Political parties never responded to MEC’s explanation as regards to independent audit of its election management system

MEC chairperson Justice Annabel Mtalimanja 

* Queries that were demanded by AFORD, DPP, UDF, PP and the UTM Party whose responses were sent direct to

* The concerns attracted public attention that were a cause for violent demonstrations in Lilongwe

By Duncan Mlanjira

At the meeting with all the 24 registered political parties and representatives of aspiring independent candidates held yesterday in Lilongwe, Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) chairperson, Justice Annabel Mtalimanja reported political parties never responded to MEC’s explanation as regards to independent audit of its election management system.

The chairperson appraised the gathering that during a previous engagement, MEC acknowledged receiving Concept Note and Scope of the Independent Audit of MEC’s election management system (the Scope) — which was jointly presented by Alliance for Democracy (AFORD), Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), United Democratic Front (UDF), Peoples Party (PP) and the UTM Party.

She reiterated that MEC responded to the demand for the audit of its Scope, which was sent to the concerned political partes directly — and as of now, MEC “has not received any follow-up reply to the response which made it necessary to conclude that the political parties considered the merits of the Commission’s decision”.

“Now, considering that the matter concerning the audit of its Election Management System has continued to attract public attention and has actually been a cause for violent demonstrations, the Commission wishes to inform all political parties and in the same effort, all electoral stakeholders that the decision to dismiss the demand for an audit of its Election Management System was based on a careful review and extensive technical, legal, and operational analysis.”

She emphasised that MEC “has been deliberate and forthcoming in providing relevant data, statistics and information including duplicate entries and photographic anomalies, which were flagged and disclosed to political parties by the Commission itself during stakeholder consultations”.

She thus reiterated that in its report to the National Elections Consultative Forum (NECOF) on April 30, MEC “made it clear that a demand for an audit of Election Management System (EMS) must be based on a clearly defined scope and anchored on specific irregularities or anomalies observed”.

She indicated that the Scope MEC received “did not point to any irregularities in MEC’s processes occasioned by the EMS. The submitted Scope resembled a structured forensic investigation rather than a professional ICT assurance review exercise.

“The Scope presumed irregularities or systemic failure without presenting any evidence of such. Moreover, the Scope contains numerous technical misconceptions — for example:

* It referred to technologies and processes such as automated polling stations, electronic voting and automated vote counting, that the Commission has, on numerous occasions, stated are not part of the 2025 General Election electoral process.

* These elements are not components or modules of the current EMS configuration in use by the Commission. The analysis conducted by the Commission revealed that the said technologies and processes were drawn from generic documentation on Smartmatic systems or practices.

* However, stakeholders are aware that the Commission’s EMS is custom developed in all aspects, including the Election Management Devices.”

She further explained that the Scope was proposing an audit process which was seeking access to and scrutiny MEC’s core systems and infrastructure “in a manner that would compromise the system security, institutional control, and the Commission’s ability to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.

“The Commission communicated a view that to allow such an audit would be setting a dangerous precedent suggesting that a stakeholder can set aside or usurp the Commission’s constitutional and legal independence.

She emphasised that MEC further referred to section 76 (4) of the Constitution which mandates the pollster “to exercise its powers, functions, and duties independent of any direction or interference by any other authority or person”.

“Additionally, under section 76 (2) (c) and (d) of the Constitution, the Commission is bestowed with the following duties:

(i) to determine electoral petitions and complaints related to the conduct of any elections; and

(ii) to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and any Act of Parliament.

“The Commission was not presented with any petition alleging any irregularities in the electoral processes that have been implemented so far. There is no statutory or legal authority to mandate the Commission to submit to an externally imposed audit of its internal systems without it being based on a complaint or petition alleging irregularities or other illegalities in the Commission’s electoral processes.

“It is on the basis of the foregoing that the Commission decided not to proceed with, nor approve, the proposed audit,” emphasised the High Court Judge.

On MEC decisions, Justice Mtalimanja highlighted that they are collectively — stressing that the chairperson, the Commissioners or the Chief Elections Officer “do not make decisions on any election matter independent of the Commission as a board”.

“Further the Commission would like to highlight and make it clear that Political parties and all other electoral stakeholders have a remedy in the law if they are of the view that the Commission is exercising its powers and functions unlawfully or overstepping its legal mandate.

“If a political party or candidate is of view that the Commission is in breach of the law, they have the right to petition the Commission or to apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the Commission exercise of its powers under the Constitution and Acts of Parliament.

“This right is provided under section 76 (5) (a) which states that — ‘the High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain applications for judicial review of the exercise by the Malawi Electoral Commission of its powers and functions to ensure that such powers and functions were duly exercised in accordance with this Constitution or any Act of Parliament’.

