The eloquent and bold mendacious claim by CCC and its loquacious mouthpieces that all 12 of its parliamentary candidates whose nomination was nullified by the High Court in Bulawayo on Thursday submitted their nomination papers themselves before the Bulawayo Nomination Court closed, is sharply contradicted and exposed as a reckless lie by the unassailable fact that Mr Gift Ostallos Siziva – one of the CCC candidates and a key confidante of Advocate Nelson Chamisa – was actually in Harare when the Nomination Court in Bulawayo closed at 4 pm on 21 June 2023.
Prof. Jonathan Moyo
Instead of being at the Bulawayo Nomination Court to submit his nomination papers by 4 pm on 21 June, Mr Siziva was captured on video by various media houses – such as the attachment from http://NewZimbabwe.Com – outside the Harare High Court in the company of Advocate Chamisa whose presidential nomination papers had been submitted two days earlier. Among others there, was Mr Tendai Biti and Advocate Thabani Mpofu.
Clearly, and in inexplicably, Mr Siziva was outside the wrong court in Harare, when he should have been in the Nomination Court in Bulawayo.
In his judgment nullifying the nomination of the 12 CCC candidates, Justice Bongani Ndlovu summarises their opposing affidavits, as respondents, in the following terms:
Like the Applicants, these Respondents deposed to a read one you have read all kinds of
affidavits, the only difference being in the style of their layout. In their affidavits, they contend that the individual applicants are founding their cases on hearsay. In response to paragraphs 9.9, 9;10, and 21.4. [iii] of the Applicants’ Affidavits they stated as follows in part in their paragraphs 35, 36 & 49;
“35. I point out that my papers were not in disarray and I presented them in the nomination court at a time when that court was in session. I was in court.
36. I particularly point out that I submitted my papers well before 16;00hrs. When the nomination officer raised issues those were attended to and the papers presented [sic] for acceptance. They were duly and properly accepted.
49. I submit that my papers were presented before 16;00hrs. I was there and presented them. Any queries could by law be attended to even after 16;00hrs….”
Did Mr Siziva lie under oath?
According to the above summary by the judge, all of the 12 CCC respondents – therefore including Mr Siziva – told the Court under oath that they themselves presented their own nomination papers in the Nomination Court “at a time when the Court was in session”; and each of them swore, in their own words, that “I was in court”.
In particular, each of them averred that:
“I submit that my papers were presented before 16;00hrs. I was there and presented them. Any queries could by law be attended to even after 16;00hrs….”
The judgment does not indicate that Mr Siziva pleaded differently or separately.
“He will be in government,” says Chamisa after confirming his nomination at Harare’s High Court. pic.twitter.com/w9bVkS0xo0
— NewZimbabwe.com (@NewZimbabweCom) June 21, 2023
In the circumstances, there’s a prima facie case of perjury.
Mr Siziva was not anywhere anytime in Bulawayo on 21 June 2023 between 10 am when the Nomination Court opened and 4 pm when it closed.
Mr Siziva was in Harare, and the evidence is unimpeachable. Two key witnesses who have direct evidence of this fact are Advocates Chamisa and Thabani Mpofu as well as Mr Tendai Biti, all who are on the attached http://NewZimbabwe.Com video clip.
This begs many troubling questions.
Why has Advocate Chamisa been prevaricating about the case of the 12 CCC candidates whose nomination has been nullified, claiming that “everything was done in Bulawayo” when he knows only too well that he was actually with Mr Siziva not only at outside the Harare High Court at 4:30 pm on 21 June 2023, at the time when Mr Siziva should have been in Bulawayo at the Nomination Court, but throughout the better part of the day, micromanaging the nomination of candidates in Bulawayo and other provinces from Harare.
And why have CCC lawyers who have personal and direct knowledge of the fact that Mr Siziva was with Advocate Chamisa in Harare on 21 June 2023, been misleading the public in these streets and elsewhere with false claims that no CCC candidate in Bulawayo could have submitted their papers late, when they know that Mr Siziva, for one, definitely submitted his nomination paper at 1:00 am on 22 June 2023 – which was not a nomination day – when the Nomination Court had long closed?
OSTALLOS WAS WITH CHAMISA OUTSIDE THE HARARE HIGH COURT AS THE BULAWAYO NOMINATION COURT CLOSED AT 4 PM ON 21 JUNE
The eloquent and bold mendacious claim by CCC and its loquacious mouthpieces that all 12 of its parliamentary candidates whose nomination was… https://t.co/feTsN2yEpf
— Prof Jonathan Moyo (@ProfJNMoyo) July 29, 2023
Also, given that she ought to know first hand the facts that she speaks to, what did CCC spokesperson Advocate Fadzayi Mahere mean when she claimed that the nullified nomination of the 12 CCC candidates in Bulawayo “was within the confines of the law”?
Was Mr Siziva’s apparent perjury within the confines of the law?
And then there’s the affidavit of Mr Innocent Ncube from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, who was the first respondent as the Nomination Court’s presiding officer.
In his judgment, Justice Ndlovu notes the following about a key averment in Mr Ncube’s affidavit:
According to the 1 st Respondent [Mr Innocent Ncube of ZEC], he had no interaction with any of the Respondents save when they came to submit their nomination papers and that was before 1600hrs.
Surely, Mr Ncube’s proviso that he had some interaction with the respondents [meaning the 12 CCC candidates] only “when they came to submit their nomination papers and that was before 1600hrs [4 pm] could not and cannot apply to Mr Siziva who was in Harare.
If Mr Siziva can lie about his nomination case and, also, if Advocates Chamisa and Mahere can lie about the same; and further, if ZEC through Mr Ncube can also lie about who submitted their nomination papers and at what time on nomination day in the Bulawayo Nomination Court, then why should anyone believe anything else they say about the case?