Election petitions chew up 900m/- of taxpayers’ money

The judiciary has spent over 900m/- in determining about 250 election petitions, which were filed at different courts countrywide, following the October 25, 2015 General Elections results. 

According to a report by the judiciary, all councillor and parliamentary cases, except one, have so far been disposed of, thanks to a technical support of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which funded the training of the judicial officers.

The petitions that challenged the councillor’s elections results were determined by March 2016, says the recently released report, with statistics showing that almost 200 councillorship petitions were lodged before Resident Magistrate’s Courts countrywide after the 2015 General Elections.

Hitherto, only one out of the parliamentary petitions that were filed at the High Court through different registries in the country, is pending. Dar es Salaam Registry had 11 parliamentary election cases and all except one have been determined.

While Mtwara registered six petitions, Tabora and Mwanza had five cases, each. Other registries with their cases in brackets are Iringa (four), Bukoba (three), Moshi (three), Shinyanga (three), Dodoma (two), Tanga (two), Arusha (one), Songea (one) and Sumbawanga (one).

On councillor petitions, Dar es Salaam topped the list with 47 cases, trailed by Tanga with 21 cases. Iringa came third with 17 cases while Kilimanjaro and Manyara had 12 petitions, each.

Other regions with the number of cases in brackets are Bukoba (nine), Arusha (eight), Mtwara (eight), Mara (eight), Songea (seven), Mbeya (six), Tabora (six), Sumbawanga (four), Lindi (four), Dodoma (four), Mwanza (three) and Kibaha (two). Njombe, Geita, Shinyanga and Kigoma had one case, each.

The report has highlighted several challenges that the judiciary faced in handling the cases. The critical challenges ranged from institutional stage of proceedings, powers of registrars in handling petitions to the period within which to file reply to election petitions.

Other challenges include the Attorney General’s right to file election petition without depositing security for costs, matters relating to security for costs, ambiguity on the law at pretrial stage, inadequate funding and issues relating to procedures of witness affidavit.

The jurisdiction of the District Court and Resident Magistrate’s Courts to hear the election cases also arose, as well as the status of complaints that were not referred to ethics committee and lack of procedure under the law on how to deal with application for scrutiny.

The report recommends, among others, the state to educate the public on issues related to electoral process and ensure that technological age is not a challenge to personnel handling election process.

It is further proposed for the use of Kiswahili language by petitioners in preparing election petitions, citing Zanzibar and India where Kiswahili and Hindi language, respectively, are used. The government, advises the report, should always disburse sufficient fund to the judiciary for smooth handling of the cases.

The report attributes the successful determination of the cases to a new rule in the National Elections Rules by the Chief Justice (CJ) that sought speedy resolutions of election disputes. The new Rule 21A requires witnesses in election petitions to swear affidavit before entering the witness box.

The CJ had realised the pressing need to promote efficiency in the management and disposal of future election petitions and conscious of principles enunciated under Article 107A (2) of the Constitution.

The Rule also requires each affidavit to be enclosed in a sealed envelope together with sufficient certified true copies for each of the judges, all other petitioners in the petition and respondents and be opened by the court when the witness who swore the affidavit is called to testify.