CLAIM: The order of Mangota J was not confirmed per the provisions of the constitution
SOURCE: Twitter
VERDICT: False
Following the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of presidential candidate Saviour Kasukuwere’s case where he was challenging the constitutionality of his removal from nominated candiddates, a member of his campaign team tweeted, ‘BREAKING!!!! The order of Mangota J was not confirmed per the provisions of the constitution. It does not remove the Leading Zimbabwe Elections Presidential Candidate Saviour Kasukuwere from the Ballot Papers. He has asked the Con Court to affirm that position. We are fixing Africa!! It’s Time.’
Justice David Mangota had upheld a High Court ruling that had been given removing Kasukuwere from the voters roll’.
Following the sitting of the nomination court on 21 June 2023 and the handing in of his nomination papers by his agent, Jaqueline Sande, a voter challenged his nomination.
Harare resident, Lovedale Mangwana approached the courts asking that Kasukuwere be barred from contesting as he was no longer a registered voter, having stayed out of the country for 18 consecutive months.
The High Court found in his favour, nullifying Kasukuwere’s nomination as a presidential candidate.
Kasukuwere challenged this at the Supreme Court where Justice David Mangota upheld the High Court ruling, hence the Constitutional Court application.
Credit: Byo24
On 7 August 2023, a day before the Constitutional Court hearing, a Supreme Court judgment written by Justice Antonia Guvava, was released, confirming Justice David Mangota’s ruling. Part of the ruling reads:
[60] In summing up, this Court has made the following findings, that:
1. it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal; Judgment No. SC78/23 Civil Appeal No. SC387/23
2. the court a quo had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the constitutional application before it in terms of s 85 (1) of the Constitution and the question of subsidiarity does not arise;
3. the Electoral Court had no jurisdiction to issue a declarator;
4. the first respondent had locus standi;
5. the court a quo made the correct factual finding that the appellant was absent from
the country and therefore absent from his constituency for a continuous period of
eighteen (18) months
6. the court a quo corrected interpreted s 23 (3) of the Act to the effect that the appellant’s absence from his constituency for the prescribed period entailed cessation of his registration as a voter and consequently disqualified him from nomination as a presidential candidate.
[61] The above findings of fact and law are dispositive of the appeal and it is therefore not necessary to relate to other issues raised by the appellant.
[62] That being the case and on the basis of such findings, the appeal cannot succeed.
Conclusion
The claim that Justice Mangota’s Supreme Court ruling was not confirmed is rated as false since it was confirmed by Justice Antonia Guvava on the 7th of August, 2023.
