DECEMBER 27 2001
Tripartite Elections PRELIMINARY REPORT
(February 2002)
"[T]he will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of a government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures." (Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
"Every
citizen of Zambia who has attained the age of eighteen years shall, unless
he is disqualified by Parliament from registration as a voter for the purposes
of elections to the National Assembly, be entitled to be registered as
such a voter under a law in that behalf, and no other person may be so
registered." Article 75. (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia
This preliminary
report on Zambia’s 2001 Tripartite Elections is presented by the Coalition
2001, an alliance of civic and human rights organisations, established
for the purpose of contributing to the achievement of genuine, free and
fair elections and the consolidation of democracy in Zambia. The strategy
of the organisation included advocating for integrity in the electoral
process, enhancing popular participation and undertaking voter education.
The report
is holistic as it recognises that elections are an administrative, technical
and political process. Factors and issues that affect election integrity
are not necessarily only those observed during the balloting exercise.
The integrity of an election is determined by political behaviours preceding
an election event, in addition to the occurrence of such behaviours at
the time of the event.
Election
integrity is further determined by the administrative preparedness of the
governmental body tasked with the responsibility of managing the electoral
process.
Reporting
on the behaviours and preparedness of the body tasked with the management
of the electoral process is an integral part of election monitoring. In
emergent democracies, this is critical because often the political grouping
in power has dominance or control over political and administrative behaviours.
With such dominance or control being expressed either through the public
media or laws regulating the exercise of freedoms and rights likely facilitating
political behaviours of competing stakeholders. Zambia is no exception
in this regard as this report shall show.
Coalition
2001 monitored the December 27, 2001 elections with the sole principle
of ensuring and affirming election integrity in Zambia. The succeeding
sections, hereof, address themselves to, first the legal frameworks guiding
elections in Zambia, and second, contextualises elections monitoring so
as to provide a rationale for the derivations, thereof.
Third,
it provides preliminary findings of the monitoring exercise during balloting
and declaration of results. A socio-political spatial paradigm (in
specific cases) is used as the underlying assumption in which political
affiliations and behaviours, and political choices are made.
2.0Legal
Frameworks Guiding Elections in Zambia
The conduct
of elections in Zambia is guided by the Constitution, the Electoral Act
(1991), the Electoral Commission Act (No. 24 of 1996), the Local Government
Elections Act Chapter 282 and various regulations promulgated by the Electoral
Commission of Zambia.
Article
76 (1) of the Constitution of Zambia establishes the Electoral Commission
of Zambia and some of the functions of the commission under Article 76
of the Constitution are to supervise, to conduct Presidential and Parliamentary
elections and to review boundaries of the constituencies into which Zambia
is divided for the purpose of election to the national assembly.
The laws
of Zambia provide for the holding of elections every five years. Zambia’s
2001 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections were held
on 27th December.
3.0 Perspectives
on Elections Monitoring
The principal
function of an independent monitoring process in a democratic governance
system is to ensure the integrity of the election process, and to protect
individual's right to make political choices.
Elections
integrity is an inalienable principle of democratic governance and as such
constitutes an integral part of free and fair elections. Free and fair
elections are the basis for a representative form of government. Without
integrity, there is no guarantee that the people's political choices as
exercised in their right to vote will be reflected in the election results
and consequent government structure.
Elections
integrity can be undermined when procedures and practices governing an
election are disregarded, and or seemingly biased towards individuals of
similar political affiliations.
The role
of monitors and their presence during an election aims at minimising incidences
of disregard of procedures and practices and or minimise (unforeseen) administrative
mistakes.
The rationale
for independent monitors is premised on the fact that in emergent democracies,
the agency or institution tasked with managing the electoral process is
a body of individuals often appointed by the political grouping in government.
The likelihood of such individuals being partisan is inarguably very high.
In retrospect,
it is within this context that Coalition 2001 monitored the Zambia 2001
tripartite elections, and had a presence during polling on December 27,
2001.
4.0 Status
of Election Monitors in Zambia
The status
and work of Election Monitors in Zambia is regulated by the Electoral (Conduct)
Regulations of 1996, that is, Statutory Instrument number 179 of 1996.
Both local
and foreign monitors have to be recognized and accredited by the Electoral
Commission of Zambia before they can act as monitors during election campaigns
or elections.[1]
Local Monitors shall be nominated by their organisations and shall undergo
training and assessment by their organisations.[2]
This requirement only applies to local monitors, as it is always assumed
that foreign monitors have the required experience.
Election
monitors are enjoined to operate within the confines of the Constitution,
Electoral Act and Regulations made pursuant to it, the Code of Conduct
for Monitors as well as the directives of electoral officials or any lawful
instructions from persons acting on behalf of the monitors.[3]
Further,
the law requires that monitors be impartial in their work, and that they
shall be in sufficient numbers at each polling centre. Monitors shall also
ensure that their presence is widely known and recognized by the electorate.[4]
The law
prohibits monitors from interfering with the duties of election officials
in anyway; they are however, required to report any violation to the proper
authority.[5]
The law does not stipulate what 'proper authority' means. This stipulation
should have been made because there is usually buck-passing between the
Electoral Commission and other law-enforcement agencies as to who deals
with electoral violations.
