The Constitutional Court has adjourned indefinitely after hearing arguments from both parties in the matter where Independent presidential candidate

Saviour Kasukuwere is challenging his disqualification from contesting in the August 23 elections.

The Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe has been sitting for the past hour to hear the crucial case of Kasukuwere’s battle to reverse a High Court judgement barring him from running in the August 23 poll.

The High Court judgement was confirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

This followed a High Court application by ZANU PF activist Lovedale Mangwana, whose political action benefits President Emmerson Mnangagwa, seeking to block Kasukuwere from the race, saying he was no longer a registered voter since he has been out of the country for 18 consecutive months.

Justice David Mangota ruled in Mangwana’s favour amid uproar in judicial and political circles.

The judgement was widely criticised as misdirected as Mangota put the burden of proof on Kasukuwere and went on to effectively remove him from the voters’ roll without following laid down procedure.

Judges have no power to strike voters out of the roll, but Mangota arbitrarily went on to do so effectively.

This is one case in which a judge ventures into the contested terrain of judges making, instead of strictly interpreting, law.

Although judges traditionally see themselves as declaring, interpreting or finding rather than creating law, and frequently state making law is a prerogative of Parliament, there are several areas in which they clearly do make law. That often leads to such controversies.

Kasukuwere is arguing that the law used to prohibit him from contesting is unconstitutional.

Today he was seeking access to the Constitutional Court, a superior court of record, to argue his case before polling day on 23 August.

This has put judges on trial as they are being tested on their capacity and willingness to protect the rights of citizens being politically suppressed and prevented from exercising fundamental constitutional rights – the right to vote and be voted for in this case.