This comes after Zanu-PF secretary for legal affairs Paul Mangwana and head of the party's legal team said the petition filed by the MDC Alliance lacked merit because they failed to ask for a recount in time.
"It is based on some theoretical calculations by some statistician whose qualification we doubt a lot. The elections are not won in court but in the ballot. They have not even asked for the ballot boxes to be re-opened and recounted. The election material is there for everyone to see," Mangwana said last week.
In his answering affidavit, Chamisa said there was interference with the ballot box and the V11 forms.
"For reasons that are not difficult to understand, first respondent would rather I asked for a recount. I do not need a recount and cannot ask for one. I cannot drink from a poisoned chalice."I have placed before the court evidence which has not been refuted showing interference with both the ballot box and the V11 forms. In characteristic fashion, first respondent chooses not to deal with such evidence."
According to section 67 A (1) of the Electoral Act (Chapter 2:13) "(1) Within forty-eight hours after a constituency elections officer has declared a candidate to be duly-elected in terms of Section 66 (1), any political party or candidate that contested the election in the ward or constituency concerned may request the Commission to conduct a recount of votes in one or more of the polling stations in the ward or constituency."
Chamisa claimed to have won the election with 60 percent and that Mnangagwa failed to garner enough votes for him to be declared the winner.
He is seeking an order for him to be declared the winner of the July 30 presidential election, failure of which he is seeking an alternative order for a fresh election to be conducted.
Mnangagwa on the other hand is claiming that he won the election and that Zec was correct in declaring him the winner. Mnangagwa asked for the Con-Court to dismiss Chamisa's application with costs.
But Chamisa, through his legal team headed by Thabani Mpofu, said the evidence is too overwhelming for the court to ignore his arguments.
About Article Author