they had recorded.44 In the run-up to the 2018 elections, the ZHRC received 46 complaints regarding forced collection and recording of voter registration slip serial numbers by ZANU PF members and traditional leaders.45 These actions were contrary to section 133A(d) of the Electoral Act.46 They intimidated registrants, thereby undermining the integrity, fairness and credibility of the election. SOME TRADITIONAL LEADERS ARE ALSO ACCUSED OF TRACKING VOTING PREFERENCES OF REGISTRANTS WHOSE REGISTRATION SLIP SERIAL NUMBERS THEY HAD RECORDED Some traditional leaders made it impossible for opposition political parties to freely associate and campaign ahead of the elections. In such areas, only the ruling party candidates and their colleagues were allowed to campaign. During the 2015 Hurungwe West by-election, the independent candidate, Temba Mliswa, revealed how traditional leaders participated in partisan politics in violation of the Constitution.47 When interviewed by the ZHRC, many traditional leaders confirmed that they were strong ZANU PF supporters and that they no longer wanted Temba Mliswa to be their parliamentary representative, because he had been expelled from ZANU PF.48 Similarly, the 2018 elections had selective food and agricultural distribution by traditional leaders in favour of supporters of the ruling party while 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 denying such aid to opposition supporters.49 Several observer reports also lamented how traditional leaders were influencing the electorate by threatening to cut supply of agricultural inputs and food aid for villages that did not vote for ZANU-PF.50 In Rushinga Constituency, the ZHRC received a complaint that Chief Makuni distributed presidential inputs based on a beneficiary list that he allegedly compiled and which benefited only ZANU PF supporters.51 On investigating the case, the ZHRC confirmed that food aid was given to people wearing ZANU PF T-shirts and card-carrying members of that party. Traditional leaders were also accused of using registration slips as a condition for receiving presidential inputs and food aid, contrary to the best electoral practices of non-discrimination and fairness.52 Election-day reports suggest that traditional leaders worked closely with political parties against the law. Several traditional leaders reportedly frog-marched their subjects to vote for the ruling party.53 In some cases, traditional leaders carried a register and crosschecked voters who came to vote. In fact, traditional leaders in Hurungwe confirmed that it was a norm to escort their subjects to polling stations for voting, to ensure they voted for the “right candidate,” that is, for the ruling ZANU PF candidate.54 This practice seriously affects the legality and legitimacy of the vote in Zimbabwe. ELECTION-DAY REPORTS SUGGEST THAT TRADITIONAL LEADERS WORKED CLOSELY WITH POLITICAL PARTIES AGAINST THE LAW As above. ZHRC (n 32 above) 21. Section 133A (a) of the Electoral Act prohibits the “persuasion of another person that he or she will be able to discover for who that person cast his vote or her vote.” Mliswa v The State & ZANU PF, ZHRC/CI/38/15. As above. Mwonzora & Mandikwaza (As above, note 3) 1144; ZHRC (n 33) 20; European Union (EU) (n 5 above) 2. ZHRC (n 32) 20. As above. ZHRC (n 32 ). European Union (EU) (n 4) 2; ZHRC (n 32) 21. Mliswa case (n 62). 15