Swartbooi: Extended voting 'vandalised’ Namibian constitution
Party clarifies its court demands
At the heart of LPM's legal challenge is the extension that allowed voting to continue from 27 November at 21:00 until 30 November at 21:00.
Leader of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM), Bernadus Swartbooi, has explained the party’s court fight against the 2024 general election’s results is not primarily about irregularities but rather about what he described as the “vandalism of the Constitution” over the extension of voting days by President Nangolo Mbumba.
LPM and the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) are challenging the manner the elections were held.
During a press conference on Thursday, Swartbooi elaborated on the party's ongoing legal battle against Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) chairperson Elsie Nghikembua, CEO Petrus Shaama, Mbumba, and Attorney General Festus Mbandeka over the disputed 27 November general elections, from which LPM secured five National Assembly seats.
Swartbooi, a trained lawyer, condemned the extension of the elections as unconstitutional, branding Proclamation 34 of 2024 "illegal and void." He argued that Mbumba had no legal authority to alter the election dates and that once the ECN set the original dates under Proclamation 28, its powers had been exhausted.
"No law permitted them to revisit those dates and create new ones," he said.
At the heart of LPM’s legal challenge is the extension that allowed voting to continue from 27 November at 21:00 until 30 November at 21:00. Swartbooi contended that the ECN should have sought a legal remedy through the courts instead of extending the election period through executive action.
"Their actions went beyond their legal powers and were ultra vires, unlawful, and void," he asserted.
Constitutional violations
Swartbooi outlined several constitutional violations that LPM believes rendered the elections unlawful. He argued that Article 17 was violated by disenfranchising voters in regions that were not affected by the initial delays, effectively giving some areas extended voting periods while others were left out. Furthermore, he pointed to Article 10, stating that the election extension created unequal voting conditions, disproportionately benefiting regions aligned with the ruling Swapo Party.
Additionally, he cited Article 18, which guarantees administrative justice, claiming that the ECN failed to follow due process in altering the election schedule. He also referenced Article 31(1), asserting that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by amending an election timeline, an action that should have been handled through legal channels. Lastly, he claimed that Article 94(b) was breached, arguing that the ECN compromised its independence by allowing political interference in the election process.
"These violations render the elections completely unlawful, irrational, and void ab initio. This is why Deputy Chief Justice Damaseb referred to it as the 'vandalism of the constitution,'" Swartbooi stated.
Unlike other election challenges, LPM’s case does not focus on irregularities but rather on constitutional breaches that allegedly invalidate the results. Swartbooi argued that Namibia essentially held two elections: one on 27 November and another on 29-30 November, which was retroactively merged to appear as a single process.
"They have tried to create a rational basis for the extension, but they cannot explain it," he said. - [email protected]
LPM and the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) are challenging the manner the elections were held.
During a press conference on Thursday, Swartbooi elaborated on the party's ongoing legal battle against Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) chairperson Elsie Nghikembua, CEO Petrus Shaama, Mbumba, and Attorney General Festus Mbandeka over the disputed 27 November general elections, from which LPM secured five National Assembly seats.
Swartbooi, a trained lawyer, condemned the extension of the elections as unconstitutional, branding Proclamation 34 of 2024 "illegal and void." He argued that Mbumba had no legal authority to alter the election dates and that once the ECN set the original dates under Proclamation 28, its powers had been exhausted.
"No law permitted them to revisit those dates and create new ones," he said.
At the heart of LPM’s legal challenge is the extension that allowed voting to continue from 27 November at 21:00 until 30 November at 21:00. Swartbooi contended that the ECN should have sought a legal remedy through the courts instead of extending the election period through executive action.
"Their actions went beyond their legal powers and were ultra vires, unlawful, and void," he asserted.
Constitutional violations
Swartbooi outlined several constitutional violations that LPM believes rendered the elections unlawful. He argued that Article 17 was violated by disenfranchising voters in regions that were not affected by the initial delays, effectively giving some areas extended voting periods while others were left out. Furthermore, he pointed to Article 10, stating that the election extension created unequal voting conditions, disproportionately benefiting regions aligned with the ruling Swapo Party.
Additionally, he cited Article 18, which guarantees administrative justice, claiming that the ECN failed to follow due process in altering the election schedule. He also referenced Article 31(1), asserting that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by amending an election timeline, an action that should have been handled through legal channels. Lastly, he claimed that Article 94(b) was breached, arguing that the ECN compromised its independence by allowing political interference in the election process.
"These violations render the elections completely unlawful, irrational, and void ab initio. This is why Deputy Chief Justice Damaseb referred to it as the 'vandalism of the constitution,'" Swartbooi stated.
Unlike other election challenges, LPM’s case does not focus on irregularities but rather on constitutional breaches that allegedly invalidate the results. Swartbooi argued that Namibia essentially held two elections: one on 27 November and another on 29-30 November, which was retroactively merged to appear as a single process.
"They have tried to create a rational basis for the extension, but they cannot explain it," he said. - [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article