other things, promoting the highest professional standards among legal practitioners and in legal
practice 1 and also protecting matters of public interest touching on, ancillary or incidental to the
law. 2 The second body to apply for admission as amicus curiae was the Women Lawyers
Association (WLA) which is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation that comprises
women lawyers from various disciplines, callings or vocations in the country. In its application
for admission as amicus curiae, the WLA stated that it had noted that the majority of the people
who voted in the 21st May, 2019 general elections were women and that it sought to highlight
some of the gender aspects relating to the electoral dispute herein. The Court was satisfied that
there was merit in both applications and admitted the MLS and WLA as amicus curiae.
5. At the outset we wish to emphasise what we said at the close of hearing of the case. We are aware
that this is a matter that has attracted widespread public opinion and interest. However, what the
Court has been focused on has been to analyse the law and the facts as the Constitution mandates
us to do in section 9. We agree with the words of Chaskalson, J (President of the Court, as he then
was) in the South African case of the State v Makwanyane and another [1995] 3 SA 391 (CC)
where he stated that:
“Public opinion may have some reverence to the inquiry but by itself,
is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the
Constitution and to uphold its provisions without fear or favour. If
public opinion were to be decisive, there would be no need for
constitutional adjudication.”
6. Upfront, the Court wishes to point out that it is alive to the enormous importance and the
unprecedented nature of the present proceedings and of this judgment in particular, to the nation.
The constitutionality, legality and generally the validity of the presidential elections of the 21st
day of May, 2019 is being impugned by the petitioners. The Court is mindful that this is the first
time that the validity of presidential elections has been subjected to a full trial before the courts
in this country. We are aware that in 1999, in the case of Chakuamba and others v AttorneyGeneral and others [2000–2001] MLR 26 (SCA), there was a challenge of the presidential
election results but the said challenge was premised on the interpretation to be ascribed to the
meaning of the term “majority of the electorate” as provided for under section 80 (2) of the
1
2
Section 64(a) of the Legal Education and Legal Practitioners’ Act, Act No. 38 of 2018.
Ibid, at Section 64(d).
4