LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-The Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC)’s refusal to grant Chisankho Watch access to the voters’ roll in analyzable electronic format, while legally grounded, raises significant concerns about transparency, accountability, and the evolving role of civil society in electoral oversight.
At the heart of MEC’s decision is the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections Act of 2023, particularly Sections 20 and 21. These sections limit access to the voters’ register strictly for verification purposes during a designated period, typically within a controlled setting.
From a legalistic standpoint, MEC’s response is consistent with the statute, and its strict interpretation ensures that voter data is not misused or exposed beyond the boundaries defined by law.
However, this raises the question: Does the law, as currently framed, sufficiently accommodate the needs of modern electoral observation, especially in a digital age where data-driven analysis is key to verifying electoral integrity?
Chisankho Watch, a reputable coalition involving the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP), Public Affairs Committee (PAC), mHub, and the Gender Justice Unit (GJU), is not seeking biometric or sensitive personal data.
Rather, the coalition seeks non-biometric data like names, sex, dates of birth, residence, and registration numbers – all standard identifiers in most global electoral rolls.
By providing the roll in a machine-readable format, Chisankho Watch aims to analyze registration trends, inconsistencies, possible duplications, and errors – essentially helping to clean up the register before polling day. Independent verification of the voter roll is an internationally recognized practice, especially in countries where trust in electoral institutions is low.
Thus, MEC’s decision, while legal, could be interpreted as a resistance to scrutiny, especially in light of Malawi’s fragile electoral environment that has previously suffered from legitimacy crises – notably in 2019, when the courts nullified the presidential election results due to irregularities.
While MEC emphasizes that the roll was available for in-person inspection and through a mobile platform, such methods are not conducive to systematic or in-depth analysis.
A mobile verification code may help individual voters confirm their names, but it doesn’t allow organizations to assess broader patterns, like under-registration in certain regions or demographic imbalances.
Moreover, the insistence on physical inspection at registration centres appears outdated in a digital democracy. It is also not scalable or efficient for a national-level verification project.
This leads to the suspicion that MEC may be shielding itself from the possibility of external actors exposing flaws or discrepancies in the register, especially if such findings could be politically sensitive or undermine confidence in the institution itself.
The denial of access to Chisankho Watch may also be interpreted as a broader commentary on the shrinking space for civil society in Malawi. The coalition represents diverse and credible institutions with a track record of constructive engagement in governance and electoral matters. Denying them access potentially discourages other non-state actors from participating meaningfully in the electoral process.
If the Commission truly appreciates the role of civil society, as it states in its letter, then it must go beyond ceremonial appreciation and move towards practical inclusion — especially in a context where institutional trust is earned, not assumed.
By refusing access, MEC missed an opportunity to collaborate proactively with stakeholders who are eager to enhance public trust in the electoral process. Chisankho Watch had committed to sharing its findings confidentially with MEC prior to public dissemination — a generous and professional gesture that could have strengthened the Commission’s credibility.
This cooperative model, adopted in other countries like Côte d’Ivoire, has shown that involving independent observers in verifying the electoral roll enhances institutional legitimacy, not diminishes it.
I’m conclusion, ultimately, the standoff reveals a deeper issue: Malawi’s electoral legal framework may need urgent reform to align with global standards of electoral transparency and digital governance. At the same time, MEC must embrace a cultural shift toward openness, collaboration, and shared responsibility with civil society actors.
Laws should never be used to shield institutions from public accountability. Instead, they should evolve to reflect the democratic maturity of a nation. As Malawi approaches the 2025 elections, the credibility of the process will not rest on compliance with the letter of the law alone, but on the perceived integrity, openness, and inclusivity of all key electoral stakeholders.
