Maputo, 4 Dec (AIM) – The Mozambique Bar Association (OAM) has flatly denied the claim by the Constitutional Council that only it has the power to annul elections.
The Council made this claim in its ruling of 24 November, validating and proclaiming the results of the municipal elections held on 11 October.
But in fact, as the OAM pointed out in a lengthy press release, the Mozambican electoral legislation gives district and city courts the power to deal with irregularities occurring in the voting or the count, as long as the parties concerned have made a prior challenge (usually at a polling station or a district elections commission).
So contrary to the claim in the Constitutional Council ruling, the Council does not have exclusive power over election disputes.
It was certainly true that the Council has the last word in electoral matters and there can be no appeal against its decisions – but it could not have the first word as well, the OAM objected.
On the contrary, the district or city courts were the first instances that could try electoral offences, and this in no way contradicted the Mozambican constitution.
The OAM recalled that, in one of its previous statements, it had welcomed the possibility of appeal to the district courts, which it regarded as less vulnerable to political pressure than any of the election bodies.
The OAM also strongly criticized then Constitutional Council for failing to explain its decisions. It had taken tens of thousands of votes which the National Elections Commission (CNE) had allocated fraudulently to the ruling Frelimo Party, and gave them back to the opposition parties (Renamo and the Mozambique Democratic Movement). As a result, victory in four municipalities (Quelimane, Chiure, Alto Molocue and Vilanculo) was switched from Frelimo to Renamo.
But the Council gave no reason for the changes it made, apart from the vague claim that “the results arose from the re-verification of the data, in accordance with the proof produced”.
The OAM thought it unacceptable that the Council declined to tell the public what this proof was, and how it had processed it – particularly because there can be no appeal against its decisions.
Explanations were “completely missing” from the Council ruling, said the OAM, but they were necessary, not just for the candidates in elections, “but for society, given the public interest in elections”.
“We are not saying that the decisions should please the majority or the minority, but they should be explained as a legal requirement”, the OAM release added.
It warned that the electoral bodies have fallen into complete discredit. The only way to save the situation was to overhaul the electoral legislation (which the OAM regards as “a very poor copy of the Portuguese legislation”) and “to endow our institutions with criteria of total impartiality, with the necessary consultation with all the necessary parties”.
The OAM warned that it “would not be advisable to go into future elections with these laws and these electoral management institutions, with their current composition”.
“We should cure the disease, rather than apply a palliative”, it added. “If we do not deal with the problem, or merely anaesthetize ourselves with something provisional and not definitive, then it will return, stronger and more difficult to combat”.
The OAM volunteers “to lead or participate in a profound reflection on the paths to be followed in improving the laws and the institutions”.
The next elections (presidential, parliamentary and provincial) are scheduled for October 2024, less than a year away. Judging from past experience, this is not enough time to write new election laws, pass them through parliament, and elect a new National Elections Commission.
(AIM)
Pf/ (612)
