email: libertyatliberty@gmail.com*
Source - Njabulo
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