Monitors
must report any offence or infringement of the Electoral Act or its Regulations
to their organisations, enforcement agents, elections office and other
party concerned.[6]
This provision seems to clarify the preceding one, to some extent. This
is a good provision except no indication is given as to what action will
be taken against the infringing party and who shall take such action.
Election
monitors are prohibited by law from declaring the result of an election
before the Electoral Commission makes the declaration.[7]
Election monitors are therefore required to maintain secrecy with reference
to any matter affecting the voting and counting of votes. This is a contradiction
with the requirement that Monitors should report any infringement to their
organisations and other authorities, as above, especially if the infringement
has to do with counting of votes. The requirement that monitors should
maintain secrecy in relation to the counting of votes smacks of lack of
transparency.
Election
monitors are recognised within the laws and regulations guiding the electoral
process in Zambia. It is in this context that it is therefore expected
that due recognition of the role of monitors in the country's electoral
laws and regulations, implies that the Electoral Commission of Zambia should
collaborate with monitors without any deliberate or planned constraints
whatsoever.
5.0 Pre-Election
Day Observations
This section provides an overview of political and administrative (preparedness) behaviours in the period preceding the Election Day (December 27).
The
Constitution of Zambia in article 75 provides that every citizen of Zambia
who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be entitled to register
as a voter. The Voter Registration exercise was undertaken from 25 June
and completed on 31 July 2001, following three extensions due to low voter
turnout. The first extension was from 16th to 22nd
July, the second was from 23rd to 26th July and the
last 27th to 31st July. It is important to state
here that the Commission had initially planned to commence the exercise
in April but due to delayed allocation of funds by Government, the exercise
could only commence in June.
Coalition
2001 conducted a voter registration monitoring exercise during the period
of the registration exercise from 25 June 2001 to 31 July 2001. The exercise
was aimed at assessing issues of access, accuracy and completeness of the
registration process. The monitoring exercise revealed that voter registration
was conducted in a highly unsatisfactory manner. There was poor voter registration
turn out, which is attributed to five major factors.
These are:
i)Failure by the National Registration Office to provide eligible Zambians with National Registration Cards
ii)Poor management of the exercise by the Electoral Commission of Zambia[8]
iii)Apathy and lack of confidence in the electoral process and politicians
iv)Voter registration was undertaken during the OAU meeting and as such stretched government public media resources.
v)A
strike by civil servants
5.2 Issuance
of National Registration Cards
The electoral
laws of Zambia demand that a Zambian citizen must hold a green National
Registration Card (NRC) to be eligible to vote. The exercise of issuing
NRCs was however characterised by insufficient publicity, disorganisation,
inept and arrogant officers, and general disregard for an exercise that
is most critical to one’s eligibility to vote.
First,
the provision of NRCs was supposed to precede the voter registration exercise.
However in Southern, Eastern and Western provinces issuance of NRCs only
began a few weeks or days before the voter registration exercise was to
begin. As for the remote areas that depended on the mobile unit, the service
did not reach them until after the voter registration exercise had already
began. The delayed start in issuance of NRCs affected chances of
voters to register themselves as voters. In the three provinces there were
still queues of about 400 people daily at various registration centres
three days before the close of registration of voters. According
to observations by the Coalition, the registration officers were only able
to issue between 10 - 20 cards a day.
Inadequate
and late delivery of materials to registration centres, perpetual breakdown
of the mobile equipment provided for registration in the rural areas was
another problem faced during the exercise. A week before close of
voter registration, the mobile unit equipment had broken down at Keembe
in Monze. Approximately 800 people had not received their NRCs.
In various
centres across the country, prospective NRC holders complained of insufficient
application forms, rude registration officers and a high level of laxity
on the part of the Registration Office. The problem was compounded by a
strike by civil servants during voter registration exercise. According
to the Preliminary Report on the 2000 Census of Population, out of 3,984,697
people eligible for national registration cards (16 years and above) 854,618
(21%) do not posses cards. Though the report does not show what proportion
this is of the 3.6million eligible population, it can be argued over 700,000
eligible voters if worked out at 21% do not have national registration
cards and could therefore not qualify for registration as voters.
Compilation
of Voters Roll is the process where registered voters are listed in a document
that is later used by election agents and monitors during the balloting
exercise. The process was inundated with inadequate materials, late commencement
of the exercise in some registration centres, irregular opening and closure
of registration centres and inadequate and poorly trained officials resulting
in inaccuracies in the recording of voters’ details.
A sample of 540 centres from the 72 districts of Zambia reveals that Western Province had the highest number of centres without adequate materials and staff followed by Central Province. For example, 17 centres out of 60 centres sampled in Western Province did not have adequate staff and 8 centres did not have adequate materials.
The Electoral Commission undertook the voters' register verification exercise which Coalition 2001 monitored from October 6 to 12, 2001. It was observed that the one week period given was too short to enable all registered voters to verify their details at registration centres. Omissions of hundreds of people were noted in Sinazongwe district in Southern province. Further, insufficient publicity about the exercise resulted in hundreds of uncollected cards across the country. The short period allocated to this exercise was a mockery of the seriousness it deserved considering the poor system of communicating to voters, long distances to registration centres, and the high illiteracy levels.
In
Sinazongwe an average of 200 voters per registration centre were omitted
from the registers. Efforts by Registration Officials to rectify
the anomalies were futile as the voters register was certified valid before
information on the omissions was collected from the field. In Liuwa constituency
in Western province, 30 people from Namununga village lodged in a complaint
about being omitted from the voters' roll. The voters had RV1[9]
forms.
