DPP’s leader, Antonio Mourinho Mwanza writes:
ECZ, THE “TICK” AND THE “X” MARK — WHAT DOES THE LAW ACTUALLY SAY?
There has been a lot of debate following ECZ’s statement that a ballot marked with a tick or another mark other than the X can be valid if the voter’s choice is clear.
Some people are saying:
“This is illegal. The law says only an X is valid.”
But let’s look at the actual law, including the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016, The Electoral Process (General) Regulations, 2016 — Statutory Instrument No. 63 of 2016.
KEY: These are not new rules or regulations, these rules and regulations have been in existence since 2016.
Here is what the law actually says:
1. Does the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 say only an X is valid?
NO.
This is important.
Section 60 of the Electoral Process Act No. 35 does not say that a voter must use an X and that every other mark is automatically invalid.
It says the voter should “mark the ballot paper in a way that indicates the candidate the voter wishes to vote for.”
Even more importantly, Section 68(2)(d) says a ballot should be rejected if it is marked in such a way that “it is not reasonably possible to determine the voter’s choice.”
So the law focuses heavily on whether the voter’s choice can be determined and not whether the voter uses the X or another mark.
Let’s come to the Electoral Regulations which are actually the source of the debate and contention. Does The 2016 Electoral Regulations Say ONLY an X mark is Valid?
NO.
Regulation 27 prescribed the official ballot paper.
The instructions printed on the ballot paper said:
“Vote for ONE candidate ONLY by marking one cross in the blank box opposite the name and symbol of the candidate for whom you wish to vote.”
BUT HERE IS THE PART MANY PEOPLE ARE MISSING
Look at Regulation 46(2) of S.I. No. 63 of 2016.
It expressly dealt with ballots where the vote was marked:
“otherwise than by means of a cross [X]”
And what did the regulation say?
It said such a ballot:
“shall not by that reason be invalid if the intention of the voter clearly appears on it”
provided the mark did not itself identify the voter.
In other words:
The 2016 regulations themselves recognised that a ballot marked in a way other than a cross [X] could still be VALID.
So the statement that:
“ECZ has suddenly invented a new rule in 2026 allowing ticks is NOT supported by S.I. No. 63 of 2016.
The 2016 regulations already contained the principle that validates other marks other than an X as valid as long as the mark (whatever mark it is) clearly shows the candidate the voter has voted for.
The law prescribed an X as the normal method, but it also expressly protected a ballot where:
the mark was not an X + the voter’s intention was clear + the mark did not identify the voter.
Further, the ECZ’s 2026 Election Trainer’s Manual, page 101 clearly explains these regulations; It says a ballot is valid where:
“the mark is other than a cross [X] but choice of voter is clear”
and also where:
“the voter makes any mark in a single line indicating their choice.”
That is a much more explicit acceptance of non-X marks than the 2016 voter instructions.
1. Is ECZ therefore breaking the law?
Nope.
The Electoral Process Act itself does NOT establish an absolute “X only” rule.
Instead, Section 68(2)(d) establishes the test of whether the voter’s choice can reasonably be determined. Therefore, a clear tick could potentially satisfy the Act and Electoral Regulations as prescribed.
CONCLUSION
The X is NOT the only mark that is allowed by law and a tick or any other mark is not automatically illegal under the Electoral Process Act No.35 of 2016 and the Electoral Regulations, 2016 as long as the mark clearly shows which candidate a voter intended to vote for.
There is nothing new here, these are the rules and regulations that ECZ has been applying since 2016.
Antonio Mourinho Mwanza
DPP President
Sunday, 9 August 2026
