President Ronnie Jere writes…
THE KIBOMBWE–CHITAMBALA CONSENT AGREEMENT: A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
The reported decision by Gabriel Kibombwe to withdraw his petition challenging the election of Mwewa Chitambala as Lusaka Mayor raises important questions about electoral accountability and public confidence in our democratic institutions.
Let me be clear: I have not seen or read the contents of the consent agreement, and therefore I am not suggesting that anything unlawful has occurred. The Tribunal has also not yet ruled on the withdrawal application. My concern is about the broader principle and the questions this development raises.
Kibombwe had challenged the mayoral election before the legally established Local Government Elections Tribunal. His petition reportedly raised questions concerning the tallying and declaration of the results. The Tribunal had already dismissed preliminary objections seeking to have the petition thrown out and directed that the substantive issues proceed to hearing.
More significantly, today the Tribunal ordered the ECZ to produce relevant electoral documents and directed an ECZ witness to appear with those documents. This was precisely the kind of evidence that could potentially help establish whether the concerns raised in the petition had merit or not.
It is against that background that the reported consent agreement and proposed withdrawal deserve public scrutiny.
An election petition is not always simply a dispute between two individuals. Where the validity of an election is being questioned, there is a wider public interest because the people of Lusaka are the ones whose votes produced the mandate being challenged.
If there were alleged discrepancies in the tallying, questions about electoral records or other irregularities, the most transparent way to deal with those questions would ordinarily be to allow the legally established electoral dispute-resolution mechanism to examine the evidence and make a determination.
That does not mean parties have no right to settle or withdraw matters where the law permits them to do so. They may have legitimate personal, legal or financial reasons for reaching an agreement. But where the dispute concerns the validity of an election, we should also ask whether there are circumstances in which the public interest goes beyond the interests of the individual petitioner and respondent.
This is particularly important because, only days ago, the Tribunal had directed that the petition proceed on its merits. And today, the Tribunal reportedly ordered the ECZ to produce documents and an electoral officer to testify.
That sequence naturally raises questions:
Why withdraw at this particular stage?
What exactly does the consent agreement provide
Does it address the electoral issues raised in the petition, or does it simply bring the dispute between the parties to an end?
What happens to the questions surrounding the integrity of the electoral process if the evidence is never tested?
And perhaps most importantly:
Where does the interest of the electorate fit into a settlement between two contestants?
The issue is not about whether Gabriel Kibombwe should be allowed to withdraw his petition. The issue is whether Zambia’s electoral dispute-resolution system should produce answers that give voters confidence that their votes were properly counted and that allegations of electoral irregularities were properly examined.
We should be careful not to create a situation where electoral disputes become matters that can simply be resolved privately between contestants while the electorate is left without answers to legitimate questions about what happened to their votes.
If Kibombwe’s allegations were unfounded, then allowing the evidence to be tested would have provided an opportunity to establish that clearly.
If the allegations had merit, the public deserved to know that too.
Either way, transparency would have served democracy.
This is why I believe the contents and legal effect of the consent agreement deserve to be understood before we draw conclusions.
Democracy is not merely about voting on election day. It is also about having institutions capable of independently and transparently resolving disputes about the people’s votes.
The credibility of an electoral system depends not only on who wins, but also on whether citizens have confidence that when an election is challenged, the evidence can be examined and the truth established through the institutions established by law.
The people of Lusaka deserve nothing less.