Preface

On November 6, 2024, the Judicial Board released Opinion on Investigative Authority in Elections-Related Cases, delineating the ASUCI Elections Commission’s procedural obligations into two broad categories — administrative and adjudicative. To quote the opinion:

Under its administrative capacity, the Elections Commission operates much like the Federal Elections Commission or its various analogues in the several states, making preliminary quasi-judicial decisions to enforce the elections procedures it has been charged to uphold and, if necessary, defending them in full courts of law.

The ASUCI Constitution presents us with a unique departure from this pattern, however, in that it delegates to the Elections Commission the position of a full judicial body. Whereas the aforementioned analogues to the Elections Commission may focus solely on their administrative capacities, outsourcing all judicial functions to distinct courts of law, the Elections Commission’s primary jurisdiction forces an ordering in such cases where these roles may contradict one another. (Bolek et al., 2024)

Following the revision of the ASUCI Elections Code on February 20, 2025, the Judicial Board added on March 15, 2025, that “[their] ruling in [Opinion on Investigative Authority in Elections-Related Cases] was found to remain in force” with the revisions.

In receiving a complaint alleging a violation of the Elections Code, the Elections Commission has determined that an adjudicative approach would be most appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Synopsis

On March 15, 2026 and March 16, 2026, the Elections Commission received two (2) complaints against Presidential Candidate Gabriel Mutsvangwa alleging a violation of the following governing document: Art. X  § A of the ASUCI Elections Code — “No campaigning shall be permitted prior to Monday of Spring Break at 9:00 am.” The Petitioners consented to be included onto the same ruling due to their complaints citing a similar case. The Petitioners, Jayla Pete and Arnav Nigam, contended the following: 

  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with the username, “gabeforpres.” 
  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with a non-zero amount of followers.
  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by campaigning “vote gabe for president” stated on the Instagram account.
  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with a profile picture of the Candidate visible in it.
  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by campaigning with an Instagram account with another personal Instagram account attached in the description.
  • That Candidate Mutsvangwa violated the Elections Code by failing to have an Instagram account remain anonymous prior to the start of the Campaigning Period.

Evidentiary Hearings for one Petitioner and Respondent were called on March 19, 2026 and March 21, 2026 respectively. One Petitioner had failed to schedule an Evidentiary Hearing with the Elections Commission before their given deadline of one (1) day after the request was offered to the Petitioner through electronic communication. Following the Evidentiary Hearings, the Elections Commission convened to review the available evidence. After concluding deliberations, pursuant to the Elections Commission’s authorities as an adjudicative body, the following ruling is released.

The Elections Commission has ruled in favor of Petitioners Arnav Nigam and Jayla Pete and found Presidential Candidate Mutsvangwa in violation of Art. X § A of the ASUCI Elections Code. Accordingly, the Elections Commission has levied a Level 2 sanction – Digital Posting Restriction – on their campaign, beginning March 25, 2026 at 9:00 am and ending March 29, 2026 at 9:00 am.

[R-02] Elections Complaint Decision Regarding Presidential Candidate Mutsvangwa