MHRC 2014 Elections Report

M
IS
SI O
N
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
I
AW
MAL
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

Elections Monitoring Report
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
MAY 2014 TRIPARTITE ELECTIONS

MONITORING REPORT
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country,
directly or through chosen representatives...
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority
of government; this will shall be exercised in periodic
and genuine elections, which shall be by universal and
equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Acronyms
Foreword
Executive Summary
Chapter One

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Objectives of the Elections Monitoring Exercise

1.3
Methodology

1.4 Conceptual Framework

1.4.1
Promotion of empowerment and effective
Participation of the citizenry

1.4.2 Promotion of non-discriminatory procedures and equal

access to public services and opportunities

1.4.3 Promoting accountability and transparency

on the part of duty bearers

1.4.4 Profiling of Elections as a Human Rights Issue

1.4.5 Facilitating dispute resolution of elections-related issues
Chapter Two

2.0
Findings and Analysis

2.1 The pre-elections phase

2.1.1 The Suspension of Commissioners, Delayed Appointment

of members of MEC and the Independence of MEC

2.1.2 The Appointment of the Vice President as the Overseer of MEC

2.1.3 The Composition of MEC by Individuals with Political Affiliations

2.1.4
Civic and Voter Education

2.1.5 The Voters Registration Process

2.1.6 Party Primaries

2.1.7 Presentation of nomination papers

2.1.8 Electoral Stakeholders Consultations

2.1.9 Monitoring the verification of the voters roll

2.2
The Elections Period

2.2.1 Monitoring of the polling process, vote counting and tabulation

2.2.2 Opening of Polling Stations and shortage of polling materials

2.2.3 Improperly labeled Ballot Boxes

2.2.4 Missing Voters Roll

2.2.5 Irregularities and unprocedural incidences

2.2.6 Incidences of Violence

2.2.7 Postponement of Polling

2.2.8 Announcement of results while voting was in progress

2.2.9 Forced Leave of the Director General of MBC

2.2.10 Nullification of polls by State President and call for vote recount

2.2.11 Decision by MEC to Conduct a Vote Audit or Vote Recount and
Results Tabulation and Announcement

2.2.12 Management of election materials after polling

2.3 Post Elections Phase

2.3.1 Management of the transition process

2.3.2 Unresolved complaints and court cases

2.3.3 Calls for review of the first-past-the-post electoral system

2.3.4 Capture of the media and civil society by the government.

2.3.5 Delayed payment of allowances
Chapter Three

3.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

3.1 Conclusion

3.2 Recommendations

3.2.1 Legal Framework

3.2.2 Election Management Capacity
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
M A L A W I
I: Summary of Irregularities and Unprocedural Incidences During the Elections

II: Summary of Shortage of Materials by District
III: List of Elections Monitoring Supervisors and Monitors
III: Elections Registration Monitoring Tool
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
4
5
6
8
16
16
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
22
22
23
23
27
27
27
30
32
32
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
39
39
39
40
42
42
42
44
45
45
47
48
49
50
54
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Acknowledgements
The Human Rights Commission (the Commission), would like to thank all the stakeholders who contributed towards its successful monitoring of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections. The members of staff of
the Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Law Commission, who made up the elections
monitoring teams, are specially recognized for their hard work and diligence. The Commissioners of the
Human Rights Commission are specially recognized for the oversight role they played throughout the
monitoring exercise.
The Elections monitoring exercise was funded by the European Union (EU), through the Democratic Governance Programme and the United Nations Development Programme, (UNDP). This support is greatly
appreciated. The Commission is further grateful for the cooperation that it received from a number
of stakeholders in the electoral process, including Justice Mackson Mbendera (SC), Chairperson of the
Malawi Electoral Commission and all the Commissioners, the Chief Elections Officer, Mr. Willy Kalonga
and all the Staff of the Malawi Electoral Commission, all political parties that contested in the 2014
Tripartite Elections, media institutions and the civil society, particularly, the Malawi Electoral Support
Network (MESN), and the National Initiative for Civic Education, (NICE).
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Acronyms
AU
: African Union
COMESA
: Common Market for East and Southern Africa
CRO
Constituency Returning Officer
MEC
Malawi Electoral Commission
MEIC
Malawi Elections Information Centre
MESN
Malawi Electoral Support Network
MHRC
Malawi Human Rights Commission
NICE
: National Initiative for Civic Education
OSISA
: Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa
PO
SADC
M A L A W I
H U M A N
Presiding Officer
: Southern Africa Development Community
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Foreword
The Human Rights Commission (the Commission), carried out a comprehensive monitoring of all the
processes in the May 2014 Tripartite Elections, and the state of affairs prior to, during and post the
elections. This is in line with its mandate of promoting and protecting human rights in Malawi. The
monitoring primarily aimed at collecting factual data on which basis an assessment of how free, fair,
transparent and credible the elections were, would be made. This process has informed the Commissions recommendations to relevant stakeholders on improvements in the administration, management,
and participation in elections, as well as the legal safeguards that need to be in place. This is necessary
in order to inform the actions of all stakeholders on Malawis efforts in safeguarding democracy through
one of its fundamental building block of free and equal suffrage.
Given the various unresolved concerns about the process of the elections, the Commission continued
to monitor the post elections environment for a 5 months period, up to September, 2014. Based on
its extensive elections monitoring, the Commissions main finding is that Malawi failed to administer
fair, transparent and credible elections, and to address the irregularities which besieged the electoral
process. Within what is always a limited scope of election monitoring the Commission did not carry out
in-depth investigations to determine and conclude if the various flaws and irregularities in the process,
management and administration of the elections were a result of electoral fraud and rigging. The Commission therefore while stating that that the May 2014 Elections were not fair, transparent and credible,
due to the massive irregularities and flaws, the Commission has not addressed the issue as to whether
or not the various shortfalls were a result of a systematic rigging the elections and if so, by whom. In
a forward looking spirit, the Commission recommends that lessons should be drawn from the administration and management of the May 2014 Elections, to avoid a replication of its shortcomings in future
elections.
Building on its main finding, the Commission notes that notwithstanding the flawed electoral foundation
on which the current administration was ushered in, Government has already demonstrated commitment to governance, rule of law, human rights, and in particular the reform of the electoral laws. To
ensure progress over the long term, the current administration should remain steadfast to fulfilling the
various obligations that it has in the strengthening of democracy in Malawi. Most importantly, the government should continue to make electoral reform a priority and work with civil society, political parties
and other stakeholders to implement necessary changes.
In a related vein the Commission further observed that the 2014 Tripartite Elections presented a critical
turning point for Malawis democracy, as the people of Malawi placed a high value on their vote. The
elections saw a high turnout in both the number of registered voters as well as the number of people
that cast their votes, against the odds that characterized the elections, which could have easily precipitated into an apathetic condition. Clearly, the elections saw the people of Malawi firmly asserting
the power of the Ballot and vigorously demanding and exercising their fundamental and single most
important political right; the right to vote.
This signifies the resoluteness of the people of Malawi to exercise the fundamental right to vote and
bring to a point of accountability all holders of political offices, thereby executing the right and responsibility to hire and fire the political leadership at the levels of Councilors, Members of Parliament and
the presidency. This is in accord with the fundamental principle espoused in section 12 of the Constitution, that the authority to exercise power of the state is conditional upon the sustained trust of the
people of Malawi and that trust can only be maintained through open, accountable, and transparent
government and informed democratic choice.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Worthy of noting is the resilience displayed by the people during what turned out to be an overly protracted process, filled with varying levels of uncertainties, during the results determination phase and
peacefully waiting for it to be duly and lawfully concluded. This epitomizes a significant maturing of
democracy in Malawi. Together, all political players, the different stakeholders and most importantly,
the people of Malawi, managed to avert violence and channel what was a potentially volatile situation
into an atmosphere of orderliness, lawfulness and peace and calm. The Commission emphasizes that
in managing the post-elections period, all stakeholders must not lose sight of the tensions which may
continue to simmer as a result of the various contentious issues that arose from the elections results,
and therefore, devote time to putting strategies that ensure long term preservation of peace. However,
all these gains made are pitied against the various elements in the elections that culminated into seriously undermining the freeness, fairness and credibility of the elections. The level of unpreparedness in
the administration and management of the elections demonstrated by the myriad of logistical shortfalls
throughout the process, which ranged from delay in delivery of polling materials; late opening of polling stations; acute shortages of voting materials; discrepancies in numbers of the vote count; irregular
conduct by some polling staff, including presiding officers, and the poor state of security and storage of
cast votes; underpin the conclusion of the Commission.
The Commission has noted that the shortfalls were not isolated incidents, as they were replicated in
many polling centers, pointing to a possibility of either gross system failure due to negligence or manipulation. Immediately, this begs the question, to which Malawi deserves answers, as to whether or
not there was a systematic machination at play to undermine the peoples right to vote. Several critical
issues that negatively affect the principles of free, fair and credible elections including: abuse of state
resources by the ruling party; challenges with the voter registration and voters roll verification; as well
as pockets of violence during both the campaign and voting period; and challenges relating to intraparty democracy, were also observed to have marred these elections. While within the scope of this
analysis it is not possible to determine as to whether the absence of these electoral irregularities would
have changed the outcome of the elections, the Commission asserts that, it is not necessarily only the
outcome that matters. Both the process and outcome should and does matter. These two aspects are
mutually exclusive. In the view of the Commission, the right to vote is guaranteed not only by according
the franchise to the people, but also by safeguarding the manner in which it is exercised, i.e. the process, as well as, the outcome.
Therefore, in light of its main findings, the Commission envisages that its home-grown, constructive
and self-introspective assessment of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections will prompt Malawi to begin to
soberly reflect on what went right and wrong with the May 2014 Tripartite Elections and draw lessons for
the future. On a balance of probabilities, the several acclamations that have since been made on the
elections seem to tip in favour of a free, fair, transparent and credible process. The question is, on what
standards and in whose interest has this verdict been made? The Commissions report has attempted to,
in as far as it is feasible provide evidence-based answers to these pressing issues. What is most important now is that clearly, the 2014 Tripartite Elections show that the issue of continued electoral reform
at the level of laws, policies, procedures and administrative arrangements need to be firmly placed in
the democracy development agenda for Malawi. On the way forward, Malawi needs to work on ensuring
that future elections are as much as possible conducted in a manner that upholds fundamental human
rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, and carry out thorough processes which should be
characterised by narrowing levels of inequality, political pluralism, transparency, accountability and an
increase in the level of the confidence of the people in both the process and outcome.
.............................
Ambassador Sophie Asimenye Kalinde, Chairperson
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Executive Summary
The May 2014 Tripartite Elections go down in the history of Malawi as one of the most closely contested
elections. The elections were the fifth general elections and the second for local government since the
introduction of multiparty democracy in 1994. 17 political parties, 1,293 parliamentary candidates and
2,412, local council candidates registered and were endorsed by MEC to contest in the elections for the
one seat of the presidency, 193 parliamentary seats and 462 local council seats, respectively. According
to official elections results, a huge number of people turned out to register and actually turned out to
cast their votes on 20th May, 2014. Close to 7.5 million registered against the projected figure of 8 million people, while 5,285,258 cast their votes. This figure represents 70.78%. The total number for people
that cast their votes is 7.5% lower than the official figure for the 2009 elections. The official figure for
invalid votes was 56,575, representing, 1.07%.56, 575, representing, 1.07%.Thus, on a positive note, a
significant number of people registered to vote and actually turned up to cast their vote. Nonetheless,
the 7.5% decrease from the 2009 figure as well as the 29.22% difference between the number of people
that registered, and the actual number of people that actually turned up to cast their vote reveal a
slightly increasing trend of voter apathy and is an issue of concern.
As a National Human Rights Institution with the overall mandate of the promotion and protection of human rights in Malawi, the Commission deployed a team of over 150 individuals to monitor the May 2014
Tripartite Elections during which time, on-spot investigations were carried out. The investigations were
prompted by the failure by authorities to explain some of the discrepancies in the elections process
and some instances of inaccurancies in some of the results. The main objective of the monitoring was
to contribute to the safeguarding of the human rights of the people of Malawi, in particular political
rights enshrined in section 40 of the Constitution and attendant rights, such as freedom of assembly,
expression and the right to access to information. In this regard, the monitoring was intended to be a
mechanism for facilitating and contributing to a free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process.
After the polling the Commission monitored the events that ensued for a period of four months up to
September, 2014. During which timely on spot investigations were carried out. The investigation were
prompted by the failure by authorities to explain some of the descrepancies in the election process
around some instances of inaccurancies in some of the results.
The monitoring primarily aimed at collecting factual data on which basis an assessment of how free,
fair, transparent and credible the elections were would be made. This would be necessary to inform the
actions of all stakeholders on Malawis efforts in safeguarding democracy through one of its fundamental
building block of free and equal suffrage. In its approach to monitoring of the elections the Commission
focused on the period prior to, during and after the voting. This report captures in exhaustive detail
the Commissions observations on the May 2014 Tripartite Elections. The report details several positive
aspects about the electoral process, as well as a number of inadequacies and areas of concern, and
recommendations to the Government and relevant stakeholders on improvements in the administration,
management, and participation in elections, as well as the legal safeguards that need to be in place.
This is necessary to inform the actions of all stakeholders on Malawis efforts in safeguarding democracy
through one of its fundamental building block of free and equal suffrage.
In this election monitoring report, the Commissions main position is that the May 2014 Tripartite Elections were characterized by a significant number of systemic irregularities, inaccuracies and discrepancies, and operational and administrative challenges. This begs the question as to the freeness, fairness
and credibility of the elections. Credible elections cannot be fully realized without effective, transparent and accountable electoral mechanisms and systems. In this respect, the Commission has arrived at
the main finding that the irregularities and challenges that marred the elections casts serious doubt as
to the credibility of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections. The main findings of the Commission are summarized below.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Background Issues
The Commission noted a number of challenges prior to the elections period which later affected the effective management of elections by MEC. These included: the closure of MEC in 2010 and the subsequent
delay in the appointment of MEC Commissioners; which resulted in a protracted period during which MEC
did not function effectively; the appointment of the former Vice President Khumbo Kachali as overseer
of MEC, which had serious repercussions for the independence of MEC; and, the issue of the composition of MEC by persons with backgrounds in active politics and partisanship or with political affiliations.
The actual or ostensible political affiliations of the Commissioners raises questions as to the ability of
persons drawn from such back grounds, and with such linkages to political parties to be apolitical and
discharge their functions in MEC impartially. The developments in the run up to the elections as well as
the conduct of the elections have rendered the questions even more valid, particularly bearing in mind
the developments that saw some of the members of MEC expressing reservations and open dissenting
views on some issues relating to the conduct of the elections. A case in point is the communiqu that was
issued and signed by some of the MEC Commissioners expressing their objections and dissenting views on
some aspects of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections.
Regarding the closure of MEC and delay in appointment of Commissioners, the Commission deduces that
there is a high probability that some of the administrative glitches which riddled the management and
administration of the elections would have been avoided if there was no disruption in the functioning
of MEC Commissioners and the Commissioners of MEC were appointed timely. This would have ensured
that at all material times, there was a Commission in place to provide the needed strategic and policy
directions to MEC Management, bearing in mind that, the closure of MEC and the delay in appointment
of the Commissioners resulted in a lot of time into the five year cycle of the electoral calendar being
needlessly wasted.
With respect to the issue of the appointment of the Vice President as overseer of MEC, the Commission
emphasizes the need for the Executive to respect and be seen to guarantee the independent functioning of MEC as an autonomous entity. The Commission notes that the import of section 6 of the Electoral
Commission Act is that the duty to report directly to, and being answerable to, the president is only for
purposes of accountability, on the fulfillment of the functions and powers of MEC and does not render
MEC subject to the directions or authority of the President. Thus, the appointment of the Vice President
was against this clear intent and purpose of the applicable law. Notably, the appointment was later
rescinded; nonetheless, it is important that for purposes of safeguarding the tenets of integrity and independence in the functioning of constitutional bodies such as MEC, no acts or omissions should be done
by Government which would potentially or actually undermine these tenets.
Consultations with Electoral Stakeholders
The Commission held meetings with electoral stakeholders in the months of April and May 2014 in order
to solicit input from the stakeholders on their assessment of the level of preparedness on the part of
MEC with respect to the conduct of free, fair and credible elections. The Commission used the input solicited from these meetings to engage MEC and propose recommendations on addressing the shortfalls in
the management of the various processes relating to the elections. The Commission met with members
of District Executive Committees in all Districts except Likoma, the Malawi Communications Regulatory
Authority (MACRA), the Malawi Police Service (MPS), Malawi Broadcasting Corporation TV (MBC TV) and
other media houses, including Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS), Joy Radio, Galaxy FM, Capital Radio,
Nation Publications Limited, Blantyre News Papers Limited, and all political parties that contested in
the 2014 Tripartite Elections, with the exception of the Peoples Party who refused to grant the Commission an audience. The meetings focused on a number of issues such as: the role of the media in ensuring balanced coverage of all players during the campaign period, including their editorial policies with
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
respect to elections, the role of the police and their level of preparedness, the role of political parties,
the manifestos of political parties and the human rights and gender content, inclusion of vulnerable
groups including women and persons with disabilities in the electoral processes, the role of stakeholders
in ensuring a violence-free political process, and the preparedness of MEC.
The Voters Registration Exercise
The various processes in the May 2014 Tripartite Elections were characterized with serious shortfalls
right from the outset. The Commission documented that the process of voter registration faced critical challenges such as: inadequate staffing at registration centers; shortage of equipment; instances of
malfunctioning of equipment and low quality equipment; instances of involvement of non-trained persons to handle the registration process; instances of inadequate security personnel; delayed payment of
registration staff allowances; and in some cases there was inadequate publicity of the commencement
of the registration process. Notwithstanding the high number of people that ultimately registered, a
totality of all these challenges raised the likelihood of disenfranchising some prospective voters.
Party Primaries
The conduct of primary elections by most political parties demonstrated that there are low levels of intra-party democracy evident from several instances and practices that brought rise to irregularities such
as: imposition of candidates by party machineries; manipulation of the electoral process, and according
some contestants unfair advantages over other candidates. This led to several candidates approaching
party machineries to protest the unfair practices in the elections and their outcomes. Resultantly, in
some cases the outcomes of the elections were divisive, leading in some instances to the mushrooming
of several independent candidates out of political parties. Indeed, the May, 2014 Tripartite Elections
saw an increasingly large number of candidates contesting as independents, and an unprecedented large
number of independent candidates winning the elections.
Presentation of Nomination Papers
The process of nomination papers by candidates was dogged by a number court cases resulting from
MECs rejection of some of the presidential and parliamentary candidates on account of their being
public servants. These issues were settled in court and eventually all the candidates were allowed to
contest in the elections. However electoral stakeholders resolved to pursue the matter of the courts
determination as to the definition of a public officer for purposes of elections, by way of appeal after
the elections.
Effectively, this means that the 3 constituencies of Salima North West Constituency, where Honourable
Dr. Jessie Kabwira emerged winner, Kasungu North Constituency, where Hounarable Wakuda Kamanga
emerged winner, and Karonga South Constituency, where Honourable Malani Mtonga emerged winner,
have candidates whose eligibility to stand for elections at the time of the elections still remain inconclusive, until the determination of the appellate court on this matter, if and when the concerned stakeholders will proceed with the appeal on the lower Courts decision. As aptly observed in this report, this
position raises a number of implications for the principles of legitimate expectations on the part of both
the voters and the candidates, in the concerned constituencies.
The Elections Campaign Period
Elections-related Violence
In comparison to previous election years, the campaign period relatively saw fewer incidences of vio-
10
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
lence. Save for the violence that culminated in the death of two people at Goliati in Thyolo District, following the Peoples Party (PP) rally, and some incidences of localized violence in Karonga, Blantyre and
Mangochi Districts, the campaigning was generally peaceful. Nonetheless, the Commission observed that
there was a lack of proactiveness on the part of concerned stakeholders to carry out a conflict mapping,
in order to clearly earmark the areas with a high likelihood of elections-related violence and undertake
pre-emptive measures including sensitization, dialogue meetings on issues such as political tolerance
and peaceful co-existence, and a heavy police presence. With such pre-emptive measures, the violence
which erupted in areas such as Mangochi and Karonga may have been averted.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that in some instances the violence during the campaign period was
triggered or fuelled by inflammatory language and the conduct by some politicians and their supporters,
as was the case with the Peoples Party political rally at Goliati in Thyolo District. In its post-violence
investigations, the Commission established that the inflammatory remarks which were uttered by the
then Minister of Health, Catherine Gotani Hara, was the immediate trigger of the violence that erupted
at Goliati, in addition to prevailing structural factors such as politically intolerant attitudes.
Use of State Resources by Incumbents
Another major concern with the campaign period was the continued use of state resources by incumbent
holders of political offices. Most notably, in these elections the Commission documented the abuse of
state resources by the former President Dr. Joyce Banda and her Peoples Party (PP) officials. During the
campaign period the Peoples party used maize and other items which were distributed to people during
political rallies. This maize was sourced by the Government of Malawi from foreign countries, on behalf
of all the people in Malawi to benefit the marginalized and poor Malawian citizens.
Alternatively, if the maize was sourced by the former President as was claimed by the Peoples Party,
the fiduciary duties that arise on the part of holders of political authorities as espoused in sections 12
and 13(o) of the Constitution effectively entailed that it was sourced for and on behalf of the people
of Malawi. To this end, the Commission commenced court proceedings to challenge the abuse of state
resources. The Commission will continue to pursue this court case in order for the courts to give interpretation on the applicable laws and set precedent with regard to the application and scope of sections
12 and 13(o) of the Constitution where the use of state resources by incumbents is concerned.
The Commission further observed that the Peoples Party undertook several campaign rallies which were
held out as development rallies. Nonetheless, these development rallies were ostensibly campaign rallies. Thus, effectively, state resources, such as government money and government vehicles, financed
such events which were the Peoples Party campaigns. Resultantly, the political playing field was not
leveled.
Use of Handouts
Related to the issue of the distribution of public maize by the Peoples Party during the campaign period
was the use of handouts generally by all political parties and independent candidates as a way of wooing
and influencing voters. The handouts took different forms such as money, food items, clothes and other
basic necessities. While, CSOs tried to work with politicians to adopt and embrace an issue-based campaign, it was clear that the culture of handouts greatly characterised the campaign. While it may not
be clear as to whether or not and the extent to which the handouts influence the voters decision as to
who to vote for, clearly, the handouts culture does not contribute to a level playing field. The handouts
culture is not good for democracy as it entrenches exclusion of some people from contesting in the elections or contesting on a level playing field. Further, the handouts culture influences the outcome of an
election on the basis of irrelevant issues as opposed to the capability of the individual to be an effective
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
11
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
representative of his or her constituents.

