Are courts not confusing Malawians?
Over the past week, Malawians have witnessed high court drama whereby branches of the High Court have issued injunctions and counter-injunctions about the release of election results. Three separate judges ruled on Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) election results filed by separate political parties.
High Court judge Lloyd Muhara granted Democratic People’s Party (DPP) an injunction restraining MEC from recounting the votes. Justice Healy Potani granted the party an injunction as well as a separate one to the New Labour Party (NLP) stopping the electoral body from vote recount. Meanwhile in Lilongwe, the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) also went to court to file for the vacation of the injunction, granted by Muhara, so that vote recount should proceed. They carried the day. Just as Malawians thought the dust had now settled, the NLP and several independent candidates commenced contempt charges against MEC chairperson and all commissioners for announcing its decision to re-count the vote before officially announcing reuslts. This has raised a number of questions about the judiciary. Why should the same rule on the same issue differently? And which court ruling should MEC follow? Is this not confusing to Malawians?
Everyone agrees that election logistics were a nightmare and MEC should have done better. MEC also acknowledges their shortcomings. However, political parties should appreciate and know that some issues cannot be solved by the courts. In fact, courts are not good at solving certain problems. They can even make the problem worse or complicate it. Some problems are best solved administratively, meaning that people should sit down and discuss the issue. For example, there was no need for DPP to go to court to get an injunction to stop MEC from recounting in the face of glaring irregularities. How does one explain the number of people who voted being higher than registered voters?
If anything, political parties should have requested the court to grant MEC an extension so that vote counting should go beyond eight days. This would have given MEC ample time to verify all the votes and announce a genuine winner. Vote counting is an administrative issue which does not require the intervention of the courts in the manner they have done such as forcing MEC to release the results within eight days when there are too many irregularities and complaints. It is understandable to be a legal issue, but it’s not a constitutional one. This means MEC can request for an extension to announce results.
There is no need to rush. If anything, MEC should withhold the results until the irregularities are sorted out. To release results, which are deemed fraudulent, is sowing seeds of political polarisation. A president who is ushered into power under the suspicion of vote rigging lacks legitimacy because many people do not recognise him. This also poses a challenge in terms of governance as the incumbent panics and resorts to undemocratic means to establish his authority. Already Malawians voted on regional lines, a clear indication that the winner may not even amass 40 percent of the votes. This already means the president will not enjoy broad support from the people. This could be ameliorated by releasing verified results, which all Malawians will accept. Even if a president is chosen by a minority vote, the president will still command respect of all Malawians because he has won genuinely.
That is why it is imperative to tread carefully and that all political parties, their supporters and Malawians should give MEC enough time to recount the votes so that they come up with the genuine winner. No one will dispute the results if MEC removes irregularities from the equation. It would have be naïve and defeating justice to release results when there is overwhelming evidence of gross irregularities. Recounting votes is part of quality control to ensure that MEC announces proper results ensuring that the MEC All political parties and their supporters should be patient and give the electoral commission time to recount the votes.
However, the behaviour of the Judiciary in handling the election results needs to be questioned. It is surprising and confusing that the judges have issued different injunctions on the same issue. This has led many people to surmise that the Judiciary is also divided. Judges should act with impartiality. If the Judiciary continues to pass questionable decisions Malawians will lose faith and trust in the judicial system .
