SUPREME COURT REJECTS TSVANGIRAI ELECTION CHALLENGE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000185 SIPDIS SIPDIS AF/S FOR B. NEULING SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2015 TAGS: ASEC PGOV PHUM PREL ZI MDC SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT REJECTS TSVANGIRAI ELECTION CHALLENGE REF: A. REF A: HARARE 159 ¶B. REF B: 2004 HARARE 987 Classified By: Ambassador Christopher Dell for reasons 1.5 b/d ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The Supreme Court on February 12 rejected MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai's application to have it take over his 2002 presidential election challenge from the High Court, where it has languished for years. Strapped for resources, the MDC will likely scale back its strategy of challenging the conduct and results of elections in a court system that has shown itself unwilling to address politically-charged issues. End summary. ¶2. (U) The Supreme Court on February 12 dismissed MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai,s application requesting that the Court take over his Presidential Election Petition. Tsvangirai asked the Supreme Court to take the Petition in SIPDIS November 2005, arguing that his right to an expeditious hearing had been contravened by a High Court judge,s refusal to give reasons for a ruling against Tsvangirai in June 2004 (ref B). Although the Supreme Court ruled against the opposition leader, it found that the High Court judge made mistakes. ¶3. (C) Tsvangirai,s attorney Bryant Elliot told Post on February 16 that the judgment was "disappointing but not unexpected.8 Four days after its issuance, however, he had yet to review the entire judgment. He expressed concern over delays the legal team experienced with both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, he said it was important that they tested both levels of the justice system and put their issues on record in the top court. Tsvangirai,s attorneys will seek reconsideration of the decision and simultaneously proceed with the next phase of the Petition in the High Court, during which he expects to present evidence that the GOZ tampered with the 2002 presidential election results. ¶4. (U) In a possible allusion to the MDC,s parliamentary election appeals, the state-controlled media reported that High Court Justice Chinembiri Bhunu declared on February 14 at the opening of the legal year that &the courts will not help spring anyone into power or help anyone remain in power. Those who desire political office must go to the people and not the courts.8 -------------- Comment -------------- ¶5. (C) The dismissal presents another blow, albeit not unexpected, to the MDC, this time in the judiciary. The party's dozens of election challenges since the 2000 parliamentary elections have long represented a drain on the MDC,s already shrinking resources, without yielding more than symbolic victories in most instances. Some donors have discreetly provided funding for the election challenges, but outside assistance is drying up. MDC tests of the legal system and associated publicity can be expected to fade in the opposition's overall strategy, especially if the party,s chief legal strategist, David Coltart, is contemplating taking a year off (ref A). The GOZ likely will continue to delay the MDC's remaining docket so as to absorb and distract Tsvangirai and the party's legal team. More importantly, the SIPDIS delays have caused election petitions to be ever more irrelevant -- delayed for several years, a number of ongoing challenges to the June 2000 parliamentary elections were made redundant by the March 2005 vote. In contrast, the courts have demonstrated a willingness to expedite cases in some instances when it suits the GOZ, such as the High Court's November ruling that overturned Tsvangirai's suspension of rebel MDC MP Job Sikhala, which took less than one week. The contrast is striking and serves to underscroe manipulation of the judiciary by ZANU-PF for its own political purposes. DELL