Monopolisation of the State Broadcaster
While the media generally played a good role in coverage of the campaign period in a balanced and equitable manner, the one major issue of concern that came out is the monopolization of the State broadcaster by the ruling Peoples Party. In spite of the attempts by MBCTV to open up its coverage to the opposition political parties and candidates, it continued to cover news in a highly biased manner whereby
the ruling PP was given a greater coverage whereas opposition parties were given skewed or no coverage
at all. In particular, political meetings and other events by the ruling party tended to have unfair advantage in terms of coverage while the opposition seldom received coverage on the state broadcaster.
Thus, there was a continued bias of the public broadcaster, the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC
TV), towards a government in power, at the expense of the rest of the parties. While the efforts that
MBC TV made in opening up coverage for other political players are commendable, MBC TV still predominantly provided coverage for the ruling party and did not meet the requirement of equitable coverage
as provided by the law. Thus, MBC TV coverage of political parties registered an improvement in that
coverage of the ruling People Party and its presidential candidate decreased from about 99% to about
70%. Although this does not amount to fair coverage, it was a big step in the right direction when compared to experiences in the past elections.
Voters roll verification
The process of the verification of the voters roll is one of the critical processes in an election as this
leads to safeguarding the reliability of the roll which is an essential component for credible elections.
The main finding of the Commissions monitoring of this phase of the elections is that overall, the process of the voters roll verification went well. The Commission positively noted the development whereby
MEC introduced a mechanism for electronic verification, through telephone among other means. Nonetheless, the Commission noted several challenges that dogged the voters roll verification phase, including: the limited number of days within which the exercise was carried out; short notice periods for the
commencement of some of the phases of the verification exercise; low turnout of registered voters to
verify their names; limited publicity of the commencement of the exercise; and inaccuracies and discrepancies in the voters roll, including missing critical information such as names and photos, wrongly
spelt names, wrong dates of birth, and mixing up of the names for one center in one District with the
names of another center in another District, among others. In some cases it was discovered that some
centers had abnormally more names than those registered.
These irregularities were brought to the attention of MEC. The Commission called on MEC to provide
valid and sound explanations for the discrepancies in the Voters Roll, which it had initially attributed
to faulty computers, and the measures that it was going to put in place or it had put in place to address
such discrepancies, in order to restore the accuracy and integrity of the voters roll and build public
confidence in the process. Nevertheless, MEC was not forthcoming with concrete action to address the
concerns raised and implement the recommendations, with the result that Malawi went to the polls in
May, 2014, with a voters role that had a lot of inaccuracies.
The Polling Process
The polling process was relatively orderly and peaceful in a number of areas. However, the Commission
documented numerous reports of irregularities during the polling process. These included: a series of logistical problems that dogged the process resulting in delayed delivery of polling materials to centers; a
shortage of polling materials across the country; late opening of polling stations; use of non-designated
12
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
materials such as cartons and pails for casting of votes; improperly labeled ballot boxes; improperly
sealed ballot boxes; non-secured ballot boxes being transferred to the constituency-level tally centers
and eventually to the national tally center; the absence of some monitors during the vote counting and
tallying process; and improper or inaccurate records entered into results sheets, in some cases without
the verification of elections monitors. Most of these problems were avoidable with better planning.
The shortage of polling materials as well as the delay in the delivery of the same, led to heightened suspicions on the part of the electorate, as well as agitation which resulted in isolated cases of violence in
the major cities of Blantyre and Lilongwe on the commencement of the polling process. However, these
pockets of violence were not protracted as they were promptly contained by the Malawi Police Service
and Malawi Defence Force personnel who were assigned the responsibility of provision of security in the
respective concerned areas. Nonetheless MEC was forced to postpone elections in some of the affected
centres in the two districts to the following day. While commending MEC for ensuring that all people
that were eligible to vote did so, by allowing them to vote on the following day, the Commission noted
that there were serious delays in providing materials to the affected centres, resulting in voting starting very late, to the extent that in some centers voting only started at 04:00 pm in the evening of the
following day.
The Results Determination and Announcement Phase
The Commission has noted that the manner in which the results of the elections were processed is one
of the major areas of concern in the Tripartite Elections. The problems that dogged the process during
the polling phase were compounded with the protracted period that it took for MEC to carry out the vote
counting, determination and announcement of results. The applicable law provides an 8 days period
from the last date of casting the votes, for the determination and announcement of results. As the last
date for casting the votes was 22nd May, 2014, the last date within which the process of finalizing the
results determination process, and announcement of the results was 30th May, 2014.
The Commission observed challenges with the tabulation of results at constituency centers, and the relaying of these results to the Tally Center at COMESA Hall in Blantyre. The digital transfer system failed,
with the result that the process had to be done manually. In some cases the tabulation process was
chaotic as it occurred in inadequate and insecure premises. In one instance, recorded by the media, it
was discovered that it had taken an inordinately long time for used ballot papers and results sheets to
be transported from Chiradzulu to Blantyre. While these discrepancies may have been a careless error,
they raise legitimate suspicions among the electorate.
In a related vein, the protracted period it took for the announcement of results also compounded the
situation. The announcement of unofficial results by media institutions which were accredited by MEC
while keeping people informed and abreast of the developments relating to the elections, led to instances of confusion is some instances, especially where it was discovered that there were mismatches
between the figures that were announced and the figures which MEC finally computed. While MEC argued that the net result effect of announcing the results while some other areas had not yet cast their
votes would not impact significantly on the national front since the affected voters were less than 1% of
the total number of registered voters, arguably, the announcements still had the effect of influencing
the voters in these areas.
The Commission further noted the challenge relating to the issue of undue interference with the results
determination process by the then sitting President. On 24th May, 2014, the then State President addressed a press conference in which she proclaimed that following revelations of voter fraud, she had
decided to nullify the results of the elections and called for fresh elections to be held within 3 months
from the date of the pronouncement. The Commission observed that the President had not acted within
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
13
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
her powers in purporting to nullify the elections and call for a vote recount and instituting fresh elections and issued a press statement to this effect.
The Commission noted that section 88(2) of the Constitution, on which basis the President purported
to have exercised the powers of her office to issue the decree in question did not vest power in the
presidency to issue a decree of such a nature or to interfere in the work of independent constitutional
bodies such as the Electoral Commission. This development exemplifies the potential threat of political interference in electoral processes by sitting presidents which runs counter to section 76(4) of the
Constitution. The section provides that, The Electoral Commission shall exercise its powers, functions
and duties under this section independent of any direction or interference by other authority or any person. The President is not exempt from the application of this section, and cannot therefore, under any
circumstances, use section 88(2), of the Constitution to interfere with the functioning of the Electoral
Commission. Under the Constitution the power and duty to conduct elections and determine results of
the elections is exclusively reserved for the Electoral Commission.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, the Commission notes the positive aspects of the elections exemplified by the commitment, courage and zeal of the many Malawians who participated in the elections and continued to
peacefully wait for the results during the protracted period of the determination and announcement
of results. In particular, it is noteworthy that electoral stakeholders especially political parties, and
the people of Malawi themselves ensured that the volatile situation which may easily have erupted
protracted and widespread violence was contained. It is also commendable that MEC worked hard to
ensure that the elections were managed and administered effectively. Thus, on the whole, the elections
were conducted in a generally a peaceful and calm environment, save for isolated pockets of violence
in some areas
However, the numerous discrepancies and irregularities, limitations with respect to preparedness on
the part of MEC, limited resources, and incidences of violence albeit isolated, that marred the elections
period leave a significant dent on the credibility of the elections. While not all of these events occurred
at all polling sites, they were not isolated incidents, either, but rather came up repeatedly in different
polling centers, indicating a widespread and systematic assault on the right to vote. To this end, the
findings of the Commission demonstrate a clear pattern of systematic undermining of the peoples right
to a free and fair election.
Elections cannot be free and fair in the face of several glaring irregularities, some of them seemingly
minor, which nonetheless, cumulatively substantially affect the extent to which the elections can be
said to have been free and fair. Therefore, whereas, the elections may generally have been free, these
developments seriously negate the aspect of fairness in the electoral process. Further, the credibility
of the elections, in terms of both the process and the outcome is therefore cast in very serious doubts.
Therefore, In light of these observations, the Commission finds the wholesome pronouncements by some
commentators and observers of the freeness, fairness and credibility of May 2014 Tripartite elections
particularly disconcerting considering the many irregularities that were observed. Thus, the Commission envisages that the information contained in this report raises serious questions on the rhetoric that
has applauded the May 2014 Tripartite Elections as free, fair, transparent and credible in most absolute
terms.
Recommendations
On the basis of the collection and documentation of data in the May 2014 Electoral process, and its analysis as summarized above, the Commission has made recommendations to relevant stakeholders, with
14
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
respect to the two critical areas of the legal framework as well as the elections management capacity.
Malawi urgently needs a comprehensive evidence-based reform of all the laws that govern the conduct
of elections to address some of the structural problems that were encountered during the elections.
Further, the elections management capacity of MEC needs to be strengthened, including among other
things by ensuring that Malawi graduates from dependence on donors to fund its elections. Instead,
government should be committed to fully and timely fund Malawis elections. In addition, the Commission recommends that detailed in-depth investigations into the shortcomings and irregularities of the
elections should be carried out in order to identify the root causes and put the issue of whether or not
these developments were a result of deliberate manipulation to rest.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
15
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction
This report details the findings, analysis and recommendations of the monitoring of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections. It focuses on selected key issues in the electoral processes and brings out the shortcomings as well as the areas where there was good performance. While several key issues have been
identified and analysed, the emphasis is on the systemic and structural challenges in order to allow for
a process that informs how Malawi can handle elections more effectively in the future. In this regard,
the analysis is forward-looking and points to best practices and identifies issues that require attention
in the short, medium and long term.
The Commission is a national human rights institution independent of the authority of, or direction
of any other body or persons, established under Chapter XI of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi (the Constitution). Operationally, the Commission is guided by the Human Rights Commission Act,
(Chapter. 3:08 of the Laws of Malawi). The Commissions sphere of competence covers all human rights
guaranteed in the bill of rights in the Constitution which interalia provides for civil and political rights
of all peoples in Malawi. Under section 129 of the Constitution, the Commission has the mandate of
promoting and protecting human rights. In this regard, the Commissions central role in elections monitoring is borne out by the fact that elections are an avenue through which people exercise some of their
fundamental civil and political rights.
In particular the political rights guaranteed in section 40 of the Constitution gives the Commission the
impetus to monitor elections in Malawi. Section 40 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Malawi
states that;
Every

