Iuze Mukube

Independent Patriots for Change lawyer Anton Katz has fervently argued that President Nangolo Mbumba’s decision to extend last year’s Presidential and National Assembly elections was unlawful.

According to Katz, Mbumba had no authority or statutory provision to make such a call through Proclamation 34 of 2024 by notice of Government Gazette.

He, however, pointed out that the Electoral Commission of Namibia does, in fact, through the Electoral Act, have such authority, but is restricted to only before the polls open. 

However, he said the commission violated this restriction when they had made a call for the extension when the polls had closed.

Attack

He submitted this on Monday before a full bench of Supreme Court judges.

The matter is coming from the contention of IPC that an irregularity occurred during last year’s elections; hence, they lodged a complaint seeking relief for the extension of the election to be nullified and for the whole election process to be started afresh if granted.

Katz argued that Mbumba had no power to alter the opening and closing times of the extended election days and that it was problematic for him to selectively open only certain polling stations for the extension.

He claimed that the case was because “an unknown number of voters were disenfranchised”, meaning they were deprived of the right to vote due to the exclusion of certain polling stations.

Additionally, while the President had stated that he relied on implied power to extend the election dates, he did not specify the source of this authority.

In agreement, Kameel Premhid argued on behalf of the Landless People’s Movement that the exercise of extending the election dates by Mbumba is unlawful, simply for the fact that he does not have such authority.

“The exercise of public power is only legitimate where lawful; as such, if the statute does not enable an extension, it is unlawful,” argued Premhid.

He insisted Mbumba’s proclamation infringed on the principle of separation of power, in that the decision was not part of his function as head of State and, thus unconstitutional.

Prehmid stated that LPM has no problem with the voting conducted on 27 November 2024 but on the directive issued after 21h00 of that day by ECN and the Proclamation 34 by Mbumba that brought about the election extension.

He insisted that an act of unlawfulness had occurred between the period from 21h00 on 27 November 2024 to 30 November; hence, seek the setting aside of actions conducted thereof as a statutory breach had taken place.

Counterattack

Raymond Heathcote, arguing on behalf of the government, stated, that there is absolutely nothing indicating to the contrary that the President could not use sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the interpretation proclamation to make an extension.

He was likely asserting that the President has the authority to make an extension. 

“The President did not restrict or limit any right; in fact, he gave an opportunity for those who wanted to vote to vote. Therefore, there is no restriction in Government Gazette 34 as far as the right to vote is concerned,” he said.

He was arguing the President did not take away or limit the rights of anyone; instead, he gave the opportunity to exercise that right to vote by extending the election dates.

-mukubeiuze@gmail.com