The Electoral Tribunal has rejected an election petition by Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) member Patrick Dube, who was challenging the election of Zanu PF MP Omphile Marobi in Gwanda South last year, saying he had exaggerated the matter to “disturbe” the election that could be held. Conducted in a fair, clear and transparent manner.
Dube alleged that Marobi, who was appointed Deputy Minister of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services, benefited from various electoral irregularities such as voter intimidation, malpractices, fraud and vote buying.
The unsuccessful CCC member, represented by Mathonsi Ncube Law Chambers, asked the court to annul Marobi’s win as MP and order new elections to be held in Gwanda South.
However, in his ruling, Justice David Mangota, sitting at the Electoral Tribunal on 29 February 2024, dismissed Dube’s election petition with costs.
“The petitioner states that the elections held in the constituency were held in 11 wards. Judicial notice is taken of the fact that each ward has/has a number of polling stations. Although the number of polling stations set up in the constituency is not mentioned, it is unlikely, in my opinion “The petitioner and his four agents should be able to monitor the conduct of the elections that took place in the entire South Gwanda electoral district,” the judge said.
Judge Mangota said it appeared that Dube had exaggerated this aspect of his case with the aim of upsetting the outcome of the election which “could, to all intents and purposes, have been conducted in a fair, clear and transparent manner”. “
“His version of events on this aspect of the case appears to be more improbable than is possible, let alone probable,” the judge said.
“(Dobby), He was observed to present his plea on this aspect of the case in ambiguous terms. He alleges, on the one hand, that voting in the electoral district was marred by an illegal practice of a serious magnitude that disrupted the entire electoral process that took place in the electoral district on 23 August 2023.
In the alternative, Dube insists he adhered to the rule when he submitted V23 forms showing the list of votes he intended to object to, the judge said.
“The long and short of his stated behavior is to invite me to go on a fishing trip with him, so to speak. The clear message that comes out of the observed situation is that the petitioner is sure of what he wants to achieve but is unsure of the method he should go about achieving it,” Justice Mangotta said. .
“He cannot be allowed to agree and disavow on the same matter as he does: Mary v. Diss, 1912 AD 242 at 259. He must take a clearly defined course of action and carry it to its final conclusion. He cannot be allowed to suggest that if the court is not with him in “His first line of prosecuting his petition is that she should buy a replacement.”
According to the judge, such behavior on the part of Dube is consistent with the behavior of a person who is ready to get everything at any cost regardless of whether his petition is meritorious or unmerited. “Such behavior must be reprehensible in the highest sense of the word. The petitioner has produced only two Form V 23s accompanying his application, and by using them only seeks to persuade me to annul the election held in the entire constituency on the strength of the two forms,” Justice Mangota said.
“(Dubey) is encouraged to be frank before the court when he files such a petition as he did. If his intention is to object to the sounds that appear in the two forms he referred to, he is free to mention that.” Sait