person shall have the right:To form, to join, to participate in the activities of, and to recruit members for a political party;
To campaign for a political party or cause;
To participate in peaceful political activity intended to influence the composition and policies
of the government; and
Freely to make choices.
Further, section 40(3) provides that; save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, every person shall
have the right to vote, to do so in secret and to stand for elections for public office. At the international level, Malawi has ratified all the major human rights instruments, including the United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees political rights and other
attendant rights.
1.2 Objectives of the Elections Monitoring Exercise
The Commission conducts long term monitoring of electoral processes pursuant to its constitutional
mandate and its statutory functions. The Commission has since its inception in 1998, conducted long
term elections monitoring in order to contribute to the safeguarding of the human rights of the people
of Malawi, in particular political rights enshrined in section 40 of the Constitution and attendant rights,
such as freedom of assembly, expression and the right to access to information. Thus the Commission
carried out monitoring of the elections in order to facilitate and contribute to a free, fair, transparent
and credible electoral process.
16
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
The monitoring primarily aimed at collecting factual data on which basis an assessment of how free,
fair, transparent and credible the elections were would be made. This would be necessary to inform the
actions of all stakeholders on Malawis efforts in safeguarding democracy through one of its fundamental
building block of free and equal suffrage.
1.3 Methodology
Cognizant of the fact that elections are a process as opposed to being a one-off event, the Commission adopted a long term holistic and systematic methodology in the elections monitoring. Therefore,
the Commission monitored all the processes in the pre, during, and post elections phase. The major
processes on which the monitoring focused were: voters registration; the conduct of civic education;
the conduct of political party primary elections; presentation of nomination papers; verification of the
voters roll; the polling process, including casting of votes, collection of votes, tallying and announcement of results; and the post elections activities.
The main methodologies that were employed were field visits, observations, on the-spot-investigations and engagement with relevant stakeholders through consultative meetings. The engagement with
relevant stakeholders ensured that the Commission was able to promptly raise issues with relevant
stakeholders for redress. During the polling process the Commission engaged 190 monitors who were
stationed in all the constituencies to monitor the actual voting, counting and tabulation of results. The
Commission also deployed members of staff and commissioners to all the districts except Likoma to
monitor the process and provide a supervisory role to the monitors. Members of staff of the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Law Commission were co-opted in the monitoring teams. Further, the Commission
collaborated with other independent institutions who monitored the elections, such as MESN and NICE.
Standard data capturing tools for the polling phase were developed and validated, with the input of MEC
officials. The Commissioners and Staff of the Commission as well as the monitors were taken through a
comprehensive training facilitated by members of the Commission and MEC.
The training focused on the administration of the tool, elements of free and fair elections, election
monitoring, laws governing the elections and step by step procedures on voting, vote counting, tabulation of results and announcement of results. The Commission also placed its staff and Commissioners at
the MEC Tally Center in Blantyre to monitor the process of the tallying of the national results and the
determination and announcement of results. See Appendix II on the list of monitors.
The main limitation that the monitoring process faced related
1.4 Conceptual Framework
An Election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office. Through Elections people choose people whom they want to entrust with powers and authority
to govern them. Elections are crucial in Malawis representative democracy system as they are used to
fill offices in the legislature, the presidency and local government. It is therefore important that such a
process should be free, fair, transparent and credible to ensure that people are governed by people of
their choice and to promote the legitimacy of a countrys leadership.
It is a universally accepted principle that Elections must be conducted in a transparent and just manner
for them to be classified as free and fair. Free means the absence of negative conditions or impediments to the exercise of the right to take part in Elections, while Fair means the presence or existM A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
17
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
ence of positive conditions to all eligible stakeholders to participate in all legally sanctioned electoral
processes.
To assess whether elections are free and fair or not, the entire electoral process, i.e. voter registration
and verification, voter education, nomination of candidates, media coverage, campaign period, election
day, involvement of vulnerable categories, and post-election period, is considered. A number of human
rights standards and principles are central in all these electoral processes. This is why the issue of Free
and Fair Elections is a human rights issue.
The Constitution provides for an array of human rights that are crucial for the conduct of free and fair
elections. These include:
i. Right to non-discrimination, section 20
Every person who is eligible to vote has the right to do so on a non-discriminatory basis. Particular attention should be given to vulnerable or marginalized sectors of the population, such as:
women, the elderly and persons with disabilities. All persons must have access to impartial and
non-discriminatory voter registration procedures, access to polling stations, access to information and access to other mechanisms and procedures in the entire electoral process;
ii. The right to vote in secret, section 40
This is an absolute right which should not be restricted in any manner whatsoever, it entails;
a) The right to take part in the government of ones country and to have an equal opportunity
to become a candidate for election;
b) the right to join, or together with others to establish, a political party or organization for the
purpose of competing in an election;
c) the right to express political opinions without interference; and,
d) the right to seek, receive and impart information and to make an informed choice, section
37;
iii. The right to move freely within the country in order to campaign for election, sections 39 and
40;
iv. The right to campaign on an equal basis with other political parties, including the party forming the existing government, sections 20 and 40;
v.
The right to equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the public mass communication media, in order to put forward their views, section 20;
vi
the right to security, particularly with respect to life and property, section 16 and 28;
vii the right to access to information, section 37;
viii the right to freedom of association, section 32;
ix the right to freedom of expression, section 35;
x
the right to freedom of assembly, section 38; and,
xi the right to access justice and legal remedies, section 41.
Elections offer a mechanism through which these rights are exercised and at the same time the observance of these rights contribute to the conduct of free, fair, transparent and credible elections.
In order for the Commission to effectively fulfill its obligations on elections monitoring, The Commission
adopts several approaches. The following paragraphs briefly describe these approaches.
18
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
1.4.1 Promotion of empowerment and effective Participation of the citizenry

In this regard, the activities of the Commission relating to elections monitoring aim at ensuring that
claim holders exercise their rights effectively as electors and as electoral candidates, as the case may
be, using the empowerment and participation principle in a human rights-based approach.
1.4.2 Promotion of non-discriminatory procedures and equal access to public services
and opportunities
Employing the non-discrimination principle, the Commissions elections monitoring activities contributes to ensuring that elections are managed and administered in a manner that effectively facilitates
the conduct of impartial and non-discriminatory elections procedures. In this regard, specific focus is
put on marginalized sectors of the population, such as; women, the elderly and persons with disabilities, including ensuring that all persons have access to impartial and non-discriminatory voter registration procedures, access to polling stations, access to information and access to other mechanisms and
procedures in the entire electoral process.
1.4.3 Promoting accountability and transparency on the part of duty bearers
Using the accountability principle in its elections monitoring activities, the Commission ensures that the
data it collects through its monitoring activities is used for timely and prompt constructive engagement
with concerned duty bearers for urgent interventions, and in the process holding such duty bearers accountable. This approach is premised on the notion of the roles of duty bearers; in particular the state
and its agencies to respect, promote, provide for, and fulfill its human rights obligations.
1.4.4
Profiling of Elections as a Human Rights Issue
By drawing an express linkage between the issue of human rights and elections, the Commission in its
elections monitoring ensures that electoral issues are profiled as human rights issues as guaranteed in
the Constitution of Malawi. In line with the Constitution, these rights are supposed to be upheld by the
Government and other duty bearers. Further, they are supposed to be enjoyed by all people in Malawi,
with due regard to attendant responsibilities. Where these rights have been violated, the Constitution
in section 15 provides that the aggrieved person or person can have recourse to relevant bodies, such as
the courts, the Commission, the Ombudsman and other dispute resolution bodies.
1.4.5 Facilitating dispute resolution of elections-related issues
Building on the above, the Commissions added value in elections monitoring stems from the crucial role
it plays in handling elections-related disputes that have a human rights element. Under both the Constitution and the Human Rights Commission Act (Chapter 3:08 of the Laws of Malawi), the Commission
has the responsibility and power to handle and hear complaints of human rights violations on its own
volition/motion or upon receiving a complaint from a concerned person or group of persons . Thus, in
its election monitoring role, the Commission plays the role of dispute resolution through the functions
that are listed in the Human Rights Commission Act of, mediation, conciliation, investigations and hearings or litigation. These approaches also contribute to mitigation of possible elections-related violence.
Dispute resolution is a critical element of the integrity and credibility of elections, and the Commission
plays a role of offering a readily available, less complex and cost effective forum for resolving disputes.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
19
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Chapter Two
2.0 Findings and Analysis
This Section presents an analysis of the findings by the Commission on the three phases of the election process, i.e. Pre-elections, elections and post-elections phases. The following are key issues that
emerged from the observations and records of the monitoring.
2.1 The pre-elections phase
The monitoring covered the following aspects of the pre-elections phase: the appointment of members
of MEC, the functioning of the MEC and general level of preparedness; registration of voters; verification of the voters roll; nomination of candidates; campaigning; and media coverage. The monitoring of
the pre-election phase brought to light a number of problems that had potential of negatively impacting on the conduct of the elections. In line with its mandate, the Commission took the responsibility of
engaging relevant stakeholders, including MEC, District Commissioners, Political Party Leadership and
the media to facilitate steps through which the problems could be addressed. While some of the observations were addressed, the Commission observed that some of the issues that were raised were not
appropriately addressed. As a result, Malawi went ahead to hold elections with a number of challenges
for example, a voters roll that had not been thoroughly cleaned up and reconciled. The issues that were
observed in the pre-elections phase are discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.
2.1.1 The Suspension of Commissioners, Delayed Appointment of members of MEC and the
Independence of MEC
The analysis of the performance of Malawi in the May 2014 Tripartite Elections would be incomplete if
it is not contextualized within some of the key developments in the electoral cycle in question. In this
regard, the issue of the closure of MEC in December 2010, and subsequent delay in the appointment of
members of MEC becomes one of the critical factors to be considered. The 2009 to 2014 electoral cycle
saw a protracted period during which MEC did not function. Approximately 7 months after the holding
of the 2009 General Elections, on 3rd December, 2010, the former President, Late Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika, closed MEC indefinitely, and suspended Commissioners of MEC. The Human Rights Commission and
the Malawi Law Society (MLS), challenged the indefinite closure of MEC through a court action. The offices of MEC were re-opened on 1st April, 2011. This turn of events meant that MEC was not effectively
functioning for approximately 4 months period. In the meantime, the term of office of the previous MEC
Commissioners had expired on 18th January, 2012. The new Commissioners were not appointed until
19th May, 2012, following President Dr. Joyce Bandas ascendancy to the office of President of Malawi.
This saw a gap of approximately another 4 months period during which time MEC management had no
properly constituted structure for the provision of policy and strategic direction.
Several stakeholders including the Human Rights Commission raised concerns with the delay in the appointment of MEC Commissioners. Following its standard human rights monitoring and documentation
exercise, in the Status of Human Rights Reports that the Commission released in 2011 and 2012, the
Commission raised concerns on the delay in the appointment of Commissioners of MEC. It was observed
that the delay would eventually negatively affect the functioning and preparedness of MEC for the 2014
Tripartite Elections given the mammoth processes and tasks that fall within the mandate of MEC in relation to elections management and administration, within a 5 years cycle. The Commission accordingly
engaged and reminded Government, including Presidents Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika and President Dr. Joyce
Banda respectively, of the responsibility to avoid delays in constituting the membership of constitutional
20
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
bodies such as MEC. This would ensure that there are no adverse impacts on relevant human rights.
In light of the developments surrounding the suspension of MEC Commissioners at some point, coupled
with the delay in appointing new Commissioners of MEC, the Commission deduces that there is a high
probability that some of the administrative glitches which riddled the management and administration
of the elections would have been avoided if there was consistent functioning of MEC Commissioners and
Commissioners of MEC were appointed timely. This would have ensured that at all material times, there
was a Commission in place to provide the needed strategic and policy directions to MEC Management.
Delays in the appointment of MEC Commissioners have negative implications on the effective functioning of MEC. The Commission recommends therefore that, Government should put in place adequate
procedural safeguards for ensuring that Commissioners of MEC are timely appointed, notwithstanding
the fact that the appointments themselves are tied to the exercise of the presidential prerogative.
Therefore, in this regard, the Commission further recommends that as the term of office of the current
cohort of MEC Commissioners is set to expire in May, 2016, government should set in place a mechanism
that will ensure their timely replacement. This will ensure that at all times in the 5 year cycle that will
lead to the 2019 Elections, there shall be an effectively functioning Electoral Commission with Commissioners in place to provide the requisite macro management, strategic direction and oversight.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
21
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
2.1.2 The Appointment of the Vice President as the Overseer of MEC