“Therefore, the Commission would like to urge all stakeholders that this remedy is available and offers a more cogent way of establishing the legality or lack of it in all the decisions which have so far been made by the Commission.”

Results management

She also reiterated on the results management process, highlighting that MEC already outlined it to political parties — that they will “entirely be based on the legal provisions of the Malawi Electoral Commission Act and the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act, 2023”.

“The process has been designed to ensure integrity, transparency, and public confidence in the declaration of results.

“Vote counting shall be conducted at the polling station immediately after polling closes. It will follow a set order, starting with the Presidential, followed by the Parliamentary, and finally, Local Government elections.

“The law provides specific timelines within which the Commission must declare results, and these will be adhered to. For 2025, the Commission will adopt a hybrid results transmission approach, combining manual delivery of the physical result sheets and the electronic transmission of scanned copies and computer-generated results sheets to the National Tally Centre.

“This dual method enhances accuracy and safeguards the vote through cross verification which will be made possible by utilising these two processes.

“The results management process will begin with ballot paper reconciliation and votes counting at the polling station. Results will be recorded using official forms and signed by the Presiding Officer, polling staff, and party or candidate representatives present.

“Copies of the result sheets will be distributed to party and candidate representatives, and one shall be pasted at the polling station for public transparency.

“All electoral materials, including sealed ballot boxes, result forms, and related documents, shall be securely packaged and transported to the Constituency Tally Centres (CTCs), where results will be verified, captured, scanned, and transmitted to the District and National Tally Centres (DTCs and NTC).

“The process at each level includes verification of complaints and full documentation. At every tally centre, the results shall be signed and shared with political party and independent candidate representatives present at that time.

“At the National Tally Centre, final verification, analysis, and certification of results will be conducted. The Commission will review all complaints and void votes that could impact the final outcome before approving, announcing, and gazetting the results.”

She added that this process will also be witnessed by election observers present at the centres, adding that the actual voting, “shall be a manual process through the use of actual ballot papers issued to voters at the polling stations”.

On election observers, Justice Mtalimanja highlighted that in accordance with Sections 102 to 106 of the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act, MEC has called for applications for accreditation of both local and international observers.

They are open to international and local non-governmental organisations, foreign governments, diplomatic missions, intergovernmental organisations, civil society organisations, community-based organisations, religious institutions, academic institutions, and other interested individuals and groups.

“All applicants must be non-partisan and committed to upholding impartiality, transparency, and democratic principles in line with Malawi’s electoral laws. Interested entities and individuals are advised to download and complete the official application form available on the MEC website.

The application should be submitted together with all required supporting documents, including an organisational profile, credentials of the observers, proposed number of observers to be deployed, and any other relevant information specified in the form.

“All accredited observers will be required to adhere to a Code of Conduct for election observers issued by the Commission under the Act. Observers are expected to maintain neutrality and to carry out their duties with professionalism and respect for the entire electoral process.”

In her preamble, Mtalimanja expressed MEC’s “sincere gratitude” to the political parties present for the engagement, emphasising that it is always pleasing when they hold such meetings engagements.

She reiterated that since the launch of implementation of major electoral activities for the 2025 General Election, MEC “has been open to engagement, dialogue and consultation with all electoral stakeholders, including political parties”.

She further stressed that MEC “has also been consistent in the provision of information relating to the electoral process in a manner that would, without a doubt, be described as very transparent”.

“It is the hope of the Commission that political parties are going to complement these efforts by conducting themselves in a manner that does not undermine the process or erode the trust which other stakeholders, the general public and most importantly registered voters have in the Commission.

“It should be mentioned that according to section 19 (1) of the Malawi Electoral Commission Act, complementing the efforts of the Commission in ensuring that an election is held successfully is a legal duty, a responsibility and obligation of all electoral stakeholders.

“For your ease of reference section 19 (1) states as follows — ‘It shall be the duty of every relevant or competent public or private entity to cooperate with the Commission in its activities and to contribute towards the success of an election and not to do anything that might hinder such a process’.

“It is, therefore, the expectation of the Commission that all electoral stakeholders shall discharge this duty so that we have a successful election.”

In her conclusion, Mtalimanja reaffirmed MEC’s “commitment to conducting a transparent, inclusive, and credible general election [and] remains guided by the Constitution and the applicable electoral laws”.

“The Commission sincerely appreciates the continued collaboration with political parties and other electoral stakeholders, whose participation is essential in building and maintaining public trust in the electoral process.

“We encourage political parties to continue engaging with the Commission through established platforms and to raise any concerns through the legal channels provided under the law.

“Let us learn to desist from disinformation so that we do not disenfranchise the voters,” said the High Court Judge.