The 1996
Electoral Code of Conduct demands a balanced coverage of issues and provision
of equal access by all political players to public media during the election
period. A media monitoring exercise undertaken by the Coalition 2001
over a period of seven months targeting four (4) major radio stations and
eight (8) newspapers shows that the state-owned media flagrantly ignored
the regulation. The state-owned media (publicly funded) adopted a
biased approach in the coverage of political issues and parties that was
in favour of the MMD.
Throughout
the election period, the MMD received a higher coverage over the other
political parties. During news programmes, the one and only national
TV station, ZNBC devoted nearly 100% of its coverage to MMD. The
tone of coverage was always positive or neutral.
The state-owned
radio stations, radio 2 and 4 covered more parties in their news programmes
than the state television but also devoted most time to the MMD.
However, the reporting was negative in its coverage of opposition parties
and positive or neutral towards the MMD. The state-owned newspapers
were also biased towards MMD but covered more parties than ZNBC.
In a country
were circulation of print media is limited and more less restricted to
urban areas, the impact of the state-owned radio and TV media cannot be
overstated. It is the view of the Coalition 2001 that the bias of
the state-owned media in favour of the MMD created an unfavourable climate
for the opposition parties. This was in breach of its role and as stipulated
in the 1996 Electoral Code of Conduct. The independent and or private newspapers
monitored, showed a different pattern. This section of the media
tended to devote large amounts of space to the MMD, but the tone of such
articles was often in criticism. However, none of the independent
media showed a strong bias in favour of one particular party.
The decision
by ZNBC to discontinue the Coalition 2001 and PANOS sponsored programmes
on elections in spite of a court order compelling them to continue
the programmes was a total disregard of the rule of law. Further,
it was a negation of the tenets of democratic practice, as this stole away
the rare opportunity for most Zambians to debate, build opinion and consensus
around political issues that faced them.
5.5.1 Corruption and Abuse of Office
One of the most important requirements of free and fair elections is that voters must be given an opportunity to vote for candidates and parties of their choice without intimidation, violence or corruption. Corruption subverts the electoral process as it distorts the people’s will.
The Electoral Code of Conduct (1996) and part IV of the Electoral Regulations provide for offences of bribery, corruption, and abuse of office in the electoral process. The penalty of these offences is also outlined. In spite of the existence of this legislation outlawing and providing for punishment of corrupt practices, the 2001 elections were characterised by massive corruption and malpractice. The most guilty of this offence thereby causing undue influence were the ruling MMD and Forum for Democracy and Development.
One of the biggest sources of corruption was the presidential fund. The president made well-targeted and well-publicised donations in Southern Province, Luapula, and Copperbelt provinces weeks before elections.
The presidential directive for title deeds to be issued expeditiously to over 1,400 sitting tenants in Kabwata township in Lusaka Province constituted an act of vote buying and a gross abuse of power by the highest office in the land. The sale of government houses through out the country and mine houses on the Copperbelt was used to gain political mileage by the MMD government. The then President, Mr Chiluba advised miners in Mufulira during a campaign rally held a month before the general elections to vote for MMD if they were to be accorded an opportunity to purchase the houses they were occupying. Chiluba was then on a tour to introduce MMD presidential candidate Levy Mwanawasa.
Vote buying by MMD officials and cadres raged on even on polling day in Lusaka, Luapula, Western and Southern Provinces. Money was paid to registered voters in exchange for a vote. Mealie meal and agricultural inputs were also given out to the people. The MMD were also in unlawful possession of voters’ cards, collected for the purpose of reducing the number of voters for the opposition. The cards were obtained in exchange for money. In Itezhi Tezhi, District Administrator, Mr. Femming Nbuzoka, Francis P Mweengwa, Shangomba Timothy, Florence Shandunka and Kelly Kafuno were involved in this criminal act.
Three MMD officials namely, Benson Nsingo (MMD Chairman), Frank Mushabati (MMD Secretary) and Headman Mulilabanyama (MMD Vice Secretary) were also involved in collection of voters cards and were actually detained for committing the offence. The arresting Officer was Mr. Moses Kapeshi of Itezhi Tezhi. Former Finance Minister and now Foreign Affairs Minister Katele Kalumba donated building materials to Chipungu Basic School two days before the elections during his campaign as Member of Parliament.
In Sichili, Western Province, the MMD parliamentary candidate directed that drugs and blankets meant for the rural health centre be distibuted by MMD cadres to MMD supporters only. In Maamba, Sinazongwe district, Southern Province, the FDD gave hand outs at a campaign rally held on 18th December,2001. Ms Nawakwi Party vice President was the main speaker at the forum. On 26th December hand outs were given at a rally held in Dengeza, Sinazongwe and addressed by FDD’s Siacheye Madyenkuku.
Further, the 1996 Code of Conduct prohibits the use of government transport or facility for campaign purposes or to carry voters to polling stations. In total breach of this regulation, the MMD consistently used government resources to run its electoral campaigns. Government vehicles, civil servants such as District Administrators, drivers and facilities were used during the election campaigns. District Administrators across the country used their vehicles and offices to run the MMD campaigns. Despite the dissolution of parliament, ministers continued to hold on to government vehicles and used them in their mobilisation campaigns. Former Community Development minister Jane Chikwata used her official vehicle a Pajero in her campaign in Namwala. Josiah Chisala former deputy minister in the office of the President for the Vendors was seen in the government vehicle Registration No. GRZ 741 BP with a ministerial flag at a polling station in Mwansabombwe constituency Kawambwa district on polling day, contrary to elections legislation.
