WHY EACH VOTE COUNTS
Hesitant voters may feel otherwise, but their votes do make a difference, as a recent electoral dispute in Namibia shows
otential voters who say they won’t vote in the upcoming local government elections because their ballots will make no difference should take note of a new decision coming out of Namibia’s courts.
Regional council elections were held in that country on November 25, after which the electoral commission announced that the Ndonga Linena constituency had been won by Kampota Shiwana, a candidate from ruling party Swapo.
The All People’s Party (APP) candidate was placed second — but the difference between the two was just 12 votes. The commission further announced that 57 ballots cast in this particular race had been endorsed as rejected.
Under Namibia’s election legislation, a ballot may be rejected only where it indicates a vote for more than one political party, organisation or candidate; where it does not
bear the official mark and the presiding officer reasonably believes it was not officially issued; and where it is either unmarked, or marked in a way that makes it impossible to be sure which party the ballot should be recorded for.
After a false start in March, the APP was back at the electoral court in April, asking the court to order the electoral commission and its top officials to make copies
of the 57 rejected ballots. They came from 11 polling stations, with most apparently supporting the
APP candidate, and were rejected for being wrongly marked.
When the ballot boxes were opened, instead of finding the rejected papers clearly identified, officials mostly couldn’t locate them. From a polling station where 20 rejected ballots had been recorded, officials couldn’t find any ballot papers endorsed as rejected, for example. In all, officials
could identify just four that were marked and endorsed as rejected.
In addition to the problem of locating the rejected ballots, noone seemed able to say when or whether the ostensible winner was sworn in, but he was known to be carrying out his duties as regional councillor.
The court said its first concern was that, despite the electoral commission’s public announcement that 57 ballots had been rejected, the commission’s own officials could not provide copies of the rejected ballot papers as required by law.
Next, of the 20 ballot papers provided by the commission, only four were endorsed with the word “rejected”. The remaining 18 contained marks that clearly indicated the voters’ choice of political party. Yet these ballots were not counted and the commission provided no explanation for this situation.
In addition, there was the problem of the rest of the 57 ballots that were said to be rejected and not counted, but which were not endorsed as rejected, as required.
Results set aside
The court had some stern words for the commission, saying it was disappointing that it did not work with the court and explain the peculiar state of affairs.
Even though the court had previously discouraged the commission from taking sides in election disputes, it still had an obligation to help the court adjudicate disputes such as this. It shouldn’t have sat idly, leaving it to the court to decide the matter without any input from the commission. That attitude, in appropriate circumstances, could amount to dereliction of duty, the court warned.
Where, as in this case, there was such a narrow margin of victory, the failure to deal properly with the “rejected” ballots and provide them to the court meant that the ultimate results of the election in this constituency had to be set aside.
This in turn meant there was now “serious interference with the constitutional right” of voters.
The court therefore declared the original results and the swearingin of Shiwana to be invalid, and ordered a recount of all the ballots as soon as possible.
It will be a nail-biting recount, no doubt, but also a salutary lesson for the electoral commission — not to mention a challenge to SA voter hesitancy.
The difference between the two candidates was just 12 votes. But 57 ballots cast in this race had been rejected