In a related development, the Commission also monitored and raised concerns over the development
whereby, the then President Dr. Joyce Banda appointed the then Vice President Mr. Khumbo Hastings
Kachali to be the overseer of MEC. In its report, the Commission and other stakeholders cautioned
against such a move. The Commission engaged Government on the need to safeguard the identity and
functioning of MEC as an autonomous body independent of direction or interference by any person or
authority, as provided in section 76(4) of the Constitution. In this regard, the Commission advised the
President that, the import of section 6 of the Electoral Commission Act is that the duty to report directly
to, and being answerable to, the president is only for purposes of accountability, on the fulfillment of
the functions and powers of MEC and does not render MEC subject to the directions or authority of the
President.
Thus, the appointment of the Vice President as overseer of MEC was seen to be against this clear intent
and purpose of the applicable law. The appointment was later rescinded; nonetheless, it is important
that for purposes of safeguarding the tenets of integrity and independence in the functioning of constitutional bodies such as MEC, no acts or omissions should be done by Government which would potentially or actually undermine these tenets. The Commission is therefore recommending to Government
to ensure that the identity of MEC as an autonomous institution is preserved and its independence fully
safeguarded at all times. It is particularly important that the behavioural as well as operational independence of MEC is fully safeguarded.
2.1.3 The Composition of MEC by Individuals with Political Affiliations
The other issue which needs to be considered in relation to the developments that emerged in the electoral cycle pertains to the composition of MEC itself. The members, of MEC, with the exception of the
Chairperson, have largely been sponsored by political parties and some have come from a back ground
of active partisan politics. This has raised questions as to the ability of persons drawn from such a back
ground, and with such linkages to political parties to be apolitical and discharge their functions in MEC
impartially. This issue has long exercised the minds of different stakeholders and the developments in
the run up to the elections as well as the conduct of the elections have rendered the questions even
more valid. For instance, it is on record, that in spite of the overall consensus on the decisions that MEC
arrived at in the course of the elections, some of the members expressed reservations and open dissenting views on some issues relating to the conduct of the elections. A case in point is the communiqu
that was issued and signed by some of the MEC Commissioners expressing their objections and dissenting
views on some aspects of the May 2014 Tripartite Elections.
In light of the above development, sections 75(1) and (2) of the Constitution and 4(1) of the Electoral
Commission Act are instructive. In line with these provisions, in making appointments of persons to serve
in the Electoral Commission, the President has the duty to consult leaders of political parties represented in the National Assembly and he shall appoint suitably qualified persons. Practice has however
evolved into an arrangement where the political parties on being consulted, propose candidates for consideration for appointment. Further, such candidates have often had political party leanings, or indeed
have had active partisan political backgrounds, with serious implications for their ability to impartially
and objectively discharge the functions of MEC as an independent entity.
Arguably, on the one hand, in a body like MEC where there are people with leanings to different political parties, the partisanship of one member may be matched by that of the other members. As a result,
independence and neutrality may be achieved even though political affiliation may be apparently or
actually present. On the other hand however, clearly, the individual political affiliations of some of the
members of MEC may have a negative effect on the ability of the Commissioners as a collective entity to
22
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
function in a collegial manner. This is likely to have negative repercussions for the element of collegiality which is very essential to safeguard unity of purpose among MEC members which in turn, promotes
credibility of the processes undertaken by MEC and the outcome of an election. Clearly, the actions of
the dissenting Commissioners through the issuance of the communiqu raised questions as to the level
of objectivity in the conduct of MEC, and in turn cast doubts on the credibility of some of the processes
and outcome of the elections.
It is therefore recommended that in order to safeguard the integrity of MEC as an independent body
constituted of persons with the ability to act impartially, the practice of appointing persons with backgrounds in active partisan politics or apparent political affiliations needs to be reconsidered. The Commission proposes that the Electoral Commission Act (Cap 2:03) should be amended to introduce selection criteria that will specify that persons to serve on MEC should be non-apolitical without a background
of active partisan politics. It is a best practice around the world for elections management bodies to
be independent and autonomous from the government and indeed from any other authority or persons.
2.1.4 Civic and Voter Education
The Commission commend efforts by MEC and NICE in leading the Civic and Voter Education for the entire nation. Other civil society organisations including religious institutions played a complementary role
in educating the masses about the elections.
In support of the Civic and voter education, the Commission noted that Information, Education and
Communication (IEC) materials were adequately produced and distributed across the country. However
the Commission noted that IEC materials for persons with visual impairment did not reach the targeted
group, a situation which leads to such people not having adequate information about the electoral process which consequently affected their decision to choose leaders of their choice.
The Commission further observed a positive development particularly on MBC TV where sign language
interpreters were engaged. Furthermore it was observed that some political parties with a specific mention of UDF were engaging sign language interpreters during campaign rallies.
2.1.5 The Voters Registration Process
According to the November 2013 revised electoral calendar issued by MEC, the publication of Gazette
Notice of the period for registration of voters was set for the 25th of June, 2013. The process of registration of voters was designed to take place in phases from 22nd July to 18th December, 2013. The
Commission monitored the voter registration exercise and a report was issued on the exercise. Due to
resource constraints, the Commission adopted a sampling approach to the monitoring of the voter registration exercise, whereby only a few selected districts were visited. The information gathered was
complimented with information collected by the Commission from other independent sources. The voter
registration monitoring tool that was used for this exercise is attached as Appendix I. The monitoring
aimed at ensuring the adherence of human right standards during registration of voters. The observations of the Commission on the voter registration phase were as follows:
a.
The high turnout of registered voters
The Commission observed that notwithstanding the myriad of challenges that characterized
the voter registration exercise, generally the exercise went well. The exercise comprised of
9 phases, and at the end of the exercise, a total of 7, 537, 548 voters were registered. This
represented 94.10% of the projected total for the exercise, which was 8, 009, 734 registrants.
The total registered also represented a 16% increase of the total that was registered in 2010
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
23
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
which stood at 6, 500, 759. Furthermore, of the total registered voters, 3, 481, 365 were
males, while, 4, 056, 183 were men, representing 46.19% and 53.81% of the total respectively.
b.

Opening and closing of Registration Centers
c.
Staff manning Registration Centers
The Commission observed that most voter registration centers opened on time. However,
some centers closed beyond the stipulated time due to a high turnout of people that wanted
to be registered, with the registration staff not breaking for lunch in some centers. It was not
uncommon to have centers that were not able to deal with the large numbers of people that
presented for registration in one single day, and thereby sending back people and requesting
them to report on the following morning. In some of the centers where the Commissions team
carried out on spot checks, it was observed that most of the centers had very unusually long
queues, even towards the centers closing times. Considering the tedious procedure for registration this situation led to people being sent back without registering in some centers.
In most centers, the registration staff comprised of a supervisor, a quality control manager,
clerks and camera operators. The Commission noted that in most centres there was a shortage
of staff, especially those assigned perform the role of clerks, considering the huge numbers of
people that turned up for registration. In some centres the supervisors were preoccupied with
handling of clerical duties due to shortage of clerks, thereby being detracted from carrying
out their prescribed roles of provision of supervision of the entire registration process.
d.
Registration Equipment
The monitoring established that most centres had all the necessary equipment in form of cameras and processing machines which were generally in good condition, even though mostly the
equipment was in short supply. For example, there were shortages of some stationery items,
especially voter registration card laminating papers which were in short supply in most centres
in the districts. Further, some instances of the malfunctioning of the equipment were noted.
In such cases, the team noted that the staff in the registration centers was able to promptly
get the faulty equipment rectified or put in place alternative measures, such as using equipment from nearby centers.
A critical challenge that was noted in this respect was that some of the equipment and materials that was used during the registration though in good condition was of low quality. For
example, the lamination paper that was used for sealing of the voters card was easily peeling
off. Cases of sub-standard ink thumb pads that could easily break or spill too much ink than
required, non-functional printers, inadequately charged solar batteries that sometimes could
not supply enough power for normal operation of the equipment and some pictures had to be
processed at nearby centres, which in some cases were five to seven kilometres away, were
also observed.
e.
Security
The monitoring revealed that throughout the exercise security personnel was available in the
centers. Nonetheless, in some centers the numbers of the personnel was inadequate. Whereas
on average most centers were manned by 2 security personnel, it was observed that some
centers only had one personnel security. It was further observed that there were no instances
of interference with the registration process by the security personnel.
24
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
f.
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Monitors
It was established that most political parties deployed monitors in the registration centres. A
number of independent organisations such as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace
(CCJP), and the National Initiative for Civic Education Trust (NICE) also deployed monitors.
However, mostly the smaller political parties did not deploy monitors. Notably, in the centers
the monitors were involved in the resolution of any issues that arose as well as engaged in the
verification of the daily registration figures, thereby ensuring transparency, with the exception
of a few centers where this was noted not to have been the case.
Another challenge that was observed is that political parties did not consider the welfare of
their monitors as mostly the monitors were not provided with allowances to cater for their
needs in the course of the work. Some monitors complained to the Commissions monitoring
team that they had worked for 4 days on end without having lunch as they were not provided
with lunch allowances. In some centers it was also noted that party monitors had limited
knowledge of the process as some had not received any training for their work. It is important
that the electoral stakeholders should critically look into how best the role of elections monitors can be strengthened through a much more institutionalized mechanism.
g.
Accessibility of the centres
The monitoring established that generally the registration centers were designed in a manner
where they were easily accessible within an acceptable radius. Thus, a number of new registration centers were added to the ones that were designated for the previous voter registration exercise. Most importantly, in most centers special arrangements were put in place to
assist people with mobility challenges, such as persons with disabilities, or people with other
special needs such as pregnant women and the elderly. These people were attended to in a
prompt manner without having to join what were usually very long ques.
h.
Publicity of the Registration Exercise
The monitoring established that in the central region the commencement of the voter registration exercise was not adequately publicised as compared to the southern and eastern region. This turn of event led to a low turnout of people in some centers in the central region for
a few days into the commencement of the registration exercise. The Commission commends
the use of mobile vans for publicising of the exercise. The Commission further noted that there
were some limitations in terms of dissemination of information on the requirements for registration. This led to frequent occurrences of people reporting at the centers for registration
without bringing relevant documentation or testimonies, and thereby being sent back.
i.
The Major Challenges that affected the Voter Registration Exercise
On the whole, the Commission noted that the following major challenges affected the voter
registration exercise:
i. Inadequate staffing
Most centers did not have adequate staff to cater for a large numbers of people who were
presenting at the centers for registration. This led to situations where supervisors took up
clerical roles instead of handling pertinent issues relating to supervision of the voter registration exercise.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
25
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
ii. Involvement of non-trained persons to handle the registration process

The shortage of staff also led to some centers resorting to involving voter registration monitors and students in the process of registration, particularly in the process of babbling. This
development of involving people who had not been trained to provide the services relating
to voter registration could compromise the accurate and proper manner of the handling of
the processes leading to irregularities.
iii. Sending back of prospective registrants
The Commission also noted that there were so many eligible people who were being sent
back without registering against the number of people registered per day. Much as the registration process recorded a very high turnout of registrants, a possibility of some people
giving on reporting to register on the following day cannot be ruled out, with the possibility
of the unintended outcome of voter apathy. The figures of MEC show that there was a 94.10%
of the total number of people that registered against the projected total. It was further
observed that in some centers, the problem of having inadequate personnel relative to the
population of prospective voters in the catchment area was acute. This led to a development where the registration staff would send away people who reported for registration
beyond 3:00 pm, asking such people to report on the following day.
iv.
The slow pace of the registration process
The slow pace of the registration process was also raised as an issue by most registrants. The
Commission observed from that the average longest period of time that people cited was 5
hours.
v.
Inadequate security personnel
There were some lapses with respect to provision of security services, whereby in some centers there was relatively less security personnel in comparison with the numbers of people
reporting to register.
vi.
Non-involvement of monitors in critical processes
In some centers monitors were not being involved in daily statistics verification and resolution
of some of the problems that were emerging in the Centers
vii.
Late payment of allowances of registration staff
In accordance with information shared by NICE, the late payment of allowances of registration
staff was one of the major challenges. In most centers, MEC officials complained that they had
not yet received their allowances for registration phases that had since been finalised.
The Commission accordingly consistently engaged MEC on these challenges through written communication and meetings. It was observed that for the most part, MEC was not forthcoming in responding to
the issues as reported to it by the Commission and other stakeholders. Ultimately, as the polling day
was drawing closer, these issues and other problems that were subsequently observed and reported to
MEC led to a low level of preparedness on the part of MEC to administer the processes during and after
the polls.
26
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
2.1.6 Party Primaries

