The Supreme Court in Namibia has dismissed a case put forward by the opposition candidate, Panduleni Itula, calling for the annulment of the country’s November 2019 presidential elections that returned incumbent President Hage Geingob into power.

Motivation for Court Case

The country’s electoral commission had in November announced President Hage Geingob’s re-election for a second term. With 56.3% of the votes made at the polls, Geingob performed well ahead of his closest rival, Panduleni Itula, who garnered 29.4% of the votes. Another opposition candidate McHenry Venaani of the Poplar Democratic Movement (PDM) came in third place with 5.3%.

It is, however, important to note that Geingob’s tally performed well below the 87% he had gotten when he won his first term in 2014.

I am just a proud Namibian that we could have free and fair elections, no fighting, no attacking each other, free movement was allowed,” said President Geingob after the result was announced.

While both Geingob and Itula were members of the ruling Swapo party, Itula had exited the party prior to the elections, standing alone as the country’s first independent presidential candidate. Swapo has been the ruling party in Namibia for three decades since the country first gained independence from South Africa.

A dispute over the use of paperless electronic voting machines – which Namibia introduced in 2014, had been a bone of contention between the ruling party and opposition prior to, and after the elections.

Venaani had initially gone to the court prior to the election stating that the use of electronic paper machines opened the voting process up to be manipulated. The case was dismissed. Likewise, Itula made his own case post-election, calling on the Supreme Court to nullify the elections over the use of paperless electronic machines which left no verifiable paper trail.

Supreme Court’s Decision

In his ruling, Chief Justice Peter Shivute said: “We decline to set aside the election and order a rerun.”

Explaining the court’s decision he also said, “Applicants have not shown that the absence of a verifiable paper trail has adversely affected their fundamental right to vote.”

While the result of the polls was maintained, the judges ruled in favor of paper trails for future elections describing the current situation as“unconstitutional.”