THE Zifa elections soap opera is not about to end yet after two candidates who contested for the post of president in a poll held last Saturday have challenged the outcome at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland.
Nqobile Magwizi was declared winner after garnering 61 votes from 76 ballots, but Twine Phiri and Philemon Machana contend that there was third party influence in the election, which influenced the outcome in the winners’ favour.
The two are represented by Method Ndlovu of Ncube Partners law firm.
Phiri and Machana argue that wealthy businessman Wicknell Chivayo influenced the election after promising to buy Magwizi a brand new Toyota Land Cruiser 2024 edition if he won the election, before promising to inject US$10 million into Zifa, only if it’s under the same individual’s watch.
Further, they say that Chivayo promised to buy each voting councillor a brand new motor vehicle if Magwizi won the post in that election.
They also said that government minister Tino Machakaire also influenced the vote after he declared his preference for Magwizi.
Machana, a former Zifa board member, and Phiri, ex-Premier Soccer League chairman, want the result to be nullified so that a new election can be organised.
They seek: “Declaration that there was third party influence in respect of the election for President of Zifa which rendered the poll illegitimate.
- Kweza attacks gather momentum
- We need Zacc in the Zifa elections
- Chivayo throws millions into Zifa poll
- No respite for Zifa
Keep Reading
“A declaration that the election of first respondent (Magwizi) as the president of Zifa on January 25, 2025 is null and void.
“An order that second respondent, i.e. Zifa is to conduct a fresh poll for the position of president of Zifa within 30 days of issuance of the order.”
While they want a fresh poll, they also want the councillors who voted in that election to be barred from voting in the fresh as they are already tainted.
They also seek that: “Individual delegates that voted in the January 25, 2025 election for president of Zifa are barred from taking part in the new poll and should be replaced by new representatives seconded by the organisations stated in Article 27(1) of the Zifa constitution.”
They also want Magwizi to be barred from standing as a candidate in the fresh process.
“First respondent be barred from standing as a candidate in the fresh election on account of having failed to dissociate himself from the third parties who influenced the conduct of the elections to the position of president of Zifa,” Phiri and Machana averred.
“That the first respondent be ordered to immediately vacate the office of president of Zifa and pending the issuance of the substantive relief sought, the executive committee is directed to fill in the vacancy of president of Zifa on an acting capacity.”
The two argue that the code of conduct guiding these elections bars third party influence.
“Code sets out principles and obligations that relate to the conduct of elections envisaged in the Code in Article 2(2) as follows:
“2 Principles and Obligations: 2 Any undue influence from third parties in the electoral process shall not be permitted. Zifa shall immediately inform Fifa and Caf of such influence in the electoral process.”
Machana and Phiri asset that they complained to Fifa about third party influence and only participated under protest.
“The electoral process was marred by undue influence by a third party and the claimants brought this to the attention of Zifa in the presence of Fifa and Caf representatives just before the elections on January 25, 2025.”
In their affidavit, they explained how Chivayo influenced the election.
“The businessman stated that he supported first respondent to be elected as president of Zifa. The businessman promised that he will give to first respondent a top-of-the-range vehicle once elected and would also gift a sum of US$10 million to second respondent if first respondent was elected president of Zifa. This was meant to influence the delegates to vote for the first respondent as the president of Zifa.
“The businessman then promised to gift to each of the 78 voting delegates a motor vehicle if they voted for first respondent to be a president of the second respondent. He has previously gifted brand new vehicles to many people in Zimbabwe. His statement that he was going to give cars to voting delegates if they voted for first respondent as president of Zifa was thus to be taken seriously.”
The duo argued that Zifa statutes were violated.
“The Zifa elections for president are governed by the Electoral Code. This is an integral part of its statutes. It is couched in peremptory terms. Article 2 (2) of the statutes reads as follows:
“2 Principles and Obligations: 2 Any undue influence from third parties in the electoral process shall not be permitted. Zifa shall immediately inform Fifa and Caf of such influence in the electoral process.”
Part of their argument is that one councilor was caught trying to take a picture of the completed ballot so that he could prove to his paymasters that he had done as instructed.
“No wonder why one voting delegate was caught taking a photo of his cast ballot while in the voting booth. This was meant to show his handlers how he had voted,” Machana and Phiri stated.
“The probabilities are that he and his fellow voting delegates were under pressure to show third parties how they had voted.
“That means they did not exercise their right to vote freely. In other words, they did not vote according to their conscience.”
