Charumbira’s total disregard of a standing court order shows how the institution of traditional leaders does not respect the rule of law. This creates bad precedent for future litigation, as litigants will lose faith in the effectiveness of judicial remedies. These cases demonstrate that actions, conduct and attitudes by traditional leaders contravene section 281 of the Constitution and warrants their removal from office in terms of section 283(c) (i) of the Constitution. The cases also show that there is no legislative framework that protects traditional leaders from political manipulation by political parties. Traditional leaders should be independent and impartial, so that they can work to foster peace and political tolerance. TRADITIONAL LEADERS SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL, SO THAT THEY CAN WORK TO FOSTER PEACE AND POLITICAL TOLERANCE CASES DISMISSED ON PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITIES There are many other cases against traditional leaders’ participation in partisan political activities that were not successful before the courts. This has mainly been due to procedural technicalities. Although factual issues had been placed before the courts, the cases were not determined on their merits. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EXHAUSTION OF INTERNAL REMEDIES PRINCIPLE There are cases which are actually determined on the merits but are dismissed because of failure to exhaust internal remedies. There is a distinction between cases where the merits are never 60 61 62 determined, wherein the case is dismissed because it is in the wrong format or wrong names of respondents have been cited. In the case of Mureyi vs Charumbira,60 the applicant was a candidate in the harmonized elections conducted on 31 July 2013. He complained of electoral malpractice on the part of the President of the Traditional Chiefs’ Council, who was also a traditional leader in his constituency. The applicant argued that, as a chief, the respondent is supposed to unify people beyond their political orientation. As such, he should not have uttered such hate language as, “Down with Takanayi Mureyi.” The applicant argued that the chief’s open support for ZANU PF, intimidation of and threats to villagers were all completely unacceptable, unlawful and unconstitutional. The case was dismissed for lack of compliance with the exhaustion of internal remedies principle. It was ruled that the applicant ought to have reported the case to the police for investigation before approaching the court on an urgent basis. On the issue of exhaustion of internal remedies, Mtshiya J, as he then was, highlighted that: The applicant has every right to approach this court on an urgent basis where threats against his life are made by any person regardless of their status. However, in doing so, the applicant must first prove that the other remedies have been denied him.61 In dismissing the case, Mtshiya J stated as follows: Whereas I do not dispute the applicant’s clear right to protection, I do believe, as I have already demonstrated, that similar protection, other than an interdict, is still available to the applicant. In that light, I accept that the circumstances of this case do not therefore justify a measure that will effectively interfere with the respondent’s exercise of his Constitutional duties.62 This shows some of the challenges litigants face when approaching the courts for redress. In terms of the law, litigants are expected to exhaust all Mureyi vs Charumbira HH 363/13. This case was determined on its merits. However, it was dismissed because applicant failed to adhere to the exhaustion of all internal remedies principle. As above. As above. 17