Mbumba: Itula just makes noise
Supreme Court hearing to resume
Both Mbumba and president-elect Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, whose victory is being contested, have launched scathing attacks in court papers ahead of the Supreme Court showdown.
President Nangolo Mbumba has dismissed Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) leader Dr Panduleni Itula’s legal challenge to the 2024 presidential election results, accusing him of making baseless "noise".
Mbumba, who is set to transfer presidential powers to Swapo’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah following her declared victory, criticised Itula and Landless People’s Movement (LPM) leader Bernadus Swartbooi for allegedly distorting constitutional and electoral laws to suit their arguments.
“As head of state, I have a mandate to protect Chapter three rights. The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution. When circumstances arose preventing some eligible voters from exercising their rights, I acted to ensure their participation. Itula is simply making noise,” Mbumba asserted in court documents recently.
Mbumba argued that Itula is attempting to impose a constitutional interpretation that aligns with his agenda, stressing that courts typically uphold public elections rather than nullify them. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on 10 and 11 February.
The president also dismissed Swartbooi’s allegations of power abuse, calling them unfounded and speculative.
Fact-starved case
President-elect Nandi-Ndaitwah, whose victory is being contested, described Itula’s legal arguments as weak and lacking factual substance in court papers.
She rejected claims that Namibians were denied their constitutional right to vote due to ballot shortages, arguing that Mbumba’s intervention was necessary to facilitate voting. She also dismissed Itula’s reliance on IPC national general secretary Christine !Aochamus’ testimony, arguing that her claims of inspecting ballot materials at the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) were false.
“Itula alleges a series of irregularities but has abandoned many of them in his submissions. His case is weaker than previous electoral challenges brought before this court. It should be dismissed with attorney and own-client costs, including the cost of three legal counsel,” Nandi-Ndaitwah declared.
A stolen election?
Itula maintains that the elections were fraught with irregularities, arguing that the ECN failed in its legal duty to address these, thereby compromising the election’s legitimacy.
“Instead, the commission and Mbumba embarked on an unlawful course of action. The commission neglected its obligation to act independently by seeking advice from Attorney General Festus Mbandeka. It then unlawfully recommended that Mbumba extend polling after voting had already taken place, despite lacking the legal authority to do so. The president acted unlawfully, as he has no legal power to extend the polling period,” Itula asserted.
He contends that voters were disenfranchised on 27 November 2024, as only 36 voting districts were granted an extension while the rest of the country was denied the same opportunity.
“This contradicts the principle of free and fair elections, which require equal participation for all eligible voters. Where widespread disenfranchisement occurs, courts must not hesitate to nullify the election,” Itula added.
Itula also questioned the ECN’s decision to seek legal counsel from Mbandeka, alleging political bias due to his ties to Swapo. He argued that the commission failed to act independently and should have sought a self-review of the election results instead.
“The ECN breached its legal obligations. Rather than acting independently, it consulted the attorney general, who has a vested interest in the election’s outcome. After this meeting, it recommended an unlawful extension of the election. Had the ECN upheld its duty, it would have pursued a self-review of the election, as done in Electoral Commission v Swapo Party of Namibia,” Itula argued.
The Supreme Court's ruling on this matter will be closely watched as it could set a precedent for future electoral disputes in Namibia.
[email protected]
Mbumba, who is set to transfer presidential powers to Swapo’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah following her declared victory, criticised Itula and Landless People’s Movement (LPM) leader Bernadus Swartbooi for allegedly distorting constitutional and electoral laws to suit their arguments.
“As head of state, I have a mandate to protect Chapter three rights. The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution. When circumstances arose preventing some eligible voters from exercising their rights, I acted to ensure their participation. Itula is simply making noise,” Mbumba asserted in court documents recently.
Mbumba argued that Itula is attempting to impose a constitutional interpretation that aligns with his agenda, stressing that courts typically uphold public elections rather than nullify them. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on 10 and 11 February.
The president also dismissed Swartbooi’s allegations of power abuse, calling them unfounded and speculative.
Fact-starved case
President-elect Nandi-Ndaitwah, whose victory is being contested, described Itula’s legal arguments as weak and lacking factual substance in court papers.
She rejected claims that Namibians were denied their constitutional right to vote due to ballot shortages, arguing that Mbumba’s intervention was necessary to facilitate voting. She also dismissed Itula’s reliance on IPC national general secretary Christine !Aochamus’ testimony, arguing that her claims of inspecting ballot materials at the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) were false.
“Itula alleges a series of irregularities but has abandoned many of them in his submissions. His case is weaker than previous electoral challenges brought before this court. It should be dismissed with attorney and own-client costs, including the cost of three legal counsel,” Nandi-Ndaitwah declared.
A stolen election?
Itula maintains that the elections were fraught with irregularities, arguing that the ECN failed in its legal duty to address these, thereby compromising the election’s legitimacy.
“Instead, the commission and Mbumba embarked on an unlawful course of action. The commission neglected its obligation to act independently by seeking advice from Attorney General Festus Mbandeka. It then unlawfully recommended that Mbumba extend polling after voting had already taken place, despite lacking the legal authority to do so. The president acted unlawfully, as he has no legal power to extend the polling period,” Itula asserted.
He contends that voters were disenfranchised on 27 November 2024, as only 36 voting districts were granted an extension while the rest of the country was denied the same opportunity.
“This contradicts the principle of free and fair elections, which require equal participation for all eligible voters. Where widespread disenfranchisement occurs, courts must not hesitate to nullify the election,” Itula added.
Itula also questioned the ECN’s decision to seek legal counsel from Mbandeka, alleging political bias due to his ties to Swapo. He argued that the commission failed to act independently and should have sought a self-review of the election results instead.
“The ECN breached its legal obligations. Rather than acting independently, it consulted the attorney general, who has a vested interest in the election’s outcome. After this meeting, it recommended an unlawful extension of the election. Had the ECN upheld its duty, it would have pursued a self-review of the election, as done in Electoral Commission v Swapo Party of Namibia,” Itula argued.
The Supreme Court's ruling on this matter will be closely watched as it could set a precedent for future electoral disputes in Namibia.
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article