This week saw significant progress made in the House of Assembly on the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Human Rights Commission Bill.
It is important to highlight that the two pieces of legislation have been passed with significant amendments, demonstrating that Parliament is not merely a rubber-stamping institution after all.
These two pieces of legislation are necessary (although not sufficient) for creating a conducive environment for the much sought-after free and fair election.
While there are still some major issues of concern in the two bills, I think this is the best that could be achieved under our political context where decisions are arrived at through negotiations characterised by give and take.
The Electoral Amendment Bill is the most important piece of legislation in the management of the electoral process.
Together with the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill has been on the agenda of Parliament for the past 12 months.
The Bill was gazetted on 27th June 2011 and stood referred to the relevant portfolio committee of Justice, Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs.
The committee last year conducted nation-wide public hearings on the Bill, some of which were disrupted by hired mobs.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The committee however managed to come up with a report which was tabled during the second reading of the Bill this week.
The Parliamentary Legal Committee (PLC), which is constitutionally mandated with examining whether or not a proposed piece of legislation contravenes the Constitution, came up with an adverse report on the Bill.
An adverse report means it is the opinion of the committee that some provisions are in contravention of the supreme law.
The PLC adverse report was solely based on the proposed provision to introduce polling station-based voters rolls.
Presently, voters are registered in their wards and may vote at any polling station within their wards. The new provision meant each voter would have to be registered at a specific polling station and would have to vote at that station.
It was in the opinion of the PLC that this provision violated sections 20, 22 and 23A of the Constitution.
These sections are to do with freedom of movement throughout Zimbabwe and the right of every adult Zimbabwean to vote in referendums and elections.
The PLC argued that restricting the option of the voter to a single polling station was unnecessary and unduly interfered with the voter’s freedom of movement.
The other issue that arose from this provision was that the new system would require the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec), through the Registrar-General, to undertake a fresh voter registration process in which all previous voters and new voters would have to register to vote at specific polling stations after these new polling stations would have been established.
If the existing roll was to be used to assign registered voters to polling stations based upon the addresses given when they were registered as voters, this could lead to inaccuracies because in a particular area people may have moved from their original addresses and some voters in the area may have died.
Another complication was how Zec would be able to establish and locate voter specific polling stations until it knows the voter population density in the different areas throughout the country.
The main fear from those that have borne the brunt of politically motivated violence in previous elections was that those intent upon using violence and intimidation to influence the vote would find it far easier to pressurise and displace a relatively small voter population who live in the vicinity of the voting station at which they are registered and at which they have to vote.
The PLC rightly argued that if unable to access the specific polling station, such voters would be unable to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
It is very clear from this analysis that the provision had to go in the best interests of the nation.
Polling station-based voting is not practical and clearly unconstitutional.
This is why its removal is highly significant, thanks to representations made by the PLC, the portfolio committee on Justice and all progressive Zimbabweans yearning for a free and fair election whose outcome is uncontested.
Of concern however is that this compromise will only apply specifically to the forthcoming elections, meaning that future elections will be polling-station based.
We should however not worry too much about future elections because one can never be sure of the regime that will be in power then. We will cross the bridge when we get there.
Now that the bills have been passed by the House of Assembly, we hope the Senate will follow suit and not reverse the gains realised.
We should not forget that the Senate tried to do the same with the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Amendment Bill and has been sitting on the Private Member Bill to amend the Public Order and Security Act.
We urgently need a new Electoral Act in line with the Sadc Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections.
These guidelines require the establishment of an impartial, all-inclusive, competent and accountable national electoral bodies staffed by qualified personnel; safeguarding human and civil liberties of all citizens, including the freedom of movement, assembly, association, expression, campaigning and access to the media by all stakeholders during electoral processes, provision of adequate resources for carrying out democratic elections, and ensuring that adequate security is provided to all parties participating in elections.
John Makamure is the executive director of the Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust writing in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected]
