PROTECTINGFUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTSINELECTORALDISPUTES:AFRICAN

ELECTORALJURISPRUDENCENETWORKINAUGURALDISCUSSIONS

DATES:16–17APRIL2019VENUE:SOUTHERNSUNHOTEL,JOHANNESBURG,SOUTHAFRICA

P a g e |1

CONTENTS

1.EXECUTIVESUMMARY………………………………………………………………12. CONTEXTUALANALYSIS…………………………………………………………...43. CONFERENCEOBJECTIVESANDPROGRAMME…………………………..54. SESSIONSUMMARYANDDISCUSSIONS……………………………………..6

4.1 JUDICIALROUNDTABLE–CHALLENGESFACEDINRESOLVINGELECTIONDISPUTES…………………………………………………………………64.2 EVIDENTIARYISSUESINELECTIONCASES………………………….154.3 ELECTIONS,SOCIALMEDIAANDDISINFORMATION……………174.4 ELECTIONTECHNOLOGY…………………………………………………….204.5 THEMISUSEOFSTATERESOURCESINELECTIONCAMPAIGNS……………………………………………………………………………..21

5. AFRICANELECTORALJURISPRUDENCEWORKINGGROUP……….226. FUTUREREGIONALDISCUSSIONSANDINITIATIVESONELECTORALJUSTICE…………………………………………………………………………………………22

P a g e |2

ANNEXES CONFERENCEPARTICIPANTS………………………………………………………………………………………………….23

CONFERENCEPROGRAMME…………………………………………………………………………………………………….24

P a g e |3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of proceedings at an African ElectoralJurisprudence Network inaugural discussion, co-hosted by Africa Judges andJurists Forum (AJJF), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), InternationalFoundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the Southern African JudicialEducationInstitute(SAJEI).Thediscussionwasheldon16and17April2019atSouthernSun,O.RTamboHotelinJohannesburg,SouthAfrica,bringingtogether31 judges, representatives from the African Court, the Independent ElectoralCommissionofSouthAfrica,electionexperts,andhumanrightslawyers(being20malesand11females).TheparticipantsweredrawnfromninecountriesacrossAfrica namely; Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,SouthAfricaandZambia(Annex1).ThediscussionwascenteredonacomparativeunderstandingofelectoraljusticeandtheroleofthejudiciaryintheprotectionofelectoralrightsandtheresolutionofelectoraldisputesontheAfricancontinent.Inaddition,participantsexploredpathwaystoimprovedadministrationofelectoraljusticebythecourts. Settingthe tone, in his opening remarks, Judge Boissie H. Mbha, Chairperson of theElectoral Court of South Africa, emphasized the need to not only discusschallengesfacedinAfricainanendeavortoresolveelectoraldisputes,buttofocusonmappinga sustainableplanof action that is anchoredon internationalbestpractice.“As judges,wehaveanobligation to improveAfrica,hence theneed todiscusschallenges in