Another major activity in the electoral calendar prior to the polling phase was the conduct of party
primaries and presentation of candidates nomination papers to MEC. Political parties conduct primary
elections in order to choose candidates to represent the political parties in an election. Some political
parties involved MEC officials in the conduct of their primary elections, while for some political parties
the party structures administered the elections.
The conduct of primary elections by most political parties demonstrated that there are low levels of intra-party democracy evident from several instances and practices that brought rise to irregularities such
as: imposition of candidates by party machineries; manipulation of the electoral process, and according
some contestants unfair advantages over other candidates. This led to several candidates approaching
party machineries to protest the unfair practices in the elections and their outcomes. Resultantly, in
some cases the outcomes of the elections were divisive, leading in some instances to the mushrooming
of several independent candidates out of political parties. Indeed, the May, 2014 Tripartite Elections
saw an increasingly large number of candidates contesting as independents, and an unprecedented large
number of independent candidates winning the elections.
2.1.7 Presentation of nomination papers
The process of nomination papers by candidates was dogged by a number court cases resulting from
MECs rejection of some of the presidential and parliamentary candidates on account of their being
public servants. These issues were settled in court and eventually all the candidates were allowed to
contest in the elections. However electoral stakeholders resolved to pursue the matter of the courts
determination as to the definition of a public officer for purposes of elections, by way of appeal after
the elections.
Effectively, this means that the 3 constituencies of Salima North West Constituency, where Honourable
Dr. Jessie Kabwira emerged winner, Kasungu North Constituency, where Hounarable Wakuda Kamanga
emerged winner, and Karonga South Constituency, where Honourable Malani Mtonga emerged winner,
have candidates whose eligibility to stand for elections at the time of the elections still remain inconclusive, until the determination of the appellate court on this matter, if and when the concerned stakeholders will proceed with the appeal on the lower Courts decision. As aptly observed in this report, this
position raises a number of implications for the principles of legitimate expectations on the part of both
the voters and the candidates, in the concerned constituencies. The Commission recommends that MEC
should ensure that all outstanding issues relating to elections management and administration, including
the issue of the eligibility of public officers to run for political offices should be concluded and resolved
before the next elections.
The Commission monitored the presentation of nomination papers for Presidential candidates at the
COMESA Hall in Blantyre. Overall the exercise went on very well save for an incident that happened
towards the end of the exercise whereby a journalist with Luntha TV was forcefully removed from a list
of journalists that were to travel with the convoy of the Peoples Party presidential candidate in Blantyre City after presenting her nomination papers. The journalist himself obliged although the manner in
which she was handled was evidently unfair.
2.1.8 Electoral Stakeholders Consultations
The Commission held meetings with electoral stakeholders in the months of April and May 2014. The
overall goal of engaging with electoral stakeholders was to solicit input from the stakeholders on their
assessment of the level of preparedness on the part of MEC with respect to the conduct of free, fair
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
27
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
and credible elections. The Commission used the input solicited from these meetings to engage MEC
and propose recommendations on addressing the shortfalls in the management of the various processes
relating to the elections.
In this series of engagement, the Commission met with, members of the District Executive Committees in all the districts except Likoma, District Commissioners, the Malawi Communications Regulatory
Authority (MACRA), the Malawi Police Service (MPS), the Media, NGOs, and all political parties that
contested in the 2014 Tripartite Elections, with the exception of the Peoples Party who refused to grant
the Commission an audience. These meetings focused on a number of issues such as: the role of the
media in ensuring balanced coverage of all players during the campaign period, including their editorial policies with respect to elections, the role of the police and their level of preparedness, the role of
political parties, the manifestos of political parties and the human rights and gender content, inclusion
of vulnerable groups including women and persons with disabilities in the electoral processes, the role
of stakeholders in ensuring a violence-free political process, and the preparedness of MEC. The ensuing
paragraphs outline some of the issues that emerged from the stakeholder consultations.
a. The Media
The coverage by the media of the various processes in the elections, in particular political party campaigns can make a significant contribution to leveling the playing field for political parties and candidates. Fair and equitable media access is critical for a healthy and constructive exchange of views and
for an informed electorate. In this regard, the Commission noted that, with the exception of the public
broadcaster and a few privately owned media institutions, most media houses attempted to consistently
provide a balanced coverage of political parties in Malawi, however there was a perception that some
media houses were biased towards the so called big political parties such as UDF, MCP, DPP, and PP.
This perception was based on the level of news coverage and other special programs which predominantly covered these parties. This trend was inevitable considering that the collateral for coverage by
the media is also borne by the ability, positioning and profiling of a subject as newsworthy. Presumably,
the bigger the party, the more newsworthy it is likely to be. In these circumstances, the issue of equitable coverage therefore becomes more critical, and the Commission was satisfied from the editorial
policies of most of the media houses and monitoring of news and programmes that they were generally
affording equitable coverage to all players. There were considerable attempts by media houses to put
in place deliberate that ensured inclusiveness of all political players.
The editorial policies of most media houses also guided them to scrutinise the content and structure
of news articles before publishing in order to ensure that the news is reported in ethical, professional
and non-partisan manner, and is not presented in a manner that may incite violence, or does not carry
offensive or defamatory material. However, some radio stations which were typically associated with
some political parties, e.g. Galaxy Radio and Joy Radio were perceived to be partisan in their coverage
of elections news and programmes. The association of political leaders over ownership or establishment
of radio and television stations raises the possibility of involvement in partisan coverage by such media
institutions, in favour of such political leaders. Where such media institutions are owned by sitting presidents, the issue of a level playing field among political players may be compromised, as the balance may
overly be tipped in favour of such a candidate.
It is also worth noting that some media houses had put in place mechanisms for promoting womens
access to the services for example a 40% reduction of the applicable advertising rate to all female candidates on campaign issues. Most media houses also run women and children programs, where issues of
women and politics were tackled.
28
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Most of the concerns raised on the media related to the role of the public broadcaster, the Malawi
Broadcasting Television. It was noted that while MBC TV had increased coverage of opposition parties as
opposed to the previous trend, MBC TV was still biased towards the then ruling party. It was established
that in some instances invitations had been sent to opposition political parties to access MBC with their
programmes, but the response, especially on the part of the big parties had not been forthcoming.
The small parties on the other hand were more forthcoming and had increasingly been featured by MBC
on both radio and TV.
It was further established that the new strategic decision by MBC to ensure equitable coverage of all
political players was still hampered at the level of implementation due to in adequate equipment, which
is in some cases almost obsolete and low funding. Inevitably, this situation results in a situation whereby
the functions of the ruling party are predominantly covered as compared to the functions of opposition
parties, since the head of state has a privileged position with respect to coverage by the state broadcaster. Clearly, this raises issues with respect to the need for Malawi to put in place mechanisms that
will ensure the complete separation of powers between the activities of the state president in his/her
capacity as head of state and in his/her capacity as the head of a ruling party. It was not uncommon during the campaign period to see instances of inequitable coverage, with the head of state being predominantly covered under the guise of state functions, which were for intents and purposes campaign rallies.
The need for a speedy enactment of the Access to Information Bill into law with a view to strengthening
the enabling legal and policy environment for the operations of MBC TV for it to effectively function as
a public broadcaster and the functioning of the media generally cannot be overemphasized.
The role of MACRA in enforcement of the Communications Act and thereby regulation of media brought
out the critical concern with respect to the independence of MACRA. Concerns were raised with respect
to the appointment of persons to serve in the board of MACRA by politicians there by raising a possibility
of the board putting politics above professionalism in some cases. An example was cited of an incident
whereby MACRA summoned a radio station to a hearing for simply airing a news items whereby an MP
had said that the late President Bingu wa Mutharika was surrounded by hand clappers. The developments
surrounding the live coverage by radio stations of the 20th July, 2011, anti-government demonstrations,
where some radio stations were almost closed by MACRA, was also cited as one example where MACRAs
decisions have been perceived to be politically motivated.
The observations relating to the independence of MACRA vis--vis the appointment authority of its board
members are valid. In the context of elections, where one of the paramount concerns is to have a free
and independent media that is able to cover and disseminate balanced news without fear or favour of
any political party, the issue of how relevant regulatory authorities such as MACRA play their role becomes critical. Clearly, the medias performance in the course of elections campaign has a critical bearing on the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections. In this case, a lack of or limited journalistic
autonomy on the part of the media can negatively affect the media in their coverage of news, particularly where a ruling party is concerned. This calls for the need for a truly independent and autonomous
media or communication regulatory authority, to ensure that its regulatory powers over the media are
not open to abuse. It is therefore recommended that, in order to effectively fulfill its statutory functions
as an autonomous and independent regulator, particularly for purposes of elections, and in order to gain
and sustain credibility, MACRA needs to be autonomous in its decisions and apolitical. One critical means
of ensuring this is to put in place a mechanism where the appointment of the management of MACRA,
i.e. the Chief Executive is not left in the hands of the Executive, i.e. the President as is the current
statutory provision. The President should not be directly responsible for the appointment of MACRAs
management.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
29
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
b. Political Parties
The Commission observed that save for some isolated incidents; political parties generally conducted
themselves in a non-violent manner in the periods before, during and after the elections. Nonetheless
the Commission condemns the electoral-related violence that occurred in Thyolo at Goliati, Karonga
and Mangochi.
Most of the political parties raised observations that they were being sidelined with respect to news
coverage relating to the elections by the public broadcaster. Some political parties also raised concerns
with respect to the choice by Zodiak Broadcasting Station to only feature 4 out of all the political parties in its vice presidents debate programme. Furthermore, the political parties raised issues relating
to irregularities in some of the electoral phases, e.g. voter verification exercise, citing examples of
incidences where names of people were missing from the register, and including at some institutions of
higher learning where the names of all students were found to be missing from the voters roll.
2.1.9 Monitoring the verification of the voters roll
The process of the verification of the voters roll is one of the critical processes in an election as this
leads to safeguarding the reliability of the roll which is an essential component for credible elections.
In this regard, the Commission monitored the process of the verification of the voters roll as per the
calendar that was released and followed by MEC. Due to resource constraints, the Commission adopted
a sampling approach to the monitoring. The information gathered was complimented with information
collected by the Commission from other independent sources.
Overall, the process of the voters roll verification went well. Nonetheless, on the one hand, following
the initial suspension of the voters roll due to a number of queries, the follow up phases of the verification exercise were carried out within a limited number of days. The exercise was also marked with short
notice periods for the commencement of some of the phases. The result of these shortcomings raised
a possibility of a good number of people not showing up to verify their registration details as required
by law.
On the other hand, the Commission positively noted the development whereby MEC introduced a mechanism for electronic verification, through telephone among other means.
In the main, the Commission recorded the following critical challenges with respect to the Voters Roll
verification exercise:
i. Low turnout of Registered Voters
The commission noted that there was a significant low turnout of registered voters in their respective
centers for the Voters Roll Verification Exercise. Information that the Commission gathered indicated
that in some areas only a 1/3 of the registered voters took part in the Voters Roll Verification Exercise.
Some critical stakeholders such as political parties registered complaints with the Commission that in
some of the phases of the verification exercise, for example the one that run from 9th to 13th April,
2014, in Blantyre City (Urban) and Rural, Chikhwawa, Chiradzulu, Mwanza, Neno, Nsanje, Phalombe,
Thyolo and Zomba Districts, close to a 1/3 of registered voters managed to take part in the Voters Roll
Verification Exercise. Several reasons were attributed to this trend which included but not limited to
previous postponement of the exercise and low publicity as well as abrupt commencement of the exercise.
30
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
ii. Limited Publicity and Short Notice of the Commencement of the Voters Roll Verification Exercise
The Commission noted that the EC provided a short notice period for some of the phases in the Voters
Roll Verification Exercise, for example the one that commenced on 9th to 13th April 2014, and that the
Exercise commenced in an abrupt manner. This problem was compounded by the postponement of the
commencement date for the Exercise on 2 previous occasions, as the Exercise was initially set for the
24th to 28th March, 2014. The exercise was then shifted to 1st to 5th April, 2014, before finally being
moved to 9th to 13th April 2014. MEC issued a Public Notice on Friday, 4th April, 2014, for the Exercise
that was to commence on Wednesday 9th April, 2014, to Sunday 13th April, 2014.
From the consultation meetings that the Commission had with political parties it was evident that 5
days was a short notice for political parties to share the information with their members. Political party
members stated that most of their supporters heard the news about the exercise a day before closing of
the exercise. These factors contributed to the low turnout of people for the exercise.
The Commission recommends that MEC should take into consideration a number of factors that come
into play for accessibility of information by people, particularly in rural areas, as well as the mobilisation of communities for participation in public matters, taking into consideration the fact ;that for most
communities the elections season coincides with a heavy farming work load. Thus, MEC should always
ensure that ample notice period is given for critical electoral processes such as the Voters Roll Verification Exercise, and that there should be consistency in the time tables to avoid demotivating people from
participation.
iii. Irregularities in the Voter Roll

The Commission noted a number of irregularities with the Voters Roll during the verification exercise.
The print out of the Voters Roll had critical missing information. This was duly raised with MEC by several political parties as well as the Commission. MEC attributed the errors with the voters roll to technical faults arising from its computers. Furthermore, in some Centers, the Voters Roll had missing names
and missing photos, for instance, at Nangukutiche School in Matindi Ward, the registrants were 1,140,
however, the Voters Roll had only 1,041 names, bringing out a deficit of 99 names.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
31
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
In some instances, the names for some centers in one District were mixed up with names for centers
in another District. For example, names for books 003579, 003580, and 003277 for Muhasuwa Center,
in Chiradzulu District, were found at Zingano Center in Chikwawa District. In some centers incidences
of wrongly spelt names and wrong dates of birth were noted. For example, at Limbe Primary School
in Blantyre, the following mistakes were found: the name Kananji was spelt as Kandji; the name
Chatonda was spelt as Chakonda; and the name Bennie was given as surname when it was a
middle-name for one Enock Bennie Mangani.
Mistakes were also been noted on dates of birth, thus, for instance, one registered voter had 8th November, 1913, as his/her date of birth instead of 8th November 1971; another registered voter had 13th
April, 1994, as his/her date of birth, instead of 4th April 1994; while another had 4th February, 1964
instead of 6th February 1974. These irregularities were noted in the correction forms at Limbe Primary School on 9th April, 2014. In some cases it was discovered that some centers had abnormally more
names than those registered e.g. Nkhadzi in Lalanje Ward in Nsanje Lalanje Constituency, with an access
of 344 names. A visit to Blantyre Youth Centre showed that voters who registered at Malawi College of
Medicine did not have their names in the voters roll. There was an incident at the Centre in Blantyre
City Centre where a voter had all details on his card corresponding to the roll save for the number.
In raising these anomalies as an issue of concern with MEC, the Commission pointed out that these
anomalies coupled with other developments, such as reports of people who were said to have been going about buying-off Voter Registration Cards from people in villages, brought to the fore serious questions with regard to the accuracy, integrity and credibility of the Voters Roll.
The Commission observed that the development had a possibility of bringing about a waning public
trust in the process. Thus, the Commission in its engagement with MEC recommended that MEC had to
take immediate and urgent steps to restore the public trust in the Voters Roll, by among other things,
providing valid and sound explanations for the discrepancies in the Voters Roll and the measures that
it was going to put in place or it had put in place to address such discrepancies. Nevertheless, MEC was
not forthcoming with concrete action to address the concerns raised and implement the recommendations, with the result that Malawi went to the polls in May, 2014, with a voters role that had a lot of
inaccuracies.
iv. Poorly Trained and Oriented Staff
Information shared with the Commission by the National Initiative for Civic Education (NICE), demonstrated that some of the staff that MEC engaged in the verification centres had inadequate knowledge
of their job. For example at Monyo centre in Nsanje South in Nyachilenda ward, a registrant went for
the process, his name was found in the voters roll while the photo was missing. The centre had a camera and equipment that was functional but the clerks said they would not take his picture but just his
details. It took the intervention of NICE Trust Monitor to inform DCEO who in turn referred the matter
to Regional Elections Officer for the South who was in Nsanje then. After her advice and DCEO gave feed
back to the monitor the individual concerned was assisted. The Commission is recommending that MEC
should ensure that its staff are properly trained and oriented in ALL the electoral processes and stages.
2.2 The Elections Period
2.2.1 Monitoring of the polling process, vote counting and tabulation
The Commission monitored the voting exercise in all the districts in the country except for Likoma Island. The Commission deployed 190 Monitors, 43 supervisors and 8 Commissioners to monitor the polling
process. The 190 monitors were placed at a polling centre located in a ward in a particular constituency
32
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
while supervisors roamed throughout their assigned district, covering a number of wards and constituencies in the process. Following the closure of the polling process, the Commission monitored the process
of the tabulation of results at the Constituency Tally Centres which were located at selected areas in
the districts.
At the end of the monitoring of the polling, vote counting and tabulation process, the monitors submitted duly filled monitoring forms which were compiled into district reports by the supervisors. In addition, the Commission specially designated its officers and Commissioners to monitor the events and
proceedings at the National Tally Centre at COMESA Hall in Blantyre District. This team also interacted
with and observed the processes of other stakeholders, such as well as the parallel tally centre that was
run by the Malawi Electoral Support Network and other stakeholders. Where necessary, the Commission
actively and consistently engaged with the Electoral Commission at COMESA on contentious issues which
were arising in the process of the vote counting and tallying. Further, in appropriate circumstances the
Commission issued press statements or engaged the media on critical issues as they were emerging.
Based on its systematic monitoring of the polling process, vote counting, tabulation and tallying, the
Commission made the findings discussed in the ensuing sections.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
33
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
2.2.2 Opening of Polling Stations and shortage of polling materials

Most polling stations were opened late and voting started late due to absence of or inadequate materials, mostly ballot papers, polling booths, voters rolls and seals. Some polling stations did not have
enough ballot boxes and staff had to improvise by using baskets and sacks so as not to postpone the
polling process. Such improvisations saved the purpose in the short term but this was at the expense
of the security and safety of the ballot papers. This is because where sacks and cartons were used, the
seals that are supposed to be used in sealing the filled ballot boxes could not be used. In the end, the
appropriate and strict security procedures were not followed when closing ballot boxes at the end of
the polling process.
The general trend in terms of times for opening of polling centres was that most opened late, within the
range of the official opening time of 06:00am to afternoon hours, with some stations opening as late as
14:00pm. The Commission noted that the delivery of voting materials was done very late and this did not
allow officials to verify the adequacy of the materials and come up with remedial action in time. In some
instances, polling materials were being delivered after polling had already started. This included ballot
boxes, ballot papers and polling booths. Clearly, MEC encountered difficulties with respect to organizing
and transportation of polling materials, with the result that generally the polling process started on a
chaotic note. This is exemplified by the manner in which polling commenced as discussed below.
In Dedza District, only one centre had all the necessary materials but the rest had shortages. Most polling centres had to use one ballot box for up to 3 polling streams. When the ballot box was full the staff
used use sacks and plastic bags to empty the ballot box. Proper additional ballot boxes arrived later in
the day. In Mzuzu City the Commission observed that some polling centres did not have results sheets.
34
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
This resulted in the results sheets to be filled at the Constituency Tally Centre., as opposed to being
filled at the polling centers as required by law. Clearly in such cases, monitors were deprived of the opportunity to play their rightful roles of verification of the entry of accurate poll results into the result
sheet as per polling center. Essentially, political and independent monitors did not have an opportunity
to observe all the stages of vote tabulation at the various stages due to these logistical challenges.
As noted in Appendix No I there were many instances where a number of polling procedures as provided
by the law were breached due to shortage or absence of materials of delayed delivery of materials. In
particular, the absence of seals for ballot boxes which led to the improvisation whereby other materials
other than ballot boxes were used for filling of used ballot papers seriously compromised the security
and safety of such sensitive election materials.
A further consequence of the shortage of polling materials was that, in the affected polling centres,
which accounts for the majority of polling centres, polling staff had to reduce the number of streams,
thereby adversely affecting the original plan of having no more than 800 voters per stream. This later
led to a more serious problem where the computer system failed to recognize results that had more than
the required number of voters per stream.
2.2.3 Improperly labeled Ballot Boxes
Furthermore in some areas the ballot boxes especially for the presidential candidate were not properly
labeled as is expected. The Commission observed that in some instances, Ballot boxes from previous
elections were used without removing the outdated labels and replacing them with new and appropriate
labels, demonstrating an utmost level of negligence on the part of MEC. This development led to suspicions among voters and stakeholders as to why some ballot boxes were not labeled while others were
improperly labeled. It fuelled speculation which in some cases contributed to the episodes of agitation
amongst voters, and in extreme cases pockets of violence.
For instance, the situation at the Catholic Institute (CI), in Blantyre almost degenerated into violence
as a result of ballot boxes not being appropriately labeled. When some voters noticed that the ballot
boxes were not properly labeled they suspected that this was a ploy to rig the elections and they started
chanting anti-government songs and blocked the road that connects Blantyre and Chikwawa. It took over
twenty police officers to quell the situation and polling only resumed at around 10:30am. MEC officials
had to use pen markers instead of printed labels to label the ballot boxes before polling resumed. In
Ndirande Township in Blantyre District, voting at more than four polling stations had to be stopped following violence after some voters became suspicious of using not properly labeled ballot boxes.
2.2.4 Missing Voters Roll
The issue of missing voters roll was also experienced in a majority of the polling centres that MHRC
monitored. This problem was in most cases sorted out while voting was already underway. The problem
put polling officials under immense pressure as they tried to deal with voters whose names could not be
verified in the absence of supporting documentation.
2.2.5 Irregularities and unprocedural incidences
In addition to the observations discussed above, a number of irregularities and unprocedural incidences
with respect to the polling, vote counting, tabulation and tallying were also observed as summarized in
Appendix I.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
35
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
2.2.5 Role of party and independent Monitors