The law enforcement agencies responsible for the enforcement of the code of conduct, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Zambia Police Service remained quite inactive in curbing electoral corruption. Use of government resources for partisan politics is in breach of the law and also a gross abuse of power. The issue of enforcement of the Electoral Code of Conduct remains a major issue for the Electoral Commission and Law agencies to consider if future elections are to be corruption free.
International human rights instruments and the Republican Constitution guarantee the right of assembly and association. Article 21 of the Zambian Constitution states that except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to any political party, trade union or other association for the protection of his interests.”
Elections must therefore, be held in a climate that allows all political parties to organise themselves in a way that enables them to effectively compete for political power. The politicisation of the police however, remained a hindrance to the full enjoyment of these fundamental freedoms. Several key public meetings by the opposition were not allowed to take place.
In
contrast to other political parties, MMD had unregulated freedom to assemble.
The MMD cadres held several demonstrations without the required seven (7)
days notice to the police. One notable case is the demonstration against
Dipak Patel led by Women’s affairs chair for Lusaka, Esther Nakawala on
22nd August, 2001.
According to the Public Order Amendment Act, persons wishing to convene a public meeting should give seven (7) days notice for such a meeting. The police administered the Public Order Amendment Act in a discriminatory manner. Opposition parties were not allowed to assemble even when the seven (7) days notification was given, whilst ruling party members could assemble without police interference.
Several cases of arrest of the opposition party officials and cadres were witnessed during the pre-election period.
On 15 February 2001 the police arrested over 300 UPND cadres and charged them with unlawful assembly. The Police Spokesman Lemmy Kajoba stated that the cadres had been detained due to the fact that they had no police permit. UPND Spokesman Love Mtesa described the arrest as unfortunate because cadres had applied for a permit 10 days earlier, but there had been no feedback from the police.
On February 25, 2001, Itezhi Tezhi police denied UPND a permit to hold a rally. The rally was due to be addressed by UPND President Anderson Mazoka. On March 9, 2001, police in Solwezi stopped a demonstration by UNIP, UPND and ZRP cadres. The cadres were protesting against Chiluba’s third term bid. North Western Police Chief Hudson Beenzu said the demostration was illegal because only UNIP had applied for a permit and the three parties were not recognised as an alliance. He also cited the fact that the three parties were not an alliance and therefore could not protest together.
On 31st May 2001 police in Senanga, Western Province, denied FDD parliamentary candidate William Harrington, a permit to hold a public rally in his constituency. The rally was scheduled to take place on 2nd June 2001. His intentions to go ahead were frustrated by pressure from the Senanga District Administrator, Richard Mutukwa, who was also MMD Chairman.
Three months before elections, on 25th September 2001, Mambwe District Police dressed in riot gear arrested Zambia Republican President (ZRP) Benjamin Mwila after he had finished addressing his supporters at a public meeting.
In
the days that followed, police blocked ZRP from holding any more rallies
in three other areas in Eastern Province, namely, Chipata, Chadiza and
Nyimba. All rallies were to be addressed by party president, Benjamin
Mwila. ZRP Spokesperson, Moses Kaunda said that police received instructions
from Provincial Minister, Regina Phiri and Permanent Secretary, Lameck
Chibombamilimo not to allow Mwila to hold any more rallies in the province
after holding successful ones in Mambwe, Petauke, Katete, Lundazi and Chama.
On
22 October 2001, UPND president Anderson Mazoka and other senior party
officials were scheduled to hold an indoor meeting with Evelyn Hone College
students. A few hours before the meeting, police informed the UPND
secretariat that the meeting could not go ahead because they did not have
a permit.
Other
cases involved violence and intimidation. The election campaign period
was characterised by intimidation and violence. The MMD used cadres and
the police in intimidating the opposition political parties.
On April
17 2001, MMD Youth Chairpersons from all nine (9) provinces of Zambia warned
that they would employ Ku Klux Klan (KKK) methods to flush out people that
were found wanting, in order to cleanse society of "such misfits".
The statement was targeted at Lusaka Central Member of Parliament Dipak
Patel. This followed Patel’s denunciation of any machinations to
amend the Republican Constitution for the purpose of allowing president
Chiluba to re-contest the presidency. The statement was signed by
Alex Meema (Central), Maxim Ndumba (North-Western), Joshua Mtisa (Copperbelt),
Sam Moyo (Eastern), Evan Mvula (Luapula), Steven Bwalya (Lusaka), Nathan
Ilunga (Northern), Clement Matente (Southern) and Kwalombota Kambani (Western)
On May
10, Patel suffered further racial attacks because of his views against
the constitutional amendment. Lusaka Province MMD Co-ordinator Esther
Nakawala warned that she would ensure that Mr. Patel goes back to India
on foot because he did not respect those in power. Nakawala issued
this statement at the Magistrate Court premises after a case hearing in
which Patel sued her for racist attacks. This was done in the presence
of Police Inspector Mwinanenwa whose only action ended at pleading with
Nakawala to stop issuing the threats. On 22 August, hundreds of MMD
cadres marched, demanding the deportation of Patel.
