The four-month waiting period absurdity
Imagine: A week after the 27 November elections and Namibians have elected their president.
When the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) announces the results, the president-elect waits, chilled, 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 what legal instrument? Sackeus Shanghala, the last imaginative mind in Swapo, wanted to cure this by proposing the creation of the ‘Office of the President-elect’.
The regime ignored his proposal and believed that 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. We can only understand his thinking by visiting him at Windhoek Central Prison.
This question must be asked: if voters voted for a new president and a new ruling party, why should they be punished with another four months of a government and president whose service they no longer want?
Historic origin
Relatedly, what do those who were voted out do in office for four months? History offers some clues. 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 had been destroyed.
This is in addition to files, microfilm, audio tapes and more that were shredded, wiped or incinerated. Public properties and money that ended up in private hands are another topic of discussion.
In Namibia, a visit to the land ministry to request title deeds transferred between January and 20 March 1990 may be telling.
The bank records of this period would demonstrate what human beings can do with the knowledge of the last dance. If millions can disappear in a secured political tenure, one can imagine what outvoted, corrupt office bearers would do over a four-month waiting period.
The four-month waiting period before the term commencement originated from the four phases delineated by the Constituent Assembly in pursuance of the mandates set out in Section 15 of the Constituent Assembly Proclamation of 6 November 1989.
This proclamation delineated four key mandates: (a) to prepare a constitution for Namibia; (b) to adopt the constitution; (c) to declare the date for independence; and (d) to establish a government.
From these key four mandates emerged 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 four mandates of the Constituent Assembly led to four phases that lasted four months.
Need for change
As a consequence, for the next 34 years, a term of office starts on 21 March and ends on 20 March of the following year, after the subsequent elections.
The subsequent regimes 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.
Ours are elected and embark on four-month celebrations, drinking alcohol freely available during the festive season. When the origin of the four-month waiting period is considered, as present leaders, we look like clowns incapable of thinking. Effectively, we are slaves to the circumstances of 1989.
Parliament is presently dealing with the Electoral Amendment Act 2024, which is primarily concerned with the challenges of candidates nominated and elected as members of the National Assembly. On close inspection, this amendment would not be necessary had the four-month waiting period been extinguished.
This amendment and Shanghala’s president-elect proposal treat the symptoms. It is by eliminating the four-month waiting period that the root cause is dealt with.
Solutions
How would this be done?
The plausible approach is to fix the date of the election to February or March. Last week, we saw a spectacle between President Nangolo Mbumba and the ECN at State House on 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 scandal may actually be an opportunity to cure the four-month waiting period.
Mbumba and Swapo seemingly want the registration of voters extended or an SRV introduced. ECN argued against any extension of the GRV, let alone an SRV, as this will impact the election date. Last week, Sisa Namandje, a Swapo functionary, wrote in The Namibian dismissing the ECN position on the impact of the SRV on the set election. He argued that the SRV can take place in a somewhat ‘short period’ without the postponement of the election date. He submits: “Supplementary registration can take place without postponing the election. This election date is fixed and cannot be postponed.”
Analysed closely, Swapo and Namandje seem to want to have their cake and eat it. 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 for the GRV was 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 makes provision for continuous registration of voters (CRV). This has not taken place, nor has the Swapo government moved to enforce it to date. If there is to be SRV, it must take place normatively and not be shortened for political expediency. And if this happens, the election date must also be moved forward. Indeed, one cannot have your cake and eat it.
To return to the crux of this formulation, the discussion on resolving voters’ registration may actually be an opportunity to cure the four-month absurdity. Dealing with this decisively will benefit the voters, political parties, the political system, minimise corruption and plundering of resources, and ensure a smooth transition regardless of who comes to power. Let it be stated again: the four-month period originated from the 1989 Constituent Assembly and was used for work on state formation. At present, it serves no purpose and is an absurdity that needs curing. 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.
When the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) announces the results, the president-elect waits, chilled, 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 what legal instrument? Sackeus Shanghala, the last imaginative mind in Swapo, wanted to cure this by proposing the creation of the ‘Office of the President-elect’.
The regime ignored his proposal and believed that 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. We can only understand his thinking by visiting him at Windhoek Central Prison.
This question must be asked: if voters voted for a new president and a new ruling party, why should they be punished with another four months of a government and president whose service they no longer want?
Historic origin
Relatedly, what do those who were voted out do in office for four months? History offers some clues. 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 had been destroyed.
This is in addition to files, microfilm, audio tapes and more that were shredded, wiped or incinerated. Public properties and money that ended up in private hands are another topic of discussion.
In Namibia, a visit to the land ministry to request title deeds transferred between January and 20 March 1990 may be telling.
The bank records of this period would demonstrate what human beings can do with the knowledge of the last dance. If millions can disappear in a secured political tenure, one can imagine what outvoted, corrupt office bearers would do over a four-month waiting period.
The four-month waiting period before the term commencement originated from the four phases delineated by the Constituent Assembly in pursuance of the mandates set out in Section 15 of the Constituent Assembly Proclamation of 6 November 1989.
This proclamation delineated four key mandates: (a) to prepare a constitution for Namibia; (b) to adopt the constitution; (c) to declare the date for independence; and (d) to establish a government.
From these key four mandates emerged 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 four mandates of the Constituent Assembly led to four phases that lasted four months.
Need for change
As a consequence, for the next 34 years, a term of office starts on 21 March and ends on 20 March of the following year, after the subsequent elections.
The subsequent regimes 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.
Ours are elected and embark on four-month celebrations, drinking alcohol freely available during the festive season. When the origin of the four-month waiting period is considered, as present leaders, we look like clowns incapable of thinking. Effectively, we are slaves to the circumstances of 1989.
Parliament is presently dealing with the Electoral Amendment Act 2024, which is primarily concerned with the challenges of candidates nominated and elected as members of the National Assembly. On close inspection, this amendment would not be necessary had the four-month waiting period been extinguished.
This amendment and Shanghala’s president-elect proposal treat the symptoms. It is by eliminating the four-month waiting period that the root cause is dealt with.
Solutions
How would this be done?
The plausible approach is to fix the date of the election to February or March. Last week, we saw a spectacle between President Nangolo Mbumba and the ECN at State House on 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 scandal may actually be an opportunity to cure the four-month waiting period.
Mbumba and Swapo seemingly want the registration of voters extended or an SRV introduced. ECN argued against any extension of the GRV, let alone an SRV, as this will impact the election date. Last week, Sisa Namandje, a Swapo functionary, wrote in The Namibian dismissing the ECN position on the impact of the SRV on the set election. He argued that the SRV can take place in a somewhat ‘short period’ without the postponement of the election date. He submits: “Supplementary registration can take place without postponing the election. This election date is fixed and cannot be postponed.”
Analysed closely, Swapo and Namandje seem to want to have their cake and eat it. 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 for the GRV was 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 makes provision for continuous registration of voters (CRV). This has not taken place, nor has the Swapo government moved to enforce it to date. If there is to be SRV, it must take place normatively and not be shortened for political expediency. And if this happens, the election date must also be moved forward. Indeed, one cannot have your cake and eat it.
To return to the crux of this formulation, the discussion on resolving voters’ registration may actually be an opportunity to cure the four-month absurdity. Dealing with this decisively will benefit the voters, political parties, the political system, minimise corruption and plundering of resources, and ensure a smooth transition regardless of who comes to power. Let it be stated again: the four-month period originated from the 1989 Constituent Assembly and was used for work on state formation. At present, it serves no purpose and is an absurdity that needs curing. 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.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article