The 2014 Tripartite Elections were witnessed by party and independent monitors from constitutional
bodies and civil society institutions. Generally MEC was receptive to having these monitors but in some
instances issues of having correct identification arose. In most centres in Blantyre, MEC had not processed identity cards for party and independent monitors. Monitors were being asked to vouch for each
other which created tension in some polling centres. For example in Ndirande voting did not start
because the presiding officers wanted to sort out the issue of identity cards first before voting could
proceed.
Further, due to the protracted process of the polling resulting from the late start late closure, the
tabulation of results was taking place either late into the night or in some instances on the following
day. This resulted in the monitors being very tired and exhausted to the extent that some abandoned
the process before it was officially over. Because of this, there are instances where some monitors did
not sign for the results at the centres that they monitored. For example at Bangwe and Naizi School in
Bangwe Ward in Blantyre District, polling closed at around 10:00pm and the polling officials and monitors agreed to do the actual counting on the following morning. They also agreed that all monitors,
clerks and party security personnel should sleep at the school in the same room where the materials
were kept. But when counting was being done the following day, some party monitors were so tired and
exhausted that they left before they could have a chance to sign on the results sheets.
Besides, monitors not signing the results sheets due to fatigue, there have also been observations that
some party monitors refused to sign the results sheets on instructions from their seniors. This was for
instance observed in Dedza where UDP and PP instructed some of their monitors not to sign the results
sheets, due to their dissatisfaction with the process. In Chitipa District the polling staff did not allow
monitors to verify the results that were being dispatched to the national tally centre. Even MHRC staff
were not allowed to check the results.
The Commission recommends that an independent institution should be entrusted to manage party
monitors during elections. The monitors need to be adequately supported financially and materially.
2.2.6 Incidences of Violence
The Commission observed instances of violence in some polling centres such as Catholic institute (C.I),
Chiwembe/Manja, Kapeni Demonstration School, Makhetha Primary School, and Namalimwe in Blantyre
District and in Lilongwe District at House of Hope school in area 24. The violence occurred as a result
of voters losing their patience over challenges of shortage of materials at the polling centres. It is
commendable however that security forces managed to control the situation which did not spiral into
protracted incidences of violence. In most of these cases, voting resumed after peace was restored.
However, in some centers MEC had to postpone the voting to the following day. In a press statement that
MEC issued, it is on record that this violence led to loss of property such as classrooms, election materials and tents which were burnt down by the irate mob.
2.2.7 Postponement of Polling
Due to the various challenges that besieged the polling process, in particular shortage or delayed delivery of materials, or emergence of pockets of violence, MEC postponed voting to the following day
in some centers. This resulted in 43 out of 4445 polling centers voting on 21st and 22nd May, 2014, in
Blantyre, Lilongwe and Dedza Districts, according to information from MECs official records. However,
even where there was a postponement, in most cases, the actual voting started late on the following
day. For example at Ndirande Malabada constituency in Blantyre, some polling centres started voting
36
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
started as late as 5 Oclock in the evening on the day to which the voting process had been postponed
to. This led to serious tensions to the near re-emergence of violence, as people had to queue for long
hours in the heat. However, the police together with members of the Malawi Defence Force managed
the tense situation and prevented its escalation into violence.
A serious anomaly was also noted with respect to the inaccuracy of MECs records. This, when MEC was
announcing names of constituencies and wards where polling was postponed to the following day, some
polling centres such as Dzindevu and Macheza in Dedza South Constituency were included, yet in these
centers polling had already been concluded on the first day of voting. The announcement by MEC of
these 2 centers was therefore received with suspicion. Confusion reigned as district polling officials did
not have an appropriate response as to why people had to vote again when they had already voted. It
was only due to resistance by party and independent monitors that the second polling was called off.
2.2.8 Announcement of results while voting was in progress
The Commission further noted that some media houses started announcing unofficial results while voting
in other areas had not started or was still in progress. This was particularly the case in those areas where
voting had been suspended due to violence and lack of election materials. As the materials were being
delivered and polling started on 21st May, results were already being aired in some radio and television
stations for those polling centres where voting had already been finalised on 20th May. This scenario
may have led to the influencing of the voters in the areas where voting had not yet taken place. The
Commission engaged MEC on the issue and MEC argued that the net effect of the results that were being
announced would not impact significantly on the national front since the affected voters were less than
1% of the total number of registered voters.
2.2.9 Forced Leave of the Director General of MBC
In a related development with respect to the issue of media involvement during the polling, vote counting, tabulation and tallying process, developments at the public broadcaster saw the Director General
of MBC TV being put on forced leave. On 22nd May, 2014, it was becoming apparent that DPPs Peter
Mutharika was leading in the polls from the constituencies where vote counting had been concluded.
On the same day, the Secretary General of Peoples Party addressed a press conference on the partys
impressions on the voting process. MBC TV did not provide live coverage for the function. This press
conference was followed by another one later in the day which was presided over by the then head of
state, which did not also get live coverage by MBCTV.
On 23rd May, 2014, it was learnt that government had sent the Director General of MBC on forced leave
for refusing to take instructions from senior authorities. Ostensibly this was due to the failure by MBC to
cover live both the press conference by the Presidential Advisor on political Affairs and the State President herself. The Commission noted that this was an issue of concern where the independence of the
state broadcaster, particularly in elections period is concerned. Accordingly, the Commission engaged
the Chairperson of the Board of MBC TV and senior management including the Director General on the
development. The Board Chairperson confirmed the circumstances under which he had been directed to
send the Director General on forced leave. Following the constructive engagement, the Board of MBCTV
withdrew the forced leave instructions and the Director General resumed work.
2.2.10 Nullification of polls by State President and call for vote recount
On 24th May, 2014, the then State President addressed a press conference in which she proclaimed that
following revelations of voter fraud, she had decided to nullify the results of the elections and called
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
37
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
for fresh elections to be held within 3 months from the date of the pronouncement. The Commission
observed that the President had not acted within her powers in purporting to nullify the elections and
call for a vote recount and instituting fresh elections and issued a press statement to this effect. The
Commission noted that section 88(2) of the Constitution, on which basis the President purported to have
exercised the powers of her office to issue the decree in question did not vest power in the presidency
to issue a decree of such a nature or to interfere in the work of independent constitutional bodies such
as the Electoral Commission.
The Commission further observed that in terms of section 76(4) of the Constitution, the Electoral Commission is duty bound to exercise its powers, functions and duties independent of any direction or interference by other authority or any person. The section states as follows: The Electoral Commission shall
exercise its powers, functions and duties under this section independent of any direction or interference
by other authority or any person. The President is not exempt from the application of this section, and
cannot therefore, in the circumstances, use section 88(2), of the Constitution to interfere with the functioning of the Electoral Commission. Under the Constitution the power and duty to conduct elections
and determine results of the elections is exclusively reserved for the Electoral Commission.
2.2.11 Decision by MEC to Conduct a Vote Audit or Vote Recount and Results Tabulation
and Announcement
MEC had a good plan on how the counting, tabulation and transmission of results would be conducted.
However things did not go according to plan and as a result of the logistical challenges that emerged,
some procedures were ignored or completely flouted. It is important that all procedures are followed so
as to maintain trust of the competing candidates and parties. In particular, it was noted that most party
monitors were not present when Presiding Officers were completing district and constituency results
sheets. This was so because in some instances, results sheets were not present at the polling station
where results counting took place or because the Presiding Officers had to use a different form at the
Constituency Tally centre as a result of the computer program requirement of 800 voters per stream.
Four days into the vote recounting at the tally center, it was evident that the results that were coming
in to MEC from the districts had irregularities. This was epitomized by the observation by MEC that the
results that the national tally center had received from 61 centers had anomalies which needed explanations. This exemplified by records that showed that: in some centers the total number of votes cast
exceeded the total number of registered voters; in one district the voter population for a constituency
was closer to the voter population of the district, and a significant amount of arithmetical errors in the
results sheets. This led to instances where political parties sought injunctions from the courts to stop
the vote counting process. MEC countered the court actions and obtained a court ruling which enabled
it to carry on with the vote counting process. However, in light of the series of objections which were
raised by political parties, MEC consulted the political parties and other stakeholders, where a collective resolution to carry out an electoral audit in the contested constituencies was adopted. It was further resolved that, the audit would in some instances lead to a recount of the votes, in the event of the
results of a particular constituency appearing to have been altered.
On Sunday, 25th May, 2014, the DPP obtained an injunction that restrained MEC from proceeding with
the vote recount. This was followed with counter injunctions, which effectively rendered MEC powerless to carry on with the vote counting and tallying process up until 30th May, 2014, when the Court
ruled that, while MEC could carry out the recount, the 8 days period within which results had to be
determined and announced needed to be complied with. As the 30th May, 2014, marked the 8th day
since polling had closed, the ruling effectively meant that MEC had to announce the results. This led to
a situation where MEC released results whose accuracy was heavily objected against, and the process of
38
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
verifying this which MEC intended to carry out was not followed.
The Commission holds the view that recounting was still necessary on the part of MEC rather than for
the electoral management body to go ahead and release the outcome of the elections on the basis of
results whose accuracy the body had on its own admission questioned hence the decision for a recount.
In the absence of the full recounting process to have been undertaken before the final determination
and announcement of results, the way MEC proceeded led it to release the results that were seen as
incredible, a perception which was validated by MECs earlier position.
2.2.12 Management of election materials after polling
The Commission noted that MEC and government lacked adherence of the law in preserving the safety
electoral materials upon completion of polling and closing of elections process. Section 119 of the Presidential and Parliamentary Act states that: At the end of its functions, the (Electoral) Commission shall
deposit all its documents forming the official record of an election (including voters registers, ballot
papers, records from districts and polling stations and summaries thereof and the record and summary
of the national result) with the Clerk of Parliament who shall retain and preserve such documents in
safe and secure custody without destruction for a period of twelve months. The drafters of the law
intended to have the electoral materials in safe custody for at least a whole year so that should any
person disputes the results, they should be able to verify with the results by recounting or otherwise.
However, in contravention to this legal requirement MEC continued keeping the election materials under
its custody in warehouses until more than one month later one warehouse in Central Region caught fire
and all the electoral materials for central region were burnt. In the meantime, two months after the
elections the materials for the remaining regions are still under the custody of MEC. There is need for
MEC to begin to adhere to this law now and in future elections.
2.3 Post Elections Phase
2.3.1 Management of the transition process
The period after the announcement of the official election results by the Malawi Electoral Commission
was a tense one. Due to the protracted counting and tabulation process and calls from some quarters for
a vote recount, nullification and the final decision by the High Court forcing the Electoral Commission to
announce the results within the required 8 days, it was clear that the final outcome was not acceptable
to all the stakeholders. While civil society and election observers offered their opinions on the management of the whole process had been managed, after the polling and results announcement focus was on
how the results would be received by political parties.
It was clear from the onset that major contenders in the elections were unwilling to accept the results.
Some political parties such as the Malawi Congress Party issued public statements to this effect. There
were indications given the prior observations made in public by the then ruling PP on allegations of electoral fraud that the party had not initially accepted the results. However in subsequent developments
the former President Dr. Joyce Banda issued a public statement that recognized the incoming President
and called upon all Malawians to support the new government, despite the challenges experienced in
the electoral process.
Despite accepting the coming of the new government, Dr. Joyce Banda did not attend both the swearing
in ceremony and inauguration of her successor. Democratic principles demand that in a mature democracy, there must be acceptance of results by the winning and losing sides. Failure by Dr. Joyce Banda to
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
39
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
properly hand over power to her successor meant that the Peoples Party had not accepted the election
results.
Notably, the President was sworn in in a very short period of time following the announcement of the
results. The announcement was done around midnight on Friday 30th May and the President was sworn
in on Saturday 31st May around 09:00am. The Commission notes that several commentators have raised
issues with respect to the amount of time that should be there from the period of announcement of
results to the swearing in of a successful candidate.
The non-acceptance of the results by some of the contestants led to a heightening of the tense atmosphere that ensued after 30th May, 2014. While the MCP publicly challenged the results as erroneous, the
PP and UDF had all expressed serious reservations about the outcome of the elections. This precipitated
some incidents of politically-motivated violence for example in some places in Lilongwe and Blantyre
Districts. Most notably, when Parliamentarians were being sworn in on 9th June, 2014, it was reported
that some DPP members of Parliament were harassed by some MCP members of Parliament. The background to that incident was the position taken by the MCP then that the elections had not been won by
the DPP. The Publicity Secretary of the MCP, Dr. Jesse Kabwila stated that that the election had been
stolen from the Malawi Congress Party and that MCP was not accepting the results.
The developments that ensued following the announcement of the results point to the need for a reconsideration of the applicable laws and administrative procedures to set in place a clear mechanism for
handing over power from one regime to another.
2.3.2 Unresolved complaints and court cases
The developments in the post May 2014 Tripartite Elections period also raise one serious issue of concern
relating to unresolved matters that go to the substance of the elections with respect to the process and
the outcome. To begin with MEC released results whose veracity it had not been able to confirm as the
recounting process that MEC had planned to undertaken was not carried out. The Commission further
notes that the logistical chaos that marred the process of counting and tabulation at district levels further discredited the accuracy of the results as compiled at source, which is envisaged in the relevant
laws.
All these developments led to commencement of legal action by some contestants to challenge the
outcome in their respective constituencies. Among the court actions commenced is the case relating to
Lilongwe City South East Constituency involving Mr. Ulemu Msungama of MCP who contested the victory
of Mr. Bently Namasasu of DPP as winner with 10956 votes against 10,854 votes of the applicant. This
represented a difference of 98 votes which is a very narrow margin and which can be affected by inaccuracies arising from the management of the results e.g. on entry, addition, summing up, etc, whether
intended or unintended.
The Commission noted with concern the destruction of evidence which would have informed the courts
determination of the matter through the fire that burnt down the warehouse in which the elections
documents relating to the constituency in question were stored. While the actual cause of the fire remains unknown, it remains a fact that the incident raised a lot of suspicions with some people alleging
that the fire was not a normal accident but a deliberate move to destroy the evidence. Fortunately, the
court ruled that it would still go ahead and pronounce its ruling on the case. Finally, the court ruled in
October that there should be a re-run of the election.
40
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
In light of the fact that there are several of such other cases which were commenced in the court, the
need for safe keeping of the electoral materials cannot be over-emphasised. Suffice to highlight that in
light of the various irregularities and inaccuracies in the electoral process, the legal challenges which
have since been commenced render the outcome for the concerned areas questionable.
Due to logistical challenges related to non - availability of materials, MEC postponed elections in Zgeba
Ward in Karonga Nyungwe Constituency , Mbalachanda Ward in Mzimba Central Constituency, Lifupa
Ward in Kasungu West Constituency, Kandeu Ward in Ntcheu North East Constituency and Lisanjala
Ward in Machinga Likwenu Constituency, Bye elections in these wards were conducted on 7th October
2014, together with bye elections in Blantyre North Constituency where an MCP aspiring candidate died
before the polling day and in Thyolo East Constituency where the winner was elected President and in
accordance with the Constitution the seat became vacant. Notably these bye elections were conducted
within a reasonable time after the tripartite elections and did not present as many challenges as the
tripartite elections.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
41
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
2.3.3 Calls for review of the first-past-the-post electoral system