On 2nd
December 2001, MMD cadres armed with iron bars stormed opposition Patriot
Front offices in Lusaka’s Kanyama compound and hacked officials who were
manning the premises.
On 15th
November 2001, the President, Dr. Frederick Chiluba dissolved parliament
and set 27th December 2001 as the date for Presidential, Parliamentary
and Local Government elections. The announcement of the election
date, which is at the discretion of the president was done so close to
the election date, and ignored all expert advice.
Democratic
elections demand transparency and fairness. Therefore, the delay
in the announcement of the elections date was incompatible with the spirit
of holding transparent elections.
6.1
Coalition Monitoring Overview and Constraints
It is
well acknowledged internationally that for elections to be considered democratic,
the entire process must be transparent, legitimate, accountable and imbued
with integrity.
The preceding
sections of this report addresses issues of transparency, fairness, accuracy,
timeliness, professionalism and integrity of the electoral process during
election day. The election day assessment included a look at the preparedness
of the Electoral Commission in terms of availability of materials and human
resource to manage the process, conduct of the electoral officials, management
of the voting process, and ballot collation and declaration.
Coalition
2001 election monitoring was undertaken at polling centre level. A relative
total of70.28 percent
of the Polling centres were monitored. From a socio-spatial paradigm of
urban-rural, an approximate 28 per cent polling centres were monitored
in urban areas and the rest in rural areas.
Coalition
2001 intent to monitor 100 percent of the polling centres was impeded by
two categories of factors.
The first
category is the logistical problems of inaccessibility of some polling
centres, because of impassable roads due to rains.
The second
and most critical category of factors was the deliberate administrative
constraints the Electoral Commission of Zambia indulged in during its administration
and management of the electoral process.
First,
the Electoral Commission of Zambia introduced an administrative fee (Kwacha
10 000 per monitor) for it to provide accreditation to monitoring NGOs
late in the electoral process to thereby constraint most NGOs monitoring
budgets. However, Coalition 2001 and other NGOs complied, and yet the Commission
was unable to adequately provide accreditation cards to all the successful
applicants. Up until 26th December, the Electoral Commission
was still grappling with production of Monitors accreditation cards for
Lusaka, Northern Province and Central Provinces.
It is
important to state that the Monitoring Organisations had complied with
the deadline and all other conditions that had been set by the electoral
authority. A protest by the Coalition 2001 officials at the slow
pace of production of accreditation cards resulted in the Director of Elections,
Danny Kalale assaulting one of the officials.
Second,
the Electoral Commission exhibited unacceptable incompetence in allocation
of Monitors’ accreditation cards the Electoral Commission overwhelmed by
its own set requirements ended up sending wrong accreditation cards to
some organisations.
For example,
FODEP received accreditation cards for Afronet whilst the Coalition 2001
was in possession of over a 1000 unknown Monitor’s cards. These anomalies
could not be corrected by voting day thereby reducing the number of polling
centres monitored on voting day.
The associated
constraint of misallocation of accreditation cards was the denial of entry
of monitors to polling centres by some Presiding Officers. The most affected
provinces were Central, Southern, Lusaka and Eastern and Northern Provinces.
However, monitors were allowed to monitor around midday following interventions
from Coalition Provincial and District Managers.
Third,
the Commission appears to have "shared" its electoral process of administration
with the Zambia Intelligence Secret Service (ZISS), and District Administrators.
The intelligence
agency's presence at polling centres was unexplained. Some members of ZISS
were reported to have resorted to intimidatory behaviours. For example,
Coalition 2001 Nchelenge District Director was constantly under threat
from the District Intelligence Officer for monitoring elections and obtaining
information from monitors on the conduct of elections. The ZISS Officer
made death threats in the presence of police officers.
Further,
the Luangwa, Monze and Gwembe District Directors were in constant attacks
from the District Administrators.
It must,
however, be noted that given the Commissions earlier comments on the role
of Election Monitors, these administrative constraints to effective monitoring
of the elections can be deemed as deliberate and planned. The Commission's
chairman, Judge Bobby Bwalya on 5th November 2001 stated that "he did not
see any plausible reason to have monitors" and that the ECZ would ensure
that there would be no NGOs monitoring elections in 2006. This is against
a background of the Commission having fruitfully worked with monitoring
NGOs during voter education campaigns. It is the view of the Coalition
2001 that the unfortunate statements made by Judge Bwalya were more political
rather than administrative.
6.2
Balloting Observations
Balloting
observations address themselves to the Election Day logistical preparedness,
and execution of the voting process.
6.2.1 Distribution of Voting Materials
On Election Day the Electoral Commission of Zambia's inadequate logistical preparedness was evident. The Commission failed to adequately deliver necessary voting material to all polling centres before balloting commenced. All nine provinces of Zambia were affected. Even in places with relatively adequate transport infrastructure like Lusaka, voting materials were not delivered on time.
The Commission further could not even appropriately designate voting materials. There were prevalent cases were some constituencies received ballot papers designated for other constituencies.
Examples
of centres that received wrong ballot papers are Makungu polling centre
in Ndola, which received ballot papers for Samfya, Chibanda polling centre
in Masaiti that received voting materials designated for Mongu in Western
Province. Other centres
affected were Ikawa ward in Nakonde and in Moomba constituency.
Ballot
papers in some constituencies for the three levels of elections run out
before balloting ended.
