Opposition back IPC, LPM ahead of showdown

Ahead of today's anticipated court drama, leaders of several Namibian opposition parties have voiced their support for the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) and Landless People's Movement (LPM) in their court challenges against the results of last year's Presidential and National Assembly elections.



The National Assembly electoral court challenge begins today at 10:00 in B-Court, before Judges Johanna Hannelie Prinsloo, Orben Sibeya, and Esi Schimming-Chase.



Henk Mudge, president of the Republican Party, emphasised the importance of the case, stating: "This court case is extremely important, and it must end with a decision in favor of the applicants; otherwise, we lose everything. We must win, and we must get a re-election because the people out there know what happened."



According to Mudge, allegations of election tampering were so blatant that opposition parties decided shortly after the first day of voting to take the matter to court. He explained that the IPC acted swiftly, filing their challenge ahead of others, with the LPM following suit. Rather than submitting separate cases, other opposition parties chose to support the IPC and LPM as the frontrunners in the legal battle.



Mudge further alleges that votes for his party inexplicably disappeared, the voting process was manipulated to intimidate voters. “ECN is in bed with Swapo, and Zanu-PF is also involved. If we hold a new election, we will need a new ECN as well,” he said.



At the event, Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) secretary general Immanuel Ngaringombe emphasised that today is significant for his party, as the election also impacts the official opposition. He stated that the PDM fully supports the IPC and LPM cases and expects the two applications to eventually be handled as one.



According to the All People's Party (APP) representative Marius Goraseb, his party will not stand by idly and accept a government that came to power illegally.



Mike Kavekotora, president of the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP), explained that the joint decision was made by opposition parties when they realised the elections had been rigged. “This election was not free, fair, or credible but a sophisticated allocation of votes by the ECN in the Zanu-PF style,” he said. He claimed Zimbabwe’s ruling party had taught Swapo and the ECN how to manipulate elections in a more refined manner. November’s election, he argued, was an example of systematic electoral fraud.



Representing the Namibia Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF), Michael Saddam Amushelelo asserted that it is every Namibian’s duty to stand up and defend the country’s democracy in any way necessary. He alleged that the ECN and Swapo are in collusion, and if the courts do not rule against them, other actions will be considered. “Some of us are ready to protect our constitution,” he insisted.



Swapo defends its slim victory



Swapo has dismissed the election dispute as baseless, likening IPC's behaviour to "a child throwing a tantrum after losing."



The ruling party accused IPC of resorting to lying under oath and spinning stories backed by unsubstantiated WhatsApp chats rather than providing credible evidence.



Swapo maintains that the IPC lacks proof to support its claim that the November elections were illegal, relying instead on hearsay.



In its heads of argument prepared for the electoral hearing in the Electoral Court today, Swapo accused the IPC of opposing the elections "for the mere sake of it" and failing to present a viable alternative.



Swapo’s legal counsel, Sisa Namandje, challenged the IPC to clarify its plan if the election results were set aside by the court. He emphasised that IPC had failed to propose any actionable steps, as it did in its previous application to the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the presidential election.



“IPC consciously elected not to seek any structural order outlining what must happen if the court grants their request. Instead, they presented an abstract case,” Namandje argued.



He raised several critical questions:



* If the court grants the orders sought by IPC, what then?

* Who will take immediate action, and when?

* Does the President need to issue a new proclamation under Section 64(1) of the Act to set a new date for candidate nominations for the National Assembly?

* Does the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) need to appoint new returning officers and election officials to restart the process?

* Do parties need to submit fresh nominations of National Assembly candidates, given IPC’s broad attack on the election's validity?



Namandje argued that the orders sought by IPC were ineffectual and violated legal principles related to the purpose of court orders, urging the court to avoid leaving room for further disputes.



Swapo also defended President Nangolo Mbumba’s constitutional authority to extend the elections, a move IPC claims violated the Namibian Constitution.



The ruling party argued that the president’s implied powers to extend voting periods in exceptional circumstances—such as natural disasters or the absence of ballot papers at certain polling stations—were necessary to protect citizens' fundamental voting rights.



“In cases of serious circumstances, such as obstructive floods or the absence of ballot papers, which may deny voters their right to vote, the President is fully entitled to rely on his implied powers to extend the voting period. This ensures the full realization and purpose of the electoral process,” Swapo argued.



IPC have flown in South African senior counsel, Advocate Anton Katz, to lead their arguments in court. - [email protected]