The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi under section 80(2) provides that the president shall be
elected by a majority of the electorate through direct, universal and equal suffrage. In the 2014 tripartite elections, the winner of presidential elections Prof. Peter Mutharika got 36.4% of the total votes.
Political analysts and other social commentators have expressed concern that the current legal framework governing elections allows for the election of a minority government as was the case this year. It
has been suggested that electoral laws should be reviewed so that this issue is addressed. The proposal
is to have a system that will ensure that the winner is elected by the majority of votes cast, rather than
having the most votes compared to the rest of the competitors.
2.3.4 Capture of the media and civil society by the government.
Whenever a new government comes to power it carries out a number of appointments in the public
service. While some of these appointments are for the purpose of filling in some vacancies, most of
them are merely political appeasement. It has been noted that most of the appointments are filled by
political activists that that did not make it into elected positions. Since DPP took over the government
several appointments have been made so far. A matter of serious concern is the trend that has emerged
whereby the government is deliberately targeting some civil society and media personalities, thereby
weakening the civil society. Again MHRC is concerned that some members of the civil society that served
in the Joyce Banda administrations are going back into civil society. This two way migration from civil
society to government and vice versa puts the credibility of civil society into question, given the ethos
of non-partisanship and transparency among other things, that civil society is characterised with.
2.3.5 Delayed payment of allowances
The 2014 Tripartite Elections have exposed a number of capacity challenges within the electoral body,
MEC. While some of the challenges were internal, only culminating in logistical and technical hiccups
in the electoral process, it later emerged that MEC had also failed to effectively manage its finances,
resulting in failure to pay its staff and creditors in time. Soon after the elections, a lot of issues have
been reported in the media concerning suppliers and staff who, MEC was owing huge sums of money.
Some of these issues remained unresolved at the time of writing this report.
Failure to pay suppliers of goods and services rendered during the 2014 tripartite elections resulted
in transporters causing a stir at MEC, civil servants marching over unpaid allowances in Lilongwe and
Nkhotakota, a transporter blocking entrance to MEC officers in Blantyre, and over 50 drivers besieging
MEC offices in Lilongwe. These developments point to the need for MEC to be adequately resourced and
to be effectively financially independent so as to ensure that all of its financial commitments are carried out properly and that the effective and efficient management and administration of elections is not
negatively affected with financial constraints.
42
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M A L A W I
H U M A N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
R I G H T S
RI GHTS
M
CO
C O M M I S S I O N
43
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Chapter Three
Conclusion and Recommendations
3.1 Conclusion
The commitment, courage and zeal of the many Malawians who participated in the elections and continued to peacefully wait for the results during the protracted period of the determination and announcement is commendable. However, the numerous discrepancies and irregularities, limitations with respect
to preparedness on the part of MEC, limited resources, and incidences of violence that marred the
elections period leave a significant dent on the credibility of the elections. While not all of these events
occurred at all polling sites, they were not isolated incidents, either, but rather came up repeatedly in
different polling centers, indicating a widespread and systematic assault on the right to vote.
As early as January through March and April 2014, the Commission as did other stakeholders raised a
number of challenges that would affect the conduct of the elections if not effectively addressed. Among
the relevant issues raised were misuse of state resources, a low level of preparedness on the part of
MEC, irregularities with the voters roll, and unbalanced media reporting and access, especially of the
public media.
The Commissions findings as detailed in this report demonstrate a clear pattern of systematic undermining of the peoples right to a free and fair election. Therefore, whereas, the elections may generally
have been free, these developments seriously negate the aspect of fairness in the electoral process.
Further, the discrepancies, which in some instances come out as sheer negligence on the part of the
electoral process managers, point to the possibility of a systematic undermining of the peoples right to
vote in a free and fair election.
Elections cannot be free and fair in the face of several glaring irregularities, some of them seemingly
minor, which nonetheless, cumulatively substantially affect the extent to which the elections can be
said to have been free and fair. For MEC to ensure free and fair elections they needed to ensure free
and fair registrators, protecting voters from intimidation, preventing the ruling party from abusing state
resources for its election campaign, ensuring that MBC is unbiased, and ensuring non-aligned electoral
officials who could reliably oversee the process.
In light of the above observations, the Commission finds the wholesome pronouncements by some commentators and observers of the freeness, fairness and credibility of May 2014 Tripartite elections particularly disconcerting considering the many irregularities that were observed. Therefore, the Commission envisages that the information contained in this report raises serious questions on the rhetoric that
has applauded the May 2014 Tripartite Elections as free, fair, transparent and credible in most absolute
terms. On the basis of the findings discussed in this report, it is the Commissions considered view that
the May 2014 Tripartite Elections were not fair, transparent and credible. In this regard, the Commission
has made several recommendations relating to elections management and reform of the electoral laws
and processes as summarized in the ensuing section.
44
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
3.2 Recommendations
3.2.1 Legal Framework
The Commission has noted that although Malawi has an enabling legal environment in place, there is still
need for reforms to ensure that all laws governing elections are harmonised. There is a serious need to
have in place one piece of legislation that governs the appointment of MEC Commissioners, the holding
of presidential, parliamentary and local government elections. Currently the three elections are each
governed by a separate piece of legislation and there are inconsistencies in these laws.
It is equally important that MEC and stakeholders must come to a final understanding on the unresolved
definition of Public Officer with respect to disqualification of candidates in line with Section 51 (2) of
the Constitution.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
45
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
The election laws must also ensure that MEC is insulated from all political interference in the management of elections. As was the case in these elections, there was an attempt by the State President to
override MEC powers by a presidential decree that purported to nullify the elections.
Equally important is the need to insulate public officers from undue political pressure such as was the
case when the Director General of the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation was suspended in the middle
of the election standoff for merely refusing to give live coverage of press conferences organised by the
then ruling Peoples Party. Malawi must conduct a broad analysis of all the legal mechanisms available
for the protection of public officers especially in instances where their professionalism will lead to provoking uncalled for threats from politicians.
46
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Further the Commission also notes that MEC and government lacked adherence of the law in preserving the safety electoral materials upon completion of polling and closing of elections process. Section
119 of the Presidential and Parliamentary Act states that: At the end of its functions, the (Electoral)
Commission shall deposit all its documents forming the official record of an election (including voters registers, ballot papers, records from districts and polling stations and summaries thereof and the
record and summary of the national result) with the Clerk of Parliament who shall retain and preserve
such documents in safe and secure custody without destruction for a period of twelve months. The
drafters of the law intended to have the electoral materials in safe custody for at least a whole year so
that should any person disputes the results, they should be able to verify with the results by recounting
or otherwise.
However, in contravention to this legal requirement MEC continued keeping the election materials under
its custody in warehouses until more than one month later one warehouse in Central Region caught fire
and all the electoral materials for central region were burnt. In the meantime, two months after the
elections the materials for the remaining regions are still under the custody of MEC. There is need for
MEC to begin to adhere to this law now and in future elections.
3.2.2 Election Management Capacity
The Commission noted that MEC did not demonstrate capacity for effective management of elections.
Funding for the 2014 elections was so low that MEC had to actually borrow some materials from the
Zimbabwe Election Commission. Beyond funding shortcomings, a detailed analysis must be conducted to
identify the root causes of the chaos that characterised the elections as seen from the unprecedented
shortage of materials in almost every polling station. MEC had a clear idea of how many people had registered at each polling Centre and this information was used to come up with material requirements for
each polling station. How MEC ended up providing inadequate materials remains a puzzle. This leaves
speculation as to whether there were deliberate elements meant to undermine the electoral process.
In addition, the Commission recommends that detailed in-depth investigations into the shortcomings
and irregularities of the elections should be carried out in order to identify the root causes and put the
issue of whether or not these developments were a result of deliberate manipulation to rest.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
47
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Appendix I
Summary of Irregularities and Unprocedural Incidences during the Elections
While the major challenge in the conduct of the 2014 Tripartite Elections has been said to be the shortage and timely supply of materials, there have also been other issues that were observed.
These are summarized as follows: Name of Constituency Name of Poling Centre Issues observed
Rumphi West
Bolero About six voters from Chitipa district were allowed to vote at the centre

without following proper transfer procedures.
Nkhata Bay Central
Kalambwe

Some party monitors were overheard influencing the choices

of voters that asked for assistance.
Some ballot papers left in the booth treated as cancelled
Nkhata Bay North
Mpamba Polling booths were not clearly marked
Nkhata Bay Tally Centre
St Augustine

Some results sheets that had not been correctly filled had to be

re-done at the tally centre, with no monitors in attendance.
Mzimba Solora LEA Some individuals were campaigning close to the polling station

until they were stopped
Mzimba South East Kabiza

Officer handling presidential ballot papers had to be shifted to

handling ink pad due to incompetence.
Kasungu North

Nthembwe

There was disagreement between MEC and party monitors on

the issue of null and void votes.
Kasungu East

Chamama

A supervisor was influencing some voters but was stopped.
Kasungu Tally Centre
District Council

Some ballot papers not seals properly, some ballot boxes not

labeled, constituency returning officers had problems in

reconciling the results. Most party monitors left the place well

before the tallying of results had been finished
Nkhotakota Tally Centre
KK Secondary School
As above
Dowa Tally Centre Some polling stations did not have all the relevant forms for

reconciling final results. This delayed the process at the tally

centre as results took long to come.
Lilongwe North

Chiuzila

MEC Officials, including Presiding Officer left the polling centre

before they announced the results to those present. Party

monitors had no chance to sign for the results.
Lilongwe South West
Majiga
Ballot boxes were not properly labeled, there were no

serial numbers
Lilongwe City South West
Kawale

Some disagreement on null and void votes
Lilongwe Msinja South Chankhandwe Party monitors not allowed to add their seals on the ballot boxes
Lilongwe South

Ntenthera

Security Officer tried to influence voters but was stopped.
Mchinji

District Tally Centre
Some Presiding Officers presented results in unsealed, unsecure

and/or non-designated envelopes; There were reported broken

seals on the ballot boxes before counting started in some polling

centres such as Mchinji Mission and Msachembe polling centres.
Results sheets from Chimwamkango, Gumba, Ngulukira, Fanuel,

Sunama, Kamchete, Mkalazi, Kamphate, General Farming,

Lipunga, Takondwa and Puye briefly went missing after already

being handed over to CROs, only to be found later but under

questionable circumstances.
Machinga District
Machinga TTC Results from Machinga North East went missing, they had to go
Tally centre
back to some centres to collect duplicates.
Phalombe Tally Centre Phalombe Sec School Some results were being corrected at the Tally Centre to conform

to the requirement of 800 voters per stream. These changes were

being made in the absence of local monitors.
Chikhwawa District
District Council

Results from Kadzumba did not have proper seals, they used pins
Tally Centre
due to lack of seals

Majority of monitors did not witness the process to the end. Due

to delays, most left early.
Nsanje District

Makhokwe

Tallly Centre
48
Presiding Officer had to redo the results sheets while already at the tally
centre to conform to the computer requirement of 800 voters per stream.
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Appendix II
Summary of Shortage of Materials by District
The following is a full list of polling centres that experienced material shortages of some sort:
Name of district
Name of Constituency
Name of polling centre
List of missing/inadequate materials
1. Chitipa Central Community Hall
Missing voters roll
Shortage of seals and writing materials
Shortage of ballot boxes, streams reduced from four
2.
Chitipa
Central

Kawale

Missing voters roll, streams reduced from four to one
3.
Chitipa

Kasisi

Results sheets in short supply
4.
Chitipa

Kapoka

Results sheets in short supply
5. Chitipa Wenya Chisenga CDSS
Missing half the required number of ballot papers
6. Chitipa
District Tally Centre
Final results being emailed/faxed to MEC nt shared

with independent monitors, including MHRC.
7.
Karonga
Nyungwe

Elections in one ward postponed
8.
Karonga
Tally Centre

Tally Centre

Final results being sent to national tally centre not

signed by independent monitors.
9. Rumphi Rumphi North
Mbulunji Inadequate pens and lamps
10. Nkhata Bay Nkhata Bay North
Mpamba Inadequate pens and ink pads
11.
Mzimba
Mzimba Central

Kapiri

Shortage of ballot papers for presidential candidates
12.
Mzimba Luwerezi Lunga Shortage of ballot papers, Part A registers
13.
Mzimba Solora
Mzimba LEA
Missing lids on some ballot boxes, Part A registers
14.
Kasungu
South

Chaima

Shortage of ballot boxes
15.
Kasungu
East

Chamama

Missing serial numbers for some ballot boxes
16.
Kasungu
North East

Chivwamila

17.
Ntchisi

South

Kalema

18.
Ntchisi

North East

Kwezani

Voters roll came late
19.
Dowa East
Mvera Shortage of ink pads, lids for ballot boxes,
20.
Dowa North East
Dowa II Shortage of ballot boxes and polling booths
21.
Mchinji East
Mission
Missing Serial numbers for ballot boxes
22.
Mchinji South
Mnkhwazi
Missing Voters roll, polling booths
23.
Mchinji South West
Mlonyeni
Missing Voters roll and shortage of polling booths
24. Lilongwe
Mapuyu South
Mzobwe Shortage of envelopes for presidential results
25. Lilongwe North
Mphandula
Missing Part A of register
26. Lilongwe North East
Mchezi Shortage of writing materials
27. Lilongwe North West
Majiga
Missing voters roll and ballot papers
28.
Dedza North Chitundu Shortage of Ballot boxes, Sacks were improvised

as ballot boxes.
29.
Dedza North
Mlenga
Missing names in voters roll
30.
Dedza Central Chimbiya
Missing Voters roll
31.
Dedza Central East
Mkhaza
Missing Voters roll
32.
Dedza Central East
Mchikela Inadequate envelopes for sealing results
33.
Dedza

South West

Lobi/Kainga

Missing Voters roll
34.
Dedza East
Matowe Shortage of ballot boxes
35.
Dedza East
Bondo Shortage of ballot boxes, they improvised cartons as

ballot boxes. Later PO sourced 2009 boxes to store the

excess ballot papers.
36.
Dedza South CCAP
Ballot boxes
37.
Dedza

Tally Centre

Council Offices

Missing bar codes for Mlenga, Mganga and

Khwekhwelele. Redoing the results sheets at the tallyu

centre to match the 800 voters per stream requirement
38. Ntcheu
Bwanje
Banda Court Shortage of ballot boxes, missing voters roll
39.
Mangochi North Lugola Shortage of Presidential Ballot papers. Voting

postponed to the following day.
40.
Mangochi Nkungulu Chiwaula Shortage of ballot boxes and ink pads
41.
Machinga South
Msalabani Shortage of ballot boxes
42.
Machinga Likwenu St Theresa Shortage of ballot boxes
43.
Machinga Central East
Mlomba Shortage of Presidential ballot papers
44.
Machinga North East Sonje
Ballot boxes
45.
Balaka West Sosola All materials came late
46.
Zomba Changalume Namadidi Shortage of ballot boxes
47.
Blantyre North Lunzu
Missing seals, shortage of pens and ink pads
48.
Blantyre
South west

Khola

All materials came late
49.
Blantyre City South East Limbe Primary Shortage of ballot papers, torches, ink pads, serial

numbers for ballot boxes, lighting
50.
Blantyre
Makhetha Ink pads, seals for ballot boxes, seals for ballot boxes
51.
Blantyre City South CI
Missing seals for ballot boxes and shortage of writing

materials, ink pads,
52.
Blantyre
Kabula

Makata

Missing seals for ballot boxes
53.
Thyolo North Chikonde Shortage of polling booths, seals for ballot boxes
54. Chiradzulu South
Muhasuwa All materials came late
55. Chiradzulu North CZ Primary
Missing Part A register
56. Phalombe Central Nyesela
Missing voters roll, no torch for lighting
57. Phalombe South Pambachulu Shortage of ballot papers
58. Phalombe East Nazombe
Missing Voters roll
59.
Mulanje
Central

Khaya

Shortage of ink pads
60.
Mulanje Pasani Chingoli
Missing Voters roll
61.
Mulanje West
Thawale
Missing Voters roll and registers
62.
Mulanje North Sanjale
Missing Voters roll, ink pads, results sheets
63. Chikhwawa Nkombezi
Mkumaniza No Lamps for lighting
64.
Chikhwawa
West

Kakoma

Shortage of ballot boxes and polling booths
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
49
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Appendix III
List of Elections Monitoring Supervisors and Monitors
No.
Name
Administrative Region
1.
Commissioner Mr. Dalitso Kubalasa
Northern
2. Commissioner Mr. Marshal Chilenga Central

3. Commissioner Mrs. Gertrude Lynn Hiwa (SC) Central
4. Commissioner Mr. Justin Dzonzi Central
5. Commissioner Mr. Steven Nkoka Eastern
6. Commissioner Justice Tujilane Chizumila (Rtd) Eastern
7.
Commissioner Ambassador Sophie Asimenye Kalinde
Southern Region and National Tally Center
8.
Commissioner Reverend Dr. Zacc Kawalala
9.
Commissioner Mr. Benedicto Kondowe
10.
Mrs. Grace Tikambenji Malera Executive Secretary Southern Region and National Tally Center
11.
Mr. Peter Chisi Director of Civil and Political Rights Southern Region and National Tally Center
12.
Mr. Wycliffe Masoo Director of Disability Rights Southern Region and National Tally Center
13.