Centres
such as Mwansabombwe in Luapula and Kazungula in Southern province ran
out of ballot papers even for presidential candidates. By 10:00 hours ballot
papers for presidential elections had completely run out. At Kalongwezi
polling centre due to insufficient ballot papers for parliamentary elections,
presidential ballot papers were used. The same anomaly was experienced
in Moomba constituency resulting in voters ticking against party symbols
and not candidates. At Chipata
polling centre in Ndola, the presidential ballot papers were also less
than the number of people who registered at the centre.
6.2.2
Commencement of Balloting
The delayed delivery of balloting materials meant that balloting could not commence on time. Only 57 percent of the 4,066 polling centres Coalition 2001 monitored started balloting between 0600 hours and 0700 hours. Seventeen (17) percent started balloting after 1000 hours, the rest between 0700 hours and 1000 hours.
A considerable number of polling centres only started the balloting process after mid-day. Polling centres where balloting commenced after 1200 hours were mostly in Eastern province (17.40 %), Lusaka province (13.40%) and Western province (12.67%). The only provinces where balloting at the polling centres can be said to have commenced relatively on time are Central province (80%), Southern (68%), Northern (67%), and Luapula (65%).
At
constituency level, noticeable polling centres where balloting commenced
after mid-day were in Chama south (35%), Matero (46%), Chama north (20%),
and Kaoma Central (18%).
In Mulike
ward in Isoka West constituency, parliamentary and local government materials
were only delivered late on 27th December.
At Nsunge
polling centre in Mporokoso, voting materials were only delivered on December
29. Voting was conducted on 30th December. Voting in Luapula
and Northern Provinces went up to the 29th December 2001 two
days after the official voting day.
6.2.3
Missing Polling Centres
Further,
some polling centres were moved without prior knowledge of the electorate.
For example, Ufulu Polling Centre in Chawama Constituency in Lusaka Province
and Tembwe polling centre in Central Province. The party agents and
monitors were unable to locate Tembwe polling centre.
6.2.4 Adequacy of Voters' Registers
The adequacy of voters' registers is a critical factor in election monitoring as it allows election agents and monitors to ensure that the individual voting is legible or indeed the listed person. In this regard it is important that voters' registers are available and fully list individuals registered as voters at the stated polling centre.
It was, however, established that some voters’ registers sold to monitoring organisations differed from those held by election agents (that is Presiding Officers). Such cases were recorded in Lusaka Province, and the Copperbelt (Ndola and Kalulushi). In Masaiti, the Presiding Officer on realisation of this anomaly retrieved the register from the Coalition-SACCORD Monitor and offered him a register similar to his, raising questions of transparency.
The completeness of the voters' register varied moderately through the nine provinces. The relative proportions of the completeness of voters' registers in polling stations monitored are Western province (66%), Copperbelt (70%), Lusaka province (77%), Eastern (81%), Southern (82%), North-Western (82%), Northern (88%), Luapula (88%), and Central (92%). The salient feature of this (though with moderate differences) is that voters' registers were inadequate in most provinces where the opposition were dominant.
At polling centre level, the constituencies that can categorically be stated as having partially complete voters' registers are Sikongo (33%), Mongu West (33%), Chingola (50%), Kankoyo (50%), Mapatizya (53%), Kantashi (53%), Chama South (60%), Kalulushi (61%) and Kasenengwa (61%).
6.2.5 End of Balloting
The end of balloting varied across the entire country. In Zambia, balloting is supposed to end at 1700 hours. Coalition 2001 monitoring observations show that it is only at 62 percent of 4,066 monitored polling centres where balloting ended at 1800 hours. This however is not to indicate that all intending voters had voted, as shall be noted in the succeeding sections.
In 30.32 % of 4,066 polling centres voting occurred between 1800 hours and mid night. In 7.18% voting occurred after mid night (that is the 28th of December). Lusaka registered the highest proportion of polling centres where voting took place after mid night (16%).
In the majority of polling centres, there was a queue of intending voters when balloting was stopped. In an estimated 30 percent of the polling stations in the country, people were still queuing up to vote when election agents closed balloting. The worst cases were Chipangali constituency where in 69% of the 41 polling centres people were turned away.
Preliminary estimates shows similar trends at constituency level in Kasenengwa (67%), Mongu West (67%), Moomba (64%), Kawambwa (60%), Mufulira (60%), Kalabo Central (54%), Bweengwa (53%), Chingola (50%), Lusaka Central (48%), %), Kanyama (45%). Vubwi (44%), Monze Central (43%), Sinda (40%) and Kapiri Mposhi (40%).
Estimates of queues with more than 20 people show the prevalence of this in Western province polling centres (38%), Southern (27%), Lusaka (16%), Eastern (12%), Luapula (9%), Central (6%), Northern (5%).[10]
In over thirty percent of the polling centres countrywide intending voters were turned away. Based on the 4,066 centres where this occurred and using a moderate threshold that at least there were over 20 people in the queue, deductive estimates show that over twenty-four thousand (24, 000) eligible voters were turned away.
Further, based on the estimate that in over 50% of the constituencies the number of people still on the queue when balloting was stopped was over 100, it is approximated that over 203 000 people country wide were not allowed to vote.
Preliminary estimates show that although the practice of stopping people on the queue from voting occurred countrywide the occurrence is less prevalent in Luapula, Central and Northern provinces.
