What proposed changes to election laws mean
For More of This and Other Stories, Grab Your Copy of the Standard Newspaper.
Mkangi says the big issue at hand is not the changes but the environment in which they were made. “The law itself was as a result of political consensus whose main purpose was to progressively repair our electioneering process as we move towards the General Election,” he says. Lawmakers say the changes do not mean the country will resort to manual voting and tallying systems. “It only suggests putting in place of a complimentary mechanism should the electronic system fail,” Mkangi says. Some countries which use electronic voting machines have previously resorted to manual systems when technology fails. For instance, in the recently concluded polls in Ghana in which the incumbent John Dramani Makhama was defeated by Opposition’s Nana Akufo- Addo, the Ghanaian electoral commission used both manual and electronic systems in verification of voters. This means if a person got disqualified by means of the verification machine, the voter would have the alternate option of manual verification. “It is all about perceptions. We are currently in a situation that doesn’t allow reason to prevail because both sides do not trust each other because of our checkered history with elections. The only way out of this impasse is if the IEBC, the ruling coalition as well as the Opposition all agree to set their differences aside and work together,” Mkangi says. Other amendments passed include the suspension of the Election Campaign Finance Act, which would compel candidates and political parties to submit their finance details to the electoral commission within a set deadline. Also, current and aspiring MPs will not be required to hold a university degree to vie for political office in 2017 polls. The House also introduced amendments that seek to create equity in party lists, giving minorities a chance to be in Parliament. “In as much as this law may be good for the country’s electoral process, it fails in one key area. There was no meaningful, qualitative public participation in the proposed amendment. Amendments to the law can only be validated by public participation,” constitutional lawyer Peter Wanyama says.Do not miss out on the latest news. Join the Standard Digital Telegram channel HERE.
