Union (Patriotic-Front) (ZANU PF) won the parliamentary seat by 15, 932 votes while the petitioner garnered 3,967 votes. The petitioner alleged corrupt practices during the election and that the electorate was coerced to support and vote for the Respondent and refrain from voting for him. He alleged that his campaign team were abducted, tortured and their property burned and destroyed. The Court held that it was grossly unfair for the Respondent to canvass for votes and the election was set a side. 85. The State noted further, in spite of the political opinions expressed in the petition suggesting that ZANU “PF” was a violent party which won elections through violence, the Complainants were not discriminated upon by the courts, and were afforded equal protection, as was evidenced with the setting aside of the election result of the Gokwe North Constituency. 86. To buttress its argument that the Complainants were not discriminated, the Respondent State drew the Commission’s attention to the case of Lameck Nkiwane Muyambi vs. Jaison Kokerai Machaya HC 8226/00, where the petitioner was an opposition member of the MDC while the Respondent was a candidate of ZANU PF. The petitioner alleged that the Respondent and his party members were guilty of corrupt practices leading to a wide range of violent activities in the constituency. The Court decided to set aside the election results and ruled in favour of MDC. The State also indicated that in many other cases involving election petitions, the Courts have ruled in favour of the opposition, for example, Phioneas Chivazve Chiota vs. Registrar General of Elections and Ben Tumbare Mutasa HC 8221/00, Moses Mope vs. Elliot Chauke HC 110/01, and Edna Akino vs. Tobaiwa Muded N.O and Davison Tsopo and City of Mutare HC 14490/99. 87. With respect to equal protection of the law, the Respondent State thus submitted that since seven or more election petitions were ruled in favour of the MDC, it is enough proof that the courts have not been biased towards the ruling ZANU PF, and have applied the law objectively, thus affording the petitioners equal protection of the law as guaranteed in Article 3 of the African Charter and the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The right to be heard and tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal under 7(1)(d) 88. The Respondent State submitted that it has always afforded the Complainants the right to be heard by impartial courts, and within a reasonable time, adding that Zimbabwean courts have in several judgments recognized this right. 89. The Respondent State contends that all the petitions filed in the High Court and more recently, in the Electoral Court were heard within a reasonable time, in accordance with Rule 31 of the Electoral (Application, Appeal and Petition Rules 1995) which provides that: “The Registrar and all parties to any case, petition or application shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the matter is dealt with as quickly as possible.” 90. According to the State, parties to an election petition have a duty to ensure the petition is determined quickly in accordance with Rule 31, adding that in most of the cases brought before the courts, the Complainants failed to expeditiously file papers to ensure the matters were dealt with quickly. 91. The State added further that in terms of Section 182 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13], “Every election petition shall be determined within six months from the date of its presentation.” 92. According to the Respondent, in order to give effect to this law, it has set up an Electoral Court to have petitions dealt with within six months, which the State considers as a reasonable time. However, the MDC is challenging the composition of the Electoral Court which, as a result of that challenge, has delayed petitions before Court, and it can therefore not be said that the judiciary itself has been reluctant to deal with petitions expeditiously. 93. It is further submitted by the State that it is the duty of the parties to avail the witnesses and apply for a set down date within the 6 months prescribed by law. Incase of any frustrations, the concerned party can approach the Judge President or Chief Justice for redress. The Complainants, according to the State, have failed to show, the specific frustrations faced, if any, in having the election petitions set down for hearing and what steps the petitioners undertook to have the matters expeditiously dealt