152
Country reports: Africa and the Middle East
trained electoral staff. AVAP observed double and/or multiple voter registration, misspelled details of registered voters, missing or incomplete details of registered voters, portraits of registered voters missing or swapped, and inappropriate recording of dates of birth and other details.9 The most common form of corruption was votebuying. Practices included collecting NRCs from unsuspecting registered voters, donating goods to traditional authorities and ‘treating’ would-be voters.10 For example, in Chipata Central, the ruling Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), led by Sinoya Mwale and Getrude Sakala, was caught collecting cards from registered voters, and, in Lusaka Central, MMD candidate Rose Zimba was reportedly distributing beer to voters.11 TI Zambia collected and documented over thirty cases of electoral malpractices, which were reported to the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).12 By September 2007, however, no feedback from the commission had been received. EU observers also noted bias in the use of the public media during campaigns.13 Despite each contesting party having the opportunity to participate in a television interview called Elections 2006, in general the coverage of the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) TV and radio clearly gave more time to the ruling MMD compared to opposition parties. There were also several examples of development projects being announced by the government just two months before the elections. As a means to 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
encourage votes, some thirty projects were suddenly to be funded to the tune of K518.6 billion (US$156 million).14 During the elections there were further examples of irregularities. At one polling station in Chilenje, a woman was seen by fellow voters casting two presidential ballot papers.15 This led to confusion, as other voters demanded two presidential ballot papers as well. In many cases there were inadequate electoral materials: at one polling station in Bangweulu constituency, too few local government ballot papers were delivered, disenfranchising a number of voters.16 Once the votes were cast, major discrepancies were found between the number of ballots for parliamentary and presidential candidates announced at polling stations, and those announced for the same candidates at collation centres. For example, in Munali constituency the total sum of votes recorded for presidential candidates and parliamentary total votes varied by a significant margin (some 20,000 votes).17 Considering this evidence, it is not surprising that, within eight months of the elections, three parliamentary seats (Kapoche, Nalolo and Mbala) were nullified by the High Court, citing overwhelming evidence of such illegal practices as vote-buying, bribery, false statements and voter intimidation.18 Despite these issues, there is some cause for optimism. Positive steps were made, such as involving civil society in the reception of ballot papers
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. TI Zambia, press statement on the 2006 tripartite elections, 10 October 2006. ‘European Union Election Observation Mission Zambia 2006’ (European Union, November 2006). C. Sikanyika, ‘2006 Election Monitoring Report Zambia Tripartite Elections 28th September 2006’ (Lusaka: SACCORD, 2006). TI Zambia, 2006. D. Phiri and D. Mumba, 2006. Ibid. Zambia Daily Mail (Zambia), 21 April 2007; The Post (Zambia), 22 May 2007.