Delimitation report: Parly’s missed opportunities
The parliamentary ad-hoc committee on the analysis of the 2022 Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec)’s preliminary delimitation report submitted its report on January13, which detailed the outcome of the analysis by the committee and contains findings and recommendations by the ad hoc committee on the delimitation report.
It was given terms of reference to analytically consider the Zec 2022 preliminary report on the delimitation exercise and whether it complies with section 161 of the constitution
The ad-hoc committee on point 4.1.1.4 (a) detailed that the committee observed that there was possible misinterpretation by Zec of the 20% variance provision as some wards and constituencies ended up having a variance of up to 40%.
The committee further recommends Zec on point 5.3 that where there was a departure from the permissible variance of lower and upper limit of 20%, Zec should rectify and ensure that it remains within the allowable variance.
The constitutionality of the delimitation report potentially hinges on the interpretation and application of the 20% variance under section 161 of the constitution.
Confusion around the interpretation of the provision exists due to a change in the wording of the provision between the old constitutional provision (constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005) that: “The Commission may depart from the requirements of subsection (3), but in no case to any greater extent than twenty per centum more or less than the average number of registered voters in constituencies on the common roll.”
The new constitution (Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013) “The Commission may depart from the requirement that constituencies and wards must have equal numbers of voters, but no constituency or ward of the local authority concerned may have more than twenty per cent more or fewer registered voters than the other such constituencies or wards.”
With criticism of the 20% variance and its application by Zec in the public domain, the ‘drafters’ of the constitution, Parliament, through the ad-Hoc committee missed an opportunity to highlight their interpretation of the legislative provision around the 20% variance.
The oversight function of Parliament includes oversight with respect to the implementation of laws which can extend to the interpretation of section 161 of the constitution.
While the committee stated that Zec should ensure Zec should adhere to the 20% variance, rectify and ensure that it remains within the allowable variance when departing from equal numbers of voters in constituencies or wards, interpretation of the provision would aid electoral stakeholders in the application of the variance.
The ad-hoc committee glaringly ignored the access to the voters’ roll for stakeholders including themselves to be able to verify the delimitation process and its credibility.
Parliamentary oversight function includes scrutinising the implementation of laws namely, access to the voters roll under section 21 of the Electoral Act.
Additionally, promotion of good governance includes ensuring credibility in electoral processes, which can only be achieved through accessing the voters’ roll and verifying the delimitation process.
Numerous stakeholders have made attempts to gain access to the voters’ roll ahead of the delimitation exercises.
ERC was quoted US$187 000 for a physical version of the voters’ roll while the continued refusal by Zec to avail the electronic version of the voters' roll has culminated in two High Court applications, case numbers HC 7940/22 and HC 8113/22 respectively.
The ad-hoc committee missed an opportunity to demand the voters’ roll ahead of the finalisation of their report.
The verifiability of the report hinges on the accessibility of the voters’ roll and Parliament has the legal basis to enquire and make recommendations on the accessibility of the voters’ roll.
The ERC further notes at the potential conflict of interests impacting the parliamentary oversight process of the Zec delimitation report.
The delimitation report has by nature changed electoral boundaries that have existed since 2008, and in some cases collapsed or merged constituencies, placing the representatives in those and surrounding areas into a political limbo in terms of representation ahead of the 2023 harmonised election.
The ERC cautions Parliament that the primary interest of the delimitation process is ensuring equitable distribution of registration and decision of Parliament should not be influenced by secondary interests which potentially include preservation of the current zones of influence, current constituencies and political interests.
Public consultation is one of the key Parliamentary tools employed to improve inclusivity, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of actions and decisions taken by Parliament.
The ad-hoc committee notes on point 4.1.1.5 that Zec stakeholder consultations were not fairly done.
However, the ad-hoc committee itself, which comprises representatives of the electorate, failed to actively seek the opinions of the public and interested and affected groups, affected by the collapsing or merging of constituencies.
The ad-hoc committee, ironically criticised Zec for failing to ensure stakeholder consultation, yet the committee also failed to engage stakeholders before submission of their report.
Election Resource Centre