Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) has rejected a joint proposal by five opposition parties to conduct an independent audit of its Election Management System (EMS), citing constitutional independence, legal insufficiency, and technical inaccuracies in the proposed scope.
The decision, however, has not gone down well with the concerned parties: Alliance for Democracy, Democratic Progressive Party, United Democratic Front, People’s Party and UTM Party who have expressed reservations over MEC’s stance, insisting they will hold off conclusive public comment until they fully analyse MEC’s justification for turning down the audit request.
In a strongly worded letter addressed to the secretary generals of the five parties, MEC chairperson Justice Annabel Mtalimanja accused the political groupings of misrepresenting facts and attempting to initiate an audit based on “flawed assumptions” and “unsupported allegations.”
The request, submitted on May 23 2025, called for a forensic-style audit of the EMS, raising concerns about data anomalies, system integrity, and the credibility of the 2025 electoral process. However, MEC maintains that these concerns are misplaced and unsupported by evidence.
“The scope resembles a structured forensic investigation rather than a professional ICT assurance review. It presumes irregularities or systemic failure without presenting any evidence,” reads part of the Commission’s response dated 6 June.
MEC emphasised that the anomalies in the voter register, such as duplicate entries and mismatched photographs, were first disclosed by the Commission itself during consultations with stakeholders, and it has since accused the parties of distorting facts by implying that they uncovered these issues independently.
Citing Section 76 of the Constitution, MEC said its operations are constitutionally protected from external interference and that no statutory basis exists to compel it to submit to an independent audit unless a formal complaint or petition is filed. It stated that by the close of the inspection period for the voters’ register, no political party had submitted such a complaint.
The commission also noted that it had shared the entire electronic voters’ register with all registered political parties on May 12 to allow for scrutiny and possible petitions, adding that the absence of any formal objections from parties undermines the justification for the proposed audit.
On the technical front, MEC criticised the audit proposal for referencing technologies such as automated polling stations, electronic voting, and automated vote counting systems which it says are not in use in Malawi’s electoral process. “The parties’ concept note appeared to draw from generic documentation associated with Smartmatic systems, which bear no resemblance to MEC’s custom-developed EMS infrastructure,” reads part of the letter, adding: “The scope failed to accurately reflect the actual design, capabilities, and operational functions of the commission’s EMS.”
MEC also raised security concerns, arguing that allowing external access to its core systems would compromise the integrity of the electoral process and set a precedent that threatens the institution’s autonomy. According to the commission, internal assurance mechanisms remain in place and will continue to be executed in line with national legislation and internationally recognised electoral standards.
To allay fears about the trustworthiness of the EMS, MEC has said the electoral body will use a hybrid system for transmitting results— manual as well as electronic, from the district centres to the tally centre.
Reacting to the decision, UTM spokesperson Felix Njawala said his party would take time to review the commission’s detailed response before issuing a formal position.
“We don’t act impulsively on issues. As UTM, we will sit down and analyse the response, probably over the weekend, before making any official comment,” he said.
Meanwhile, Democratic Progressive Party secretary general Peter Mukhito described MEC’s stance as a missed opportunity for the commission to clear its name.
“This is a lost opportunity on the part of MEC to exonerate itself from the negative allegations against it in the conduct and management of the September elections. The proposed audit was meant to ensure transparency and accountability as well as to restore lost public trust in MEC. In fact, the commission stood to benefit more from the exercise than political parties.”
Mukhito also dismissed the commission’s legal justifications, saying there have been precedents where parties have previously audited MEC’s systems. He further disclosed that the opposition parties will meet to map the way ahead.
He was, however, categorical that as DPP, the party will no longer accept the electronic transmission of election results.
As the political standoff over electoral credibility intensifies, MEC’s refusal to accommodate an external audit could set the tone for renewed friction between the Commission and the opposition in the run-up to the polls.
However, governance expert Boniface Chibwana, who is also chief executive officer of the Centre for Multiparty Democracy, observed that MEC’s decision cannot be conclusive on the matter but there should be room for further engagement on the issue.
Said Chibwana: “We haven’t seen what is contained in the scope submitted by the opposition parties so we can’t rush to comment, but this should not mean the end of the story, engagement on the matter should continue.
“This is a matter that borders on stakeholders’ trust so we can’t leave it unresolved as we go into elections. All matters, including this one, need to be concluded before the elections.”