Mr. Tiwonge Kayira Deputy Director

of Civil and Political Rights
Chitipa District
Rumphi district
Supervisors: Lusako Munyenyembe and Tiwonge Musukwa
Supervisor: Ezra Gondwe
Name of Monitor Constituency

1. Osman Mwambene Chitipa East
2. Laurent Chibwato Chitipa South
3.
Esau Kayange

Chitipa Central
4.
Jackson Mtambo Chitipa North
5. George Nyondo Chitipa Wenya
11.
Monica Banda Rumphi
12.
Kenneth Chizala
Rumphi
13. Chance Harawa Rumphi
14. Abel Chavula Rumphi
Karonga District
Supervisor: Victor Khwima
Supervisors: Harry Migochi and T Bota
15. Chiza Msangu Nkhata-Bay

16.
Fanny Kaunda
Nkhata-Bay
17. Aaron Mbewe Nkhata-Bay
18.
Florence Kaunda
Nkhata-Bay
19. William Musukwa Nkhata-Bay
20.
Victor Chirwa Nkhata-Bay
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Wezi Kayira
Hilda Mwalilino
Pilirani Lungu
Paul Gondwe
Patrick Dingo
50
Karonga
Karonga
Karonga
Karonga
Karonga
Central
West
East
North
Nkhata Bay District
South
North West
Central
Nyungwe
North
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
North
Central
West
North West
South East
South
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Mzimba District
Salima District
Supervisors: George Kondowe and Beston Pakira
Supervisor: Paul Mbonongo
21. Arther Siliya

Mzuzu City
22.
Moses Gondwe
Mzimba North
23. Wyton Shonga
Mzimba North East
24.
Bruce Lungu
Mzimba West
25.
Thoko Mkhala
Mzimba Central
26. Elliot Lupiya
Mzimba South
27.
Kingsley Jere

Mzimba Hora
28. Austin Zimba
Mzimba Luwelezi
29. Absalom Chumachaazungu Mzimba Solora
30. Amex Chipeta
Mzimba South West
31.
Kondwani Chirwa
Mzimba South East
57.
Wilfred Kaponya
Salima
58.
Mphatso Lumwira Salima
59.
Felister Banda Salima
60. Anne Soko Salima
61. Gabriel Mbawe Salima
Kasungu District
Supervisor: Stuart Mvula
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Jennifer Mkandawire
Lolina Nkhata
Mrs. Kaliu

Austin Nkhwanya
Kennedy Mwambene
Martin Chinyamula
Veronica Fwantha
Grevazio Goliati
Alice Miziyawo
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
Kasungu
South
East
Central
North East
North
North West
West
South East
N/N East
Nkhotakota District
Supervisors: Herbert Dimba and Flora Katete
41.
James Dziko Nkhotakota
42.
Benard Mkwawa Nkhotakota
43.
Martha C Chirwa Nkhotakota
44.
Joseph Hara Nkhotakota
45. Abdul Chinemba Nkhotakota
North
N/East
Central
South
N/East
Ntchisi District
Supervisor: Benje
46.
Dalitso Chinsana Ntchisi
47.
Audrino Kawiriza
Ntchisi
48. Ruth Makota Ntchisi
49.
Maggie Mpesi Ntchisi
East
South
North
N/East
Mchinji District
Supervisor: George Chiusiwa
62.
Mathida Daka
63.
Julius Chuzu
64. Emma Mtema
65. Grace Chilima
66. Catherine Moyo
67.
Kondwani Banda
68. Wadson Mlombwa Lilongwe Mapuyu North

69.
Mickson Kamasikini
Lilongwe Mapuyu South
70.
Esmie Kamanga
Lilongwe North
71. Charles Bright Msukwa Lilongwe Msozi South
72.
Blessings Khuwi
Lilongwe Msozi North
73.
Jali Chitenje

Lilongwe Kumachenga
74. Winfred Omega Lilongwe North East
75. Pius Dambula Lilongwe City West
76. Edson Hamitoni Lilongwe, Mpenu Nkhoma
77. Ireen Chisambo Lilongwe, Mpenu
78. Limbani Nthala Lilongwe South East
79.
Weld Kawaye

Lilongwe East
80. Godfrey Chirombo Lilongwe Central
81. Ellen Chirwa Lilongwe City Central
82.
Felix Chibwana Lilongwe North West
83.
Zione Ntukula Lilongwe City North
84.
Maggie Moffat Lilongwe South West
85. Charles Nkhoma Lilongwe City S/East
86.
Mdziwenji Dambula Lilongwe City South West
87. Chricy January Lilongwe Nsinja North
88. Chisomo Phiri Lilongwe Msinja South
89. George Makhalira Lilongwe South
Supervisor: Juliet Sibale
Supervisor: Jeremiah Mpaso
M A L A W I
H U M A N
East
Central
West
South East
North East
North
Ngala
R I G H T S
North
N/East
East
West
South
S/ West
Supervisors: Winston Mwafulirwa, Mtendere Ndende

and Grace Kalowa
Dedza District
Dowa
Dowa
Dowa
Dowa
Dowa
Dowa
Dowa
Mchinji
Mchinji
Mchinji
Mchinji
Mchinji
Mchinji
Lilongwe District
Dowa District
50. Ireen Magalasi

51.
Twelusiwe Kayange
52.
Tifa Phiri
53.
Elicy Kayange

54.
Doreen Ngomba
55. Linda Nedi
56. Praise Jiya
North
South East
South
Central
N/West
90.
Jambo Sam
91. Paulina Timote
92. Abi Sharifu
93. Alinafe Gwilacheyo
94. Hytone Jawati
95.
Felix Mafiyo

96. Gladys Benard
97.
Taison Kasamba
C O M M I S S I O N
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
Dedza
North
North West
Central
Central East
South West
East
South
West
51
Ntcheu District
98.
Tamara Matope Ntcheu
99.
Felix Mainesi Ntcheu
100. Suzan Mijoni Ntcheu
101.
Samaleni Khuwi
Ntcheu
102. Wonderful Mukhuwa Ntcheu
103.
Mercy Chitanda Ntcheu
104.
Thomson Chauluka Ntcheu
North East
Bwanje North
Bwanje South
Central
South
North
West
Mangochi District
Supervisors: Priscilla Thawe and Naomi Mukhuwa
Mangochi North
Mangochi North East
Mangochi Malombe
Mangochi East
Mangochi South
Mangochi South West
Mangochi Central
Mangochi Nkungulu
Mangochi West
Mangochi Monkey-Bay
Mangochi Lutende
Mangochi Masongola
Zomba District
Zomba Nsondole
Zomba Changalume
Zomba Lisanjala
Zomba Central
Zomba Lisanjala
Zomba Malosa
Zomba Ntonya
Zomba Thondwe
Zomba Likangala
Zomba Chisi
Balaka District
Supervisor: Michael Kakatera
127.
Christina Katantha
128. Sinthani Banyani
129. Ruth Mangani
130.
Lucy Kanike

Balaka
Balaka
Balaka
Balaka
Central East
North
West
South
Machinga District
Supervisor: Priscilla Thawe and Naomi Mukhuwa
131. Patrick Makhanza
132.
Charles Katole
133. Naomi Mkorongo
134. Gift Malata
135.
Debora Moyo
52
M
CO
Joakim Makondetsa
Pilirani Kapena Banda
Machinga North East

Machinga East
Blantyre District
Supervisors: Wycliffe Masoo, Peter Chisi and Tiwonge Kayira
139. Eric Mlemba
140. Prince Maluwa
141. Chris Namkwenya
142. Aubrey Ntasa
143.
Jovino Manduta
144.
Frank Madenga
145.
Dickson Nathumba
146.
Jameson Chimombo
147. Stella Ngondoma
148. Ellena Chakuamba
149. Yamikani White
150. Rose Piyo
151.
Merlyn Kapakasa
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
Blantyre
North
North East
Rural West
Rural East
Rural North
City Central
Malabada
South West
City East
Bangwe
City South East
City West
Kabula
Mwanza District
Supervisor: Zondwayo Nhlema
152. Phillip Mponda
153. Oscar Mulenga
Mwanza Central
Mwanza West
Neno District
Supervisor: Simeon Matope
Supervisor: Peter Mota

117. Emily Mpokwe
118.
Madalitso Chitembeya
119. Linda Vito
120.
Bazilio Nikubale
121.
Madalitso Ngna
122. Aggrey Makina
123. George Chinyama
124.
Victor Mangani
125.
Jimmy Chisi
126.
Christopher Kaundachulu
RI GHTS
136.
137.
Supervisor: Topkings Nyirongo
105.
Royce Kanike

106.
Thokozani Mazambani
107.
Jackeline Kachepatsonga
108.
Felister Chisesa
109.
Uka Lifa
110. Erica Makamba
111.
Frank Madenga
112. Raphael Banda
113.
Tova James
114. Yohane Maseko
115. Imran Milanzie
116. Patrick Majawa
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
Machinga
Machinga
Machinga
Machinga
Machinga
154. Hastings Mbavimba Nemo North

155.
Francis Nyadani Neno South
Thyolo District
Supervisor: Jim Kaunda
156.
Davie Ngozo
157.
Idana Kamandani
158.
Bester Maseko
159.
John Tambwali
160. Stonard Chinyama
161.
Davie Masenga
162.
Esnarth Kabambe
Thyolo North
Thyolo West
Thyolo Central
Thyolo East
Thyolo South
Thyolo Thava
Thyolo South West
Chiradzulu District
Supervisor: Tinkhani Khonje
163.
Johnson Toto Chiradzulu
164.
Theressa Soza Merido Chiradzulu
165. Linda Roberto Chiradzulu
166.
Mike Magombo Chiradzulu
167. Sanued Mustaffa Saidi Chiradzulu
South
Central
North
West
East
South
South East
Likwenu
Central
Central East
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Phalombe District
Supervisor: Lucius Pendame
168.
Herbert Kusamale
Phalombe
169. Stanford Chithyoka Phalombe
170. Gracium Chipwere Phalombe
171. Property Maninga Phalombe
172. Richard Matemba Phalombe
Central
South
North
East
North East
Mulanje District
Supervisor: Patrick Stephano
173.
Jennifer Simon
174. Patricia Mlatho
175. Catherine Thengo
176. Innocencia Sindani
177. Sankho Ntelera
178.
Daniel Lemani
179.
Brian Sapuwa
180.
Mc Elliot Kaleso
181. Paul Njola
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Mulanje
Limbuli
Central
South
South East
Bale
South West
Pasani
West
North
Chikhwawa District
Supervisor: Flossie Botomani
182. Shambo Danger Chikhwawa South
183. George Thomson Chikhwawa Nkombezi
184. Alfred Watson Chikhwawa Central
185.
Fredson Paleke Chikwawa West
186. Agatha Mkombeza Chikhwawa North
187.
Deepbrain Soloti Chikhwawa East
Nsanje District
Supervisors: George Mahamba and Sandress Honde
188. Patrick Jeke Nsanje South
189. Evie Baleti Nsanje South West
190.
Mary Namalomba Nsanje Central
191.
Esnarth Kuyeli Nsanje Lalanje
192.
Joyce Jimu Nsanje North
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
53
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Appendix III
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
M
IS
SI O
N
ELECTION REGISTRATION MONITORING TOOL
OM
RI GHTS C
Malawi Human Rights Commission

2014 TRIPARTITE ELECTIONS REGISTRATION MONITORING TOOL
A. REGISTRATION CENTER INFORMATION
DISTRICT: ............................................
CONSTITUENCY NAME: ....................,..............................................
REG. CENTER NUMBER: ........................................
REG. CENTER NAME: ........................................................
B. STAFF AND MATERIAL/EQUIPMENTS INFORMATION

Established Number of Staff: .......................
Number of staff available: ..........................................................
Availability of Equipment e.g. Cameras, Voter Certificates

1. All equipment and materials Available: ...............................................................................................
2.
2. Material not available:................................................................................................................
C. SECURITY
Availability of security: .............................................................................................................................
Number of Security officers if available: .........................................................................................................
Any sorts of intimidations: .........................................................................................................................
MONITORS
Availability of monitors: ............................................................................................................................
Number of Monitors available: .....................................................................,...............................................
Institutions /Political parties: ......................................................................................................................
ACCESSIBILITY OF THE REGISTRATION CENTER
..........................................................................................................................................................
Factors making the centre not accessible if not: Groups of people finding it difficult to access the center: Any other information:
D. CIVIC AND VOTER EDUCATION
Whether the people were adequately informed:
E. WELFARE OF REGISTRATION CENTER PERSONNEL
F.
Confirmation of eligibility to register
G. Any other general information
MHRC OFFICER:.................................................................
SIGNATURE: ...........................................
REG. CENTER OFFICER: .......................................................
SIGNATURE:............................................
54
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
May 2014 Tripartite

HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country,
directly or through chosen representatives...
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority
of government; this will shall be exercised in periodic
and genuine elections, which shall be by universal and
equal suffrage and shall be held by
secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N
55
May 2014 Tripartite

M
IS
SI O
N
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
RI GHTS
M
CO
I
AW
MAL
HU
MA
N
M
IS
SI O
N
Page 6 Media
+265 111 743 300
M
O
C
RI GHTS
MAY 2014 TRIPARTITE ELECTIONS

MONITORING REPORT
M A L A W I
H U M A N
R I G H T S
C O M M I S S I O N

MHRC 2014 Elections Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MHRC 2014 Elections Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M

May 2014 Tripartite

MAY 2014 TRIPARTITE ELECTIONS

May 2014 Tripartite

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

May 2014 Tripartite

I: Summary of Irregularities and Unprocedural Incidences During the Elections

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

: Common Market for East and Southern Africa

Constituency Returning Officer

Malawi Electoral Commission

Malawi Elections Information Centre

Malawi Electoral Support Network

Malawi Human Rights Commission

: National Initiative for Civic Education

: Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa

: Southern Africa Development Community

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

representative of his or her constituents.

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

1.4.1 Promotion of empowerment and effective Participation of the citizenry

Profiling of Elections as a Human Rights Issue

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

2.1.2 The Appointment of the Vice President as the Overseer of MEC

May 2014 Tripartite

The high turnout of registered voters

May 2014 Tripartite

Opening and closing of Registration Centers

Staff manning Registration Centers

May 2014 Tripartite

Accessibility of the centres

Publicity of the Registration Exercise

The Major Challenges that affected the Voter Registration Exercise

May 2014 Tripartite

ii. Involvement of non-trained persons to handle the registration process

The slow pace of the registration process

Inadequate security personnel

Non-involvement of monitors in critical processes

Late payment of allowances of registration staff

May 2014 Tripartite

2.1.6 Party Primaries

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

iii. Irregularities in the Voter Roll

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite

May 2014 Tripartite