EXPLAINER | The Ballot Mark Dispute
With Zambia voting on Thursday, 13 August, a disagreement has emerged between the Electoral Commission of Zambia and the NRPUP-Tonse Pamodzi Alliance over what constitutes an acceptable mark on a ballot paper. A related dispute concerns how election results will be announced and how quickly the presidential outcome should become available. Coming three days before polling, the questions have generated confusion among voters and competing interpretations from political actors and the institution responsible for administering the election.
For years, ECZ voter education has generally demonstrated voting by placing an X in the space corresponding to a preferred candidate. During a recent stakeholders’ engagement, however, Chief Electoral Officer Brown Kasaro explained that an X is not the only mark capable of producing a valid ballot. “Traditionally, the Commission, in its public information and so forth, has used the X as the correct mark in terms of the voter’s choice when voting, but that is not the only way to mark for a ballot paper to be valid,” Kasaro said.
He went further. “So you can tick, you can put a dash, you can put an X as long as it’s within that particular candidate.” According to Kasaro, a line crossing the ballot along the space allocated to one candidate could also be accepted, provided it does not cross into another candidate’s area. He warned voters against making marks for more than one candidate, signing ballots, writing their names or placing initials on them.
NRPUP presidential candidate Brian Mundubile disputes the Commission’s broader interpretation. He argues ECZ should maintain the X as the clear and consistent instruction to voters, particularly this close to polling. His concern is not simply about voter education. NRPUP says the question goes directly to the electoral regulations governing how a vote should be expressed.
The party has consequently moved beyond political statements and formally written to ECZ. In a letter dated 9 August 2026, Aongola & Co. Legal Practitioners, acting jointly with Makebi Zulu Advocates on behalf of NRPUP, cited Regulation 33(d) of the Electoral Process (General) Regulations, 2016. The provision says a voter shall signify his or her vote by “marking the ballot paper with a CROSS in the appropriate place.”
NRPUP’s lawyers argue the wording is explicit. “The language employed by the Regulation is express and ought not to be varied by administrative instructions or voter educational material in the absence of a lawful amendment or other clear statutory authority,” they wrote. The party has asked ECZ either to confirm the cross as the prescribed mark or identify the legal authority upon which its broader interpretation is based.
This is where the dispute needs careful separation from the political noise surrounding it. NRPUP is pointing to the wording prescribing how a voter should mark a ballot. ECZ is explaining how election officials determine whether a marked ballot sufficiently expresses a voter’s choice. The argument therefore turns on whether those two propositions can legally coexist. NRPUP says the regulation prescribes a cross. ECZ says a ballot may remain valid where another single mark clearly identifies one candidate. The People’s Brief takes no position on which interpretation should prevail. Our task is to establish what each side is saying and where the disagreement lies.
Mundubile has raised another concern involving election results. He wants ECZ to expedite the presidential result, arguing modern communication and digital transmission systems should make it possible to complete the process within approximately 24 hours after polling closes. His lawyers have separately challenged reports suggesting aggregated results could be announced in blocks beginning on or around 17 August.
Their concern is centred on transparency during the period between polling and the final declaration. “The process by which that result is produced must itself be transparent, observable, contemporaneously verifiable and capable of independent reconciliation by candidates, political parties, monitors, observers and the electorate,” the lawyers wrote. They want ECZ to confirm polling-station results will be announced at source, supplied to polling agents and subsequently aggregated in a manner which allows the figures to be independently reconciled.
There is an important distinction here. A polling-station result is not the final presidential result. Votes are counted at polling stations before figures proceed through the prescribed aggregation process towards the national declaration. The argument being raised by NRPUP therefore concerns the speed and public visibility of this chain, as well as how quickly ECZ should complete the national process.
These disputes are unfolding alongside another controversy involving NRPUP Presidential Affairs Chairperson Binwell Mpundu. A video circulated from his Facebook page carrying remarks including, “We are ready to die. And we are ready to kill.” Mpundu subsequently said his account had been hacked and claimed the recording was generated using artificial intelligence. Mundubile has defended him, saying: “That was AI. He could not possibly speak like that.”
The matter has reportedly been taken to police, with investigations instituted. This means the authenticity question remains contested. Mpundu and Mundubile say the recording was generated using AI. The video circulated publicly from Mpundu’s Facebook page before being removed. Until the technical question is independently established, those competing facts need to remain clearly separated.
What Zambia therefore has three days before voting is not one controversy but several questions moving simultaneously through the electoral environment. ECZ says an X is not the only mark capable of producing a valid ballot where voter intention is clear. NRPUP points to a regulation expressly referring to a cross and wants ECZ to explain the legal basis of its interpretation. NRPUP also wants faster and progressively visible results, while ECZ remains responsible for managing, aggregating and declaring the official outcome according to the electoral framework.
With 8,786,300 registered voters and 13,529 polling stations, clarity matters. Elections depend not only on votes being counted correctly, but also on contestants, polling agents, observers and voters understanding the rules being applied. Ambiguity creates room for suspicion. Political exaggeration creates another problem. The responsibility therefore falls on institutions to explain procedures clearly and on political actors to distinguish genuine legal questions from speculation.
For voters, the central point is to understand what is confirmed, what is disputed and what remains unresolved. ECZ has stated its interpretation publicly. NRPUP has formally challenged it and cited the regulation upon which its argument rests. The question of the Mpundu recording is under investigation. These matters should not be collapsed into one narrative or presented as settled where they remain contested.
As polling approaches, The People’s Brief will continue separating verified electoral information from political claims, misinformation and unresolved disputes. We are not here to choose an interpretation for the voter. We are here to establish the facts, interrogate the claims and provide enough context for Zambians to judge for themselves.
The People’s Brief | Ollus R. Ndomu