Mozambique: CNE Gives Reasons for Excluding Parties

16 September 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maputo — Mozambique's National Elections Commission (CNE) on Wednesday published its reasons for excluding political parties from some or all of the constituencies in the 28 October parliamentary elections.
The lengthy document is dated 5 September, which was the deadline for the CNE announcing the definitive list of candidates. The final few paragraphs of the document, giving the names of the parties and coalitions approved to stand, and of those rejected, were posted on the CNE notice board on 6 September, but the substantive text giving the CNE's reasoning was not.
Indeed, when reporters and leaders of the excluded parties tried last week to obtain this decision, which by its very nature is a public document, CNE members refused to hand it over. The CNE thus shot itself in the foot, since early publication of the full decision might have moderated the bitter disputes that have subsequently erupted.
The document lists no less than 19 types of irregularities which affected candidates' nomination papers. There were lists of names without indicating which constituency each candidate should stand for, and lists which did not distinguish between full candidates and supplementary ones. There were also lists which did not respect the legal provision that there must be enough candidates to fill all the seats in a constituency, plus at least three supplementary candidates.
There were lists of names that were not accompanied by the "processos individuais" (these are the obligatory files contained the candidate's identity card, voter card number, criminal record certificate, and letter of acceptance). There were other lists of names that were not the same as the names on the "processos individuais" received by the CNE. In still other cases, the files had been sent - but without an accompanying list of names.
Then there were cases where parties had put the same candidate forward two or more times, either in the same constituency or in different constituencies. The penalty for this is that the candidate's name is deleted from all constituencies.
There were lists that had been handwritten and were simply illegible, and others that were disorganized, making it difficult for the CNE to understand which candidates were supposed to stand in which constituencies.
Certainly the most common problem was that of candidates with incomplete documentation - their files were lacking one or more of the legally necessary documents, or their documents had not been authenticated by a public notary.
Some of the candidates presented criminal record certificates which showed they had been found guilty of various crimes. The electoral law specifically states that people sentenced for larceny, theft, abuse of trust, fraudulent use of public money, forgery or any crime committed deliberately by a state employee are not eligible to stand in elections. (This part of the law is very badly drafted and possibly unconstitutional, since it discriminates against state employees. Taken literally, it means that any crime, no matter how minor, committed by a civil servant, bars him from elected office, which is not what the legislators intended.)
There were cases where candidates seem not have written their own letter accepting nomination, but merely signed a document drawn up by their party. In other cases, the identity card submitted was up to ten years out of date.
The CNE refused to say which candidates were affected by any of these irregularities, on the grounds that candidates have the right to their honour, good name, reputation, public image and privacy. Even if one accepts this dubious claim (for surely anyone trying to run for public office is voluntarily sacrificing some of their privacy), there seems no good reason for not stating clearly which parties committed which irregularities. Yet the CNE document does not tie any specific party to any of the 19 irregularities.
The law states that the CNE must notify parties of irregularities in nomination papers, and they then have five days to correct them. But some of the problems detected were simply impossible to rectify. This, the CNE said, was the case with missing "processos individuais".
If a candidate had submitted no documents at all, but was just a name on a list, there was nothing to be done. The CNE could not accept entire files of documents that arrived past the close of nominations on 29 July.
So the CNE only notified those parties where the irregularities could be corrected. It saw no point in sending out a formal notification in cases where nothing could be done - such as lists that did not have enough names to fill all the seats in a constituency, plus at least three supplementary candidates.
The law does allow parties to replace candidates whose papers are irregular, but the replacement, the CNE argued, must come from the list submitted on or before 29 July. Thus if a candidate placed in top position on the list did not present all the valid documents required, the party could replace him with anybody else on the list of full or supplementary candidates. If it took no action, all the other candidates on the list would simply move up one position, and one of the supplementaries would become a full candidate.
This only works if the list contains enough names. If the rejection of one or more candidates means that the list cease to have enough names to cover all the seats plus three supplementaries, the whole list falls. In such cases, the CNE pointed out, there was no need to notify the party, since notification "would be useless".
Under no circumstances, the CNE stressed, could papers for an entirely new candidate be submitted after 29 July

Fonte: allafrica

Nota: Temos aqui mais uma vez a batata quente. Será uma estratégia de arrongantes que não querem reconhecer os seus erros? Será o cumprimento das ordens totalitárias? Esperemos pela decisão do Conselho Constitucional.