Itula: Let’s accept and move on
Dr. Panduleni Itula, president of the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC), has called on his supporters to accept and move forward following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling against the party and the Landless People’s Movement (LPM). The two opposition parties had sought to have the November 2024 presidential election declared invalid, alleging irregularities and challenging the legality of the extended voting period. However, the court dismissed their application, affirming that the extension was lawful and necessary to ensure all eligible voters could cast their ballots.
In response to the ruling, Itula acknowledged the outcome and urged both political leaders and citizens to respect constitutional decisions. He remarked, “Of course, the judiciary was at trial here, and so was Namibia and the Namibian democratic process as well. Who emerged victorious? The Namibian people themselves. And I don’t think that it’s time to throw stones and to blame everybody else for anything they have done.” Itula emphasized the importance of moving forward rather than dwelling on past grievances. He stated, “If anyone has got a grief, there is still an opportunity for anyone to come back. That is not going to be IPC, however. What we need to do is to learn to take decisions and to abide by decisions and to move on from there, and not to dig in the past. Namibia will never develop if we constantly continue to blame each other.”
The court case revolved around a proclamation by President Nangolo Mbumba to extend the elections on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN). Voting was extended to 29 and 30 November 2024 due to logistical and technical challenges. The IPC and LPM contended that the extension was an abuse of power that compromised the election's integrity. They also alleged the occurrence of irregularities during the voting process but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims.
A significant aspect of the case was the role of Occurrence Books (OBs), which are maintained at polling stations to document complaints and incidents. According to the Electoral Act, any event or complaint not recorded in an occurrence book is legally deemed not to have occurred. The ECN, Swapo, and other respondents argued that the claims of the IPC and LPM were inadmissible because they were not documented in the OBs. In his ruling, Chief Justice Peter Shivute underscored the necessity of adhering to legal procedures for recording electoral complaints. He stated, “The broad common thread running through the respondents’ answers to Dr. Itula’s allegations of irregularities is that those allegations should not be entertained because of non-compliance with Section 204 of the Electoral Act.”
Furthermore, the IPC and LPM argued that extending the voting period was unconstitutional and conferred excessive power on the president. However, the court clarified that the president does not have the unilateral authority to extend voting. Any such extension must be based on a recommendation from the ECN, ensuring that the decision protects the right to vote rather than serving political interests. The court also determined that the additional voting days constituted a continuation of the election rather than the scheduling of new polling dates.
Dr. Itula’s conciliatory tone following the ruling has been seen as a call for political maturity and unity. Emphasizing the need for national progress, he urged Namibians to accept the court's decision and focus on building the nation. His message of acceptance and moving forward highlights the importance of respecting the constitutional order and democratic processes in Namibia.
In response to the ruling, Itula acknowledged the outcome and urged both political leaders and citizens to respect constitutional decisions. He remarked, “Of course, the judiciary was at trial here, and so was Namibia and the Namibian democratic process as well. Who emerged victorious? The Namibian people themselves. And I don’t think that it’s time to throw stones and to blame everybody else for anything they have done.” Itula emphasized the importance of moving forward rather than dwelling on past grievances. He stated, “If anyone has got a grief, there is still an opportunity for anyone to come back. That is not going to be IPC, however. What we need to do is to learn to take decisions and to abide by decisions and to move on from there, and not to dig in the past. Namibia will never develop if we constantly continue to blame each other.”
The court case revolved around a proclamation by President Nangolo Mbumba to extend the elections on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN). Voting was extended to 29 and 30 November 2024 due to logistical and technical challenges. The IPC and LPM contended that the extension was an abuse of power that compromised the election's integrity. They also alleged the occurrence of irregularities during the voting process but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims.
A significant aspect of the case was the role of Occurrence Books (OBs), which are maintained at polling stations to document complaints and incidents. According to the Electoral Act, any event or complaint not recorded in an occurrence book is legally deemed not to have occurred. The ECN, Swapo, and other respondents argued that the claims of the IPC and LPM were inadmissible because they were not documented in the OBs. In his ruling, Chief Justice Peter Shivute underscored the necessity of adhering to legal procedures for recording electoral complaints. He stated, “The broad common thread running through the respondents’ answers to Dr. Itula’s allegations of irregularities is that those allegations should not be entertained because of non-compliance with Section 204 of the Electoral Act.”
Furthermore, the IPC and LPM argued that extending the voting period was unconstitutional and conferred excessive power on the president. However, the court clarified that the president does not have the unilateral authority to extend voting. Any such extension must be based on a recommendation from the ECN, ensuring that the decision protects the right to vote rather than serving political interests. The court also determined that the additional voting days constituted a continuation of the election rather than the scheduling of new polling dates.
Dr. Itula’s conciliatory tone following the ruling has been seen as a call for political maturity and unity. Emphasizing the need for national progress, he urged Namibians to accept the court's decision and focus on building the nation. His message of acceptance and moving forward highlights the importance of respecting the constitutional order and democratic processes in Namibia.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article