Mbumba ‘not a presiding officer’ of the ECN
Only the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) had the authority to extend voting in the November 2024 general elections, and even then, this would only be allowed before the polls opened, not after they had closed, opposition lawyers told the Supreme Court yesterday.
As such, President Nangolo Mbumba acted beyond the scope of his authority when he controversially extended voting in specific areas, the court heard at the start of the hearing in which the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) and the Landless People’s Movement (LPM) are challenging the legality of that election’s outcome.
Elections were originally slated to be held only on 27 November, but Mbumba, allegedly on the recommendation of the ECN, issued a proclamation extending the elections to 30 November.
Extended voting only took place at selected polling stations in Oshikoto, Oshana, Khomas and Kunene regions.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the dispute brought by Panduleni Itula (IPC) and Bernadus Swartbooi (LPM), challenging the legality of Mbumba’s decision to extend the election dates.
The opposition leaders argue that the president acted unlawfully and exceeded his authority.
No concrete evidence
Advocate Raymond Heathcote, representing President Mbumba, dismissed the opposition's claims yesterday, arguing that their allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Heathcote emphasised that accusations of irregularities, such as ‘bussing in Angolan voters’, are based on social media rumours and lack concrete evidence before the court. He pointed out the lack of proof for the IPC's claim that 100 000 Namibians were denied the right to vote.
"Itula has gone to the press, making unsubstantiated statements and calling on people to submit documents and evidence,” he told the court.
"Because as soon as the writing is on the wall, and every agent in the field sends the results on the wall through, you quickly do your calculations and say, oh, I failed again. Let's just start complaining and look for reasons to challenge, and let's feed the nation with false facts.”
He added: “And that is what always happens. You guys must come with facts. Stop the rumour mongers. And again, we have that. And it is time now, these facts; it is also permissible to say, now you're paying the cost. Stop it. If you have valid complaints, then you come to me," Heathcote said.
Violation of law
Advocate Kameel Premhid, representing the LPM, argued that the extension violated the Electoral Act.
"The respondents acted unlawfully by extending the election after the polling period had already ended," he said.
Premhid based this argument on legal precedents establishing that public officials must act within legally defined powers and that actions lacking legal basis are invalid.
“The Electoral Act doesn't give the president the power to extend under the appropriate circumstances. It's either the presiding officers, which you will know, the presiding officers have the power to extend voting for anyone who is in the line when the voting cut-off period happens. The president is not a presiding officer. So assuming there was this power of extension, he can't rely on that,” he argued.
Extension the focus
Premhid emphasised that the case is focused on the lawfulness of the election extension and that the LPM and IPC contend that if the extension wasn't authorised by law, it is automatically invalid.
“The core claim is that the statute must explicitly authorise the election extension. If the law does not grant such power, then the extension is unlawful, and the court must declare it invalid. The argument suggests that legal precedent supports the High Court’s role in upholding constitutional compliance by ensuring that public officials do not act beyond their legal mandate,” he said.
Meanwhile, deputy chief justice Petrus Damaseb yesterday questioned Anton Katz, representing IPC president Itula, why he is seeking a full election invalidation instead of a self-review, while Supreme Court judge Sylvester Mainga raised concerns over the lack of explicit arguments and supporting evidence in Itula’s case to support any wrongdoings.
Katz, representing Itula, contended that Mbumba lacked the power to extend the elections and that only the ECN holds that authority.
Katz maintained that the legal basis for the challenge warrants a full annulment of the election.
The matter continues today.
[email protected]
As such, President Nangolo Mbumba acted beyond the scope of his authority when he controversially extended voting in specific areas, the court heard at the start of the hearing in which the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) and the Landless People’s Movement (LPM) are challenging the legality of that election’s outcome.
Elections were originally slated to be held only on 27 November, but Mbumba, allegedly on the recommendation of the ECN, issued a proclamation extending the elections to 30 November.
Extended voting only took place at selected polling stations in Oshikoto, Oshana, Khomas and Kunene regions.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the dispute brought by Panduleni Itula (IPC) and Bernadus Swartbooi (LPM), challenging the legality of Mbumba’s decision to extend the election dates.
The opposition leaders argue that the president acted unlawfully and exceeded his authority.
No concrete evidence
Advocate Raymond Heathcote, representing President Mbumba, dismissed the opposition's claims yesterday, arguing that their allegations remain unsubstantiated.
Heathcote emphasised that accusations of irregularities, such as ‘bussing in Angolan voters’, are based on social media rumours and lack concrete evidence before the court. He pointed out the lack of proof for the IPC's claim that 100 000 Namibians were denied the right to vote.
"Itula has gone to the press, making unsubstantiated statements and calling on people to submit documents and evidence,” he told the court.
"Because as soon as the writing is on the wall, and every agent in the field sends the results on the wall through, you quickly do your calculations and say, oh, I failed again. Let's just start complaining and look for reasons to challenge, and let's feed the nation with false facts.”
He added: “And that is what always happens. You guys must come with facts. Stop the rumour mongers. And again, we have that. And it is time now, these facts; it is also permissible to say, now you're paying the cost. Stop it. If you have valid complaints, then you come to me," Heathcote said.
Violation of law
Advocate Kameel Premhid, representing the LPM, argued that the extension violated the Electoral Act.
"The respondents acted unlawfully by extending the election after the polling period had already ended," he said.
Premhid based this argument on legal precedents establishing that public officials must act within legally defined powers and that actions lacking legal basis are invalid.
“The Electoral Act doesn't give the president the power to extend under the appropriate circumstances. It's either the presiding officers, which you will know, the presiding officers have the power to extend voting for anyone who is in the line when the voting cut-off period happens. The president is not a presiding officer. So assuming there was this power of extension, he can't rely on that,” he argued.
Extension the focus
Premhid emphasised that the case is focused on the lawfulness of the election extension and that the LPM and IPC contend that if the extension wasn't authorised by law, it is automatically invalid.
“The core claim is that the statute must explicitly authorise the election extension. If the law does not grant such power, then the extension is unlawful, and the court must declare it invalid. The argument suggests that legal precedent supports the High Court’s role in upholding constitutional compliance by ensuring that public officials do not act beyond their legal mandate,” he said.
Meanwhile, deputy chief justice Petrus Damaseb yesterday questioned Anton Katz, representing IPC president Itula, why he is seeking a full election invalidation instead of a self-review, while Supreme Court judge Sylvester Mainga raised concerns over the lack of explicit arguments and supporting evidence in Itula’s case to support any wrongdoings.
Katz, representing Itula, contended that Mbumba lacked the power to extend the elections and that only the ECN holds that authority.
Katz maintained that the legal basis for the challenge warrants a full annulment of the election.
The matter continues today.
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article