Another Wasteful Exercise

By: Editorial Comment

RECENTLY two opposition political parties lodged an urgent court application calling on the Electoral Commission to grant access to basic documents related to last month's Presidential and National Assembly elections.

The parties, the Congress of Democrats (CoD) and Republican Party

(RP), said they needed the documents in order to help them assess

what steps, if any, they should take over the recent elections and

the claims that various irregularities had been detected.

The parties were forced to go to court when their requests to

the EC met with refusal.

 

Now the court has ruled against the EC, which has to pay the

costs of the suit and hand over the documents to the parties in

question.

 

The whole matter has been yet another waste of both time and

money.

 

If the Electoral Commission had nothing to hide, then surely

they had nothing to lose by simply accommodating the parties'

requests to give them the documentation in question, without the

parties having to resort to what will undoubtedly turn out to be an

expensive procedure in the courts.

 

The parties wanted access to returns compiled by presiding

officers at each of the 1 168 polling stations to show how they

accounted for all the ballot papers issued to them; reports in

which the returning officers for each of the 107 constituencies

were supposed to verify the reports of presiding officers that

worked under them; returning officers' reports to the Director of

Elections, in which they had to give account of how many ballots

had been counted in their constituency and how many rejected;

returning officers' announcements to the Director of the results,

irrespective of discrepancies; and lists containing serial numbers

of ballot papers used in each and every polling station.

 

It would have been in the interests of transparency,

particularly in the wake of widespread dissatisfaction with the

manner in which the EC handled the counting processes and the

question of the tendered ballots in the wake of the election

itself, to have simply handed over the documents.

 

After all, it's not as if they contain State secrets, they are

the records of a democratic process.

 

Let it not be forgotten that this is yet another bill that has

to be footed by the taxpayer and it will be a hefty one.

 

Again the whole exercise exhibited bad faith on the part of the

Elections Directorate, and indicated, even though they might have

nothing to 'hide', that this was in fact the case; alternatively

they create the impression that they are trying to stall a

legitimate process.

 

Both the CoD and RP have to file an election petition, if they

are convinced of irregularities, within a prescribed 30-day period

after the election results were announced.

 

The court process obviously means that they risk missing the

deadline.

 

If they do go ahead, they have to prove that there were

irregularities of such a nature that could have affected the final

outcome of the election.

 

Previous attempts of this kind, such as the petition filed by

the DTA after the 1994 election, did not succeed, and if the

parties decide to go ahead this time, it will not be an easy

task.

 

This in itself should have prompted the EC simply to co-operate

with the parties, without having to go the expensive and

time-wasting route of using the courts.

 

It is both money, and time, that the country can ill afford.

 

Not only is it costly financially, it is costly in terms of

damaging perceptions of the democratic process.

 

The parties were forced to go to court when their requests to the

EC met with refusal.Now the court has ruled against the EC, which

has to pay the costs of the suit and hand over the documents to the

parties in question.The whole matter has been yet another waste of

both time and money.If the Electoral Commission had nothing to

hide, then surely they had nothing to lose by simply accommodating

the parties' requests to give them the documentation in question,

without the parties having to resort to what will undoubtedly turn

out to be an expensive procedure in the courts.The parties wanted

access to returns compiled by presiding officers at each of the 1

168 polling stations to show how they accounted for all the ballot

papers issued to them; reports in which the returning officers for

each of the 107 constituencies were supposed to verify the reports

of presiding officers that worked under them; returning officers'

reports to the Director of Elections, in which they had to give

account of how many ballots had been counted in their constituency

and how many rejected; returning officers' announcements to the

Director of the results, irrespective of discrepancies; and lists

containing serial numbers of ballot papers used in each and every

polling station.It would have been in the interests of

transparency, particularly in the wake of widespread

dissatisfaction with the manner in which the EC handled the

counting processes and the question of the tendered ballots in the

wake of the election itself, to have simply handed over the

documents.After all, it's not as if they contain State secrets,

they are the records of a democratic process.Let it not be

forgotten that this is yet another bill that has to be footed by

the taxpayer and it will be a hefty one.Again the whole exercise

exhibited bad faith on the part of the Elections Directorate, and

indicated, even though they might have nothing to 'hide', that this

was in fact the case; alternatively they create the impression that

they are trying to stall a legitimate process.Both the CoD and RP

have to file an election petition, if they are convinced of

irregularities, within a prescribed 30-day period after the

election results were announced.The court process obviously means

that they risk missing the deadline.If they do go ahead, they have

to prove that there were irregularities of such a nature that could

have affected the final outcome of the election.Previous attempts

of this kind, such as the petition filed by the DTA after the 1994

election, did not succeed, and if the parties decide to go ahead

this time, it will not be an easy task.This in itself should have

prompted the EC simply to co-operate with the parties, without

having to go the expensive and time-wasting route of using the

courts.It is both money, and time, that the country can ill

afford.Not only is it costly financially, it is costly in terms of

damaging perceptions of the democratic process.

---