The evidenced occurrence of turning away intending voters was against a background of the fact that the Electoral Commission had issued erratic directives that the voting process continues until all individuals intending to cast their vote had done so. Electoral Officials cited fatigue to Coalition monitors as reasons for turning away voters. Examples are in Kawama A in Central Province and Adastra in Choma, Southern Province.
At Chitukuko Basic school in Mtendere, would be voters were turned away by an Electoral official Mr Mukuka who stated that time had run out.
6.3 Ballot Collation and Declaration of results
This section addresses issues related to ballot collation (that is the process of tabulating at constituency level ballot counts from polling centres) and the declaration of results, and the processes' related requisites.
6.3.1 Security
The security of the ballot boxes from the time of balloting to the completion of the count and declaration of results is fundamental to the integrity of an election.
Coalition 2001's observation of transfer of ballot boxes from polling stations to collation centres was constrained. Only in three provinces did the coalition observe the transfer at a relative proportion of above 50% of transfers from polling centres. These provinces are Northern, North-Western and Eastern. This was because of the two categories of facts earlier mentioned. That is accessibility and unwillingness on the part of election agents to allow monitors to accompany the ballot boxes.
However, at some collation centres it was observed that Presiding and Returning Officers left ballot boxes unattended on grounds that they had worked 48 straight hours without food or sleep.
In Lusaka, the Presiding Officers at Munali took ballot boxes to undesignated places such as offices and homes creating grounds for suspicion and bringing the integrity of the electoral process into question.
At
Lotus Basic School, six armed men broke into the strong room and tampered
with the ballot papers. A watchman was stabbed and later died at
the University Teaching Hospital. The ballot papers were unsealed but voting
was allowed to take place.
In Ndola, keys for 4 ballot boxes were lost under suspicious circumstances during transportation of ballot boxes from Ndola Central polling centre to the collation centre. One box in Chilolwa Nakonde was not sealed when brought to the collation centre.
Collation
and declaration of results was undertaken in a fallible and haphazard manner.
The process was delayed and uncoordinated. The Commission had categorically
indicated that the results would be fully declared within 24 hours after
balloting.
In some
centres, collation ended three days after balloting. Citable cases are
Mandevu, Munali and Matero constituencies in Lusaka. In Northern Province,
some ballot boxes were only brought to the collation centre on December
29th two days after elections.
Preliminary
observations show serious variances in results at collation centres with
those from the polling centres. Election results recorded at polling centres
differed with those recorded by the Electoral Commission of Zambia.
Classical
examples were Moomba, Munali, Chongwe and Ndola Central Constituencies.
In Moomba
constituency, the Returning Officer and subsequently Electoral Commission
of Zambia declared 955 votes for UPND candidate Anderson Mazoka as opposed
to about 4000 votes.
In Kasenengwa
constituency (Chipata), National Citizens Coalition (NCC) parliamentary
candidate Winford Msoni got 315 votes as declared at the polling centre.
However, the Electoral Commission of Zambia declared zero (0) vote for
him. This is recorded in the 2001 Parliamentary Elections Provisional
Results for January 2002.
Another example is that of Mwale Esther an Independent candidate for the same constituency who got 707 votes as declared at the polling centre. However, the ECZ 2001 parliamentary elections provisional results for January 2002 declares zero (0) votes for the candidate.
Further,
the collation and declaration of results lacked acceptable transparency[11]
and negated the essence of election monitoring, since in some centres monitors
were not allowed to observe the ballot count.
Access
to observing the collation process was impeded. At some polling stations
in Central and Lusaka Provinces, Presiding Officers demanded that monitors
leave during collation.
A pattern
of misplacement of ballot papers by voters was also established where collation
was observed. Mixing of presidential and parliamentary ballot papers was
prevalent in most polling centres, due to poor guidance to voters by the
electoral officials. In spite of this serious anomaly, the presidential
count was certified valid first by most Returning Officers without due
consideration of the presidential ballot papers erroneously placed in the
parliamentary ballot boxes. This led to failure in tallying valid
votes cast, spoilt ballot and total cast in some poling centres.
It was
also observed that the Commission exhibited selective and "deliberate"
delays in declaration of results. Far-flung places where the party
in government was leading were announced earlier than in nearer constituencies
were collation had already ended. For example, Keembe, Chisamba, Mumbwa,
Chilanga, Katuba and Monze had collated results earlier than the partial
announcement of results from Northern province.
In this
respect, Coalition 2001's intent to provide a parallel vote tabulation
as a basis of comparison with the Commission's declared results could not
be undertaken as the Commission has restricted access to polling centre
ballot counts.
In any
case, the results declared by the Electoral Commission to date and published
in the Commission's January 2002 Provisional Results documents on the presidential
and parliamentary elections show serious discrepancies in the number of
votes cast for presidential and parliamentary polls.
Estimates
show that In 11% of the constituencies constituting 259 841 ballots declared
valid there are 500 and more votes cast in the presidential poll than in
the parliamentary poll. Similarly, in 16 per cent of the constituencies
constituting 286 624 ballots there are 500 and more votes cast in the parliamentary
poll than in the presidential poll.[12]
When, the total votes cast are considered, estimates show that 15% of the constituencies accounting for 276 593 ballots have variances of over 500 in the presidential poll, and nearly 26% accounting for 453 550 votes in the parliamentary poll.
