The Four-Month Waiting Period Absurdity

Imagine it’s a week after the 27 November elections and Namibians have elected their president.

When the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) announced the results, the president-elect was chilling at Omaalala.

Will the state rush to the village to guard the president-in-waiting?

If so, will this be done for four months until 21 March. Through which legal instrument?

Sakeus Shanghala, the last imaginative mind in Swapo, wanted to remedy this by proposing the creation of an ‘office of president-elect’ through law.

The government ignored his proposal and believed Swapo would rule forever.

To illustrate this mindset: In April 2022, prime minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila told villagers at Okatana that Swapo will rule until ‘Jesus comes back’. Either Shanghala smelled Jesus on his way back or he genuinely desired a sensible political system.

‘MIND THE GAP’

This question needs to be asked: If voters choose a new president and new ruling party, why should they be punished with four months of a government and president whose services they no longer want? 

By the same token, what do those voted out do in office for four months?

History holds some clues.

Over about six months in 1993, a few months before South Africa’s independence, scholars discovered that the equivalent of five million standard A4 pages from the national intelligence service headquarters were destroyed.

In addition, files, microfilm, audio, and tapes, etc, were shredded, wiped or incinerated.

Public property and money that ended up in private hands is another discussion. In Namibia, a visit to the lands ministry to request title deeds transferred between January and 20 March 1990 might be telling.

Bank records for the corresponding period would demonstrate what people can do with knowledge of the last dance.
 
CONSTITUENT ‘HANGOVER’

The period before a new term starting originated from the four phases delineated by the Constituent Assembly in terms of mandates set out in section 15 of the Constituent Assembly Proclamation (1989).

The four key mandates were (a) to prepare a constitution for Namibia; (b) adopt the constitution; (c) declare the date for independence; and (d), to establish a government.

These mandates emerged as four phases: (a) the preparatory phase from 21 November to 20 December 1989; (b) the committee drafting phase from 21 December 1989 to 24 January 1990; (c) the finalisation and adoption phase from 25 January to 9 February 1990; and, (d) the independence preparation phase from 10 February to 20 March 1990.

In summary, the Constituent Assembly’s four mandates led to four phases that lasted for four months.

Subsequent governments ignored the need for realignment.

It may be that they were ignorant of the fact that while the 1989 election took place in November, the four months were dedicated to specific constitutional work.

At present, elections take place in November and the elected leaders do not do any work like their counterparts who started two weeks after the election.

As present leaders, we look like clowns incapable of thinking when the origin of the four-month waiting period is considered.
Effectively, we are slaves of the 1989 circumstances. 
 
AN OPPORTUNITY?

At present, parliament is dealing with the Electoral Amendment Act 2024, which is primarily concerned with challenges of candidates nominated and elected as members of the National Assembly.

This amendment would not be necessary had the four-month waiting period been scrapped during the past 34 years.

This amendment, and Shanghala’s president-elect proposal, treats the symptoms.

It is by eliminating the four months waiting period that the root cause can be dealt with. 

How? A plausible approach is fixing the election date in February or March.

Last week, president Nangolo Mbumba and the ECN met over apparent concerns regarding the General Registration of Voters (GRV).

Apart from the fact that it was Mbumba who determined both the election and the GRV dates without Supplementary Registration of Voters (SRV), this may actually offer an opportunity to remedy the four-month waiting period.

Mbumba and Swapo seemingly want the registration of voters extended or an SRV introduced.

The ECN argued against a GRV extensions, let alone an SRV, saying it would affect the election date.

Writing in The Namibian on Friday, legal practitioner Sisa Namandje dismissed the ECN’s position on the impact of the SRV on the set election.

He argued that the SRV can take place in a ‘short period’ without postponing the election date: “Supplementary registration can take place without postponing the election. This election date is fixed and cannot be postponed.” 

Swapo and Namandje seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

DATES AND DOUBTS

The election date is not the only one that is similarly set.

Last year, Swapo and parliament passed the Electoral Amendment Act 2023 that amended 25 of the Electoral Act, 2014 with this insertion: “Despite subsection (1), the general registration of voters after the commencement of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2023 must take place during a period not later than 31 August 2024 as the President may determine by proclamation in the gazette.”

As such, no GRV took place in April as usual and the number of dates of the GRV were extended.

Swapo and parliament effectively combined the GRV and SRV. This was also made clear during parliamentary debates.

President Mbumba determined the GRV dates in this fashion. The GRV path and the election date are both creatures of statutes. If the election date cannot be postponed so is the GRV path taken. 

The Electoral Act provides for Continuous Registration of Voters (CRV). This has not taken place nor has the government so far moved to enforce it.

If there is to be SRV, it must take place normatively and not be shortened for political expediency. 

If this happens, the election date must also be moved forward. Indeed, people cannot have their cake and eat it. 

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

To return to the crux of the matter: The discussion on resolving voters’ registration may actually be an opportunity to deal with the four-month absurdity. This would decisively benefit voters, political parties, the political system, minimise potential corruption and the plundering of resources, and ensure a smooth transition regardless of who comes to power.

Let it be noted again, the four-month period stemmed from the 1989 Constituent Assembly and was used for work on state formation.
At present, it serves no purpose and needs to be remedied. Let’s use this opportunity. 
 

• * Job Shipululo Amupanda is an associate professor in political studies at the University of Namibia and the activist-in-chief of the Affirmative Repositioning movement. He is also a former mayor of Windhoek.