CONCLUSION AND POLICY OPTIONS This chapter discussed the role played by traditional leaders in the electoral process in Zimbabwe. It is apparent that the Zimbabwean laws governing the role of traditional leaders in electoral processes are largely clear, unambiguous and therefore adequate. They prohibit participation in politics and advancing the political interests of any political party and its members. However, traditional leaders still practice politics on behalf of political parties by canvasing for votes, intimidating and threatening voters, frog-marching and escorting voters to polling stations, using food aid for vote buying and publicly declaring their support for the ruling party. Although cases of electoral malpractice involving traditional leaders are reported and litigated in courts, traditional leaders have a tendency to defy court orders with no consequences whatsoever. This blatant disregard of the law has resulted in a few cases being reported to the police or successfully litigated in the courts. Yet litigants face procedural challenges in reporting their cases to the police and the courts. According to findings of this chapter, the police appear reluctant to investigate matters involving traditional leaders for fear of being reprimanded by the ruling party. Courts are also unwilling to genuinely call traditional leaders to order as many times, courts rule on technicalities, avoiding direct condemnation of traditional leaders for aiding and abetting the ruling party during elections. The questions for many aggrieved persons remain: What, then, is the use of going to court, if the court order will not be obeyed? What is the use of going to court, if the courts are unwilling to confront the demon of traditional leaders’ involvement in the ruling party interests? This reduces faith in the justice system, especially when the defiant traditional leaders are left unaccountable, with no consequences whatsoever. The chapter recommends for the Electoral Act Code of Conduct and the Electoral Act to be amended to exclude traditional leaders as parties who are formally or informally involved in politics, as this is against the Constitution. There must be no ambiguity insofar as the prohibition of the involvement of traditional leaders in partisan politics is concerned. The traditional leaders must be proscribed from attending or organising any partisan political meetings or gatherings. Traditional leaders must not attend or address political party gatherings, including congresses and conferences organised by political parties. Any chief or headman involved directly or indirectly with partisan political activities, including forcing their subjects to attend political gatherings or to vote for any particular political party, must be prosecuted and severely punished, including being jailed and automatically disqualified from continuing to hold the office of a traditional leader. The current situation of repeated violations of electoral laws by traditional leaders is because there is no legal deterrence through criminal prosecution and punishment. A stiff penalty will deter would-be offenders from deliberately violating electoral laws. Fear of losing the prestigious office of traditional leader and all the benefits that come with it would also be a deterrent for traditional leaders. Judicial reform is required to enable a human rights-oriented jurisprudence. The current system emphasises technicalities over human rights promotion, protection and enforcement. All matters that are brought to court for purposes of determining political rights and violation of electoral laws must be determined on merit, unless the matter is frivolous and vexatious. Judges must not avoid making decisions by overemphasising technical conveniences over citizens’ rights to access to justice and protection of the law. Electionrelated issues are human rights issues and must never be determined on procedural technicalities. Although courts cannot disregard or do away with legal or procedural technicalities, they must strike a balance with the imperative obligation of promoting, protecting, enforcing and fulfilling human rights in Zimbabwe. 21