SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC TRUST IS SAFEGUARDING THE BALLOT:
Critical Questions to the Electoral Commission of Zambia on the New Voter Verification Process
By Michael Zephaniah Phiri Political Activist
The newly introduced voter verification system by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), which relies on National Registration Card (NRC) numbers, mobile phone details, and a mobile application, has been presented as a step toward strengthening electoral credibility. While modernization of electoral systems is welcome, credibility is not built on technology alone, it is built on transparency, accountability, and public trust.
If this process is to inspire confidence rather than suspicion, several critical issues must be addressed clearly and without ambiguity.
First, the protection of citizens’ private data remains a central concern. The use of NRC numbers and mobile phone contacts involves highly sensitive personal information. Zambians deserve to know what concrete data protection safeguards are in place, what cybersecurity systems are protecting the voter database from hacking, leaks, or internal abuse, and who has access to this information and under what oversight mechanisms. In an era of rising cyber threats, assurances must go beyond general statements. The public requires measurable and verifiable guarantees that their identities are protected and will not be misused.
Second, inclusivity and equal access must be guaranteed. A credible electoral system must serve every eligible voter, not just those with access to digital tools. Not every citizen owns a functional mobile phone, understands digital applications, speaks English fluently, or has the necessary digital literacy to navigate such systems. How will rural communities, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged citizens participate without facing barriers? If alternative verification methods exist, they must be clearly defined and publicly communicated. No eligible voter should be excluded simply because of technological limitations.
Third, safeguards against manipulation and system errors must be clarified. Technology can improve efficiency, but it can also introduce new vulnerabilities. How will the ECZ prevent duplication of NRC entries or spoofed mobile identities? What independent audits will be conducted on the system? What transparent and timely correction mechanisms are available for voters whose details are wrongly rejected? Electoral integrity depends not only on preventing fraud but also on correcting mistakes swiftly and fairly.
Fourth, the preservation of voter anonymity must remain non-negotiable. Linking voter identity to personal identification numbers and mobile contacts raises legitimate concerns about surveillance and possible political intimidation. The secrecy of the ballot is a cornerstone of democracy. What guarantees exist that this verification process cannot be used to trace voting choices or profile citizens politically? Public trust requires explicit legal and technical assurances that anonymity remains absolute.
Fifth, communication and transparency are critical. Reform without education breeds confusion. Has the Commission conducted sufficient public awareness campaigns in all provinces? Are materials available in local languages? Is there open engagement with civil society, political parties, and independent observers? Public understanding is essential for public confidence.
Ultimately, elections are not won or lost by technology, they are won or lost by public confidence in the system that manages them. The introduction of this new verification process places a significant responsibility on the Electoral Commission of Zambia to demonstrate transparency, inclusivity, and technical integrity beyond reasonable doubt.
Zambians are not resisting modernization; they are demanding accountability. Clear safeguards, independent oversight, inclusive access, and consistent public engagement must accompany this reform. Silence, ambiguity, or defensive responses will only deepen suspicion.
If properly implemented and openly explained, this system can strengthen Zambia’s democratic foundation. If poorly managed, it risks eroding the very trust it seeks to build. Safeguarding public trust is not optional, it is the very foundation of safeguarding the ballot itself.