It is noteworthy to mention that, this variance should be contextualised with respect to the fact that a considerable number of individuals were administratively disenfranchised.
7.0 Conduct
of Electoral Commission Agents
For an
electoral process to maintain its integrity, the polling officials must
conduct themselves in a professional manner. This was absent in most
polling centres.
A04141t
polling centres such as Nabvutika in Chipata, the Presiding Officer on
number of occasions followed voters in the booths to influence them in
their choice of candidates. This was also the case in Kasempa, at
Lufupa polling station, where the Presiding Officer strongly insisted that
he help the voters in the booth, even after objections from the political
party agents as well as monitors present.
At Lulaka
polling station in Lwangeni Constituency, the Presiding Officer did not
allow any relative or friend to assist voters that needed assistance turning
out to be the only person that provided such assistance.
In a significant
number of collation centres, Presiding Officers simply damped ballot boxes
at the centres, because of exhaustion owing to the extended work hours.
In other instances, Returning Officers deserted their stations owing to
exhaustion and hunger. Verification of results and security at collation
centres was thus highly compromised.
In provinces like Lusaka, Eastern and Southern, cases were Presiding Officers opened ballot boxes awaiting transportation to collation centres, were observed.
8.0 "Unknown Electoral Commission Personnel" – The Third Force
An outstanding and unexplained occurrence that was observed on Election Day was the presence of personnel from ZISS at polling centres.
In Luangwa constituency, an Officer from ZISS served as an electoral Officer.
In Mandevu, during collation, a high ranking officer from ZISS is reported as having been involved in the challenge that occured after political party agents disagreed with the Returning Officer, Mr. Sonny Mulenga between 0130-0230 on December 28.
It
is inarguable that ZISS has no role in the administration of the election,
and in particular collation and declaration of results. Unless, they
were "the third force"!
The desire
to exercise individual's right to make political choices is often assessed
through the number of voters that turn up to cast their vote. The December
27 elections were characterised by an estimated 68 per cent of the 2.6
million eligible voters casting their vote. Preliminary estimates show
the highest voter turn out occurring in Roan constituency (90%), Chavuma
(86%), and Chasefu (82%). The lowest turn out occurred in Chawama (47%),
Shiwang'andu (51%), and Nyimba and Lufwanyama (55%).
Factors
that constrained voter participation in most provinces are the inadequate
administrative preparedness relating to commencement and end of balloting.
In addition to the pre-election constraints like the inadequacies of voter
registration and the impediments to the right to assembly and use of the
public media by competing political groupings.
The integrity
of any election is greatly determined by an electoral agency's diligence
in managing and harmonising the cardinal facets of an electoral process.
The observations in this report show that the administration and management
of polls of December 27, 2001 were far from the expected and acceptable
practices in a democratic society. Issues of transparency and accountability
with respect to the technical execution of the polls (like collation and
declaration of results) were and are still totally absent.
First,
that
the Electoral Commission of Zambia assented and declared results that formed
the basis of continuity of government, when such results and the process
under which individual's exercise the right to make political choices was
severely constrained by the Commission's self created and induced mal-administration
is a violation people's right to make political choices.
Second,
that
not every individual who sought to exercise his or her right to make political
choices was administratively facilitated and that the results were declared
with the full knowledge of their unreliability puts into question the legitimacy
of whosoever ascends to government office based on an electoral process
fraught with irregularities.
Third,
that
to declare unreliable and unverified results correct, and argue that aggrieved
parties can seek recourse in the courts of law, when there is irrefutable
evidence that the process under which the results were derived is fallible,
is a negation of the fundament tenet that a democratic government draws
its legitimacy from an electoral process and not the law.
Fourth,
that
a "Third Force" was acknowledged and allowed to participate in the administration
of the electoral process, is a testimony of the desire to maintain political
hegemony and the status quo.
Coalition
2001 finds the December 27, 2001 elections in Zambia severely lacking in
integrity, and that the public agency tasked with the administrative and
management of the elections "exempted" itself of the responsibility to
guarantee that the right to make political choices is respected.
The issues provided in this report makes the Coalition 2001 categorically question:
§The legitimacy of the continuity of governance legally assented to by the Chief justice as Returning Officer at the Supreme Court grounds
§Whether
the individual right to make political choices was guaranteed.
In
conclusion, it is very difficult for any serious and reasonable individual
or group of individuals to affirm that the December 2001 elections in Zambia
were free and fair
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ngande Mwanajiti
Chair, Coalition 2001
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail: ngande@afronet.org.zm
Web
Address: http://afronet.org.za
Maimbolwa Muuba
Program Officer
Afronet
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail:
maimbolwa@afronet.org.zm
Mbinji-Tange Mufalo
Afronet Consultant
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail:
mbinji@afronet.org.zm
FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matembo Zimba
Coalition 2001
Monitor Building
Karachi Street
Kamwala
-END –
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ngande Mwanajiti
Chair, Coalition 2001
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail: ngande@afronet.org.zm
Web
Address: http://afronet.org.za
Maimbolwa Muuba
Program Officer
Afronet
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail:
mainmbolwa@afronet.org.zm
Mbinji-Tange Mufalo
Afronet Consultant - Research and Fact Finding
Tel: +260 25 18 13-44
E-mail: mbinji@afronet.org.zm
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matembo Zimba
Coalition 2001
Monitor Building
Karachi Street
Kamwala
Tel: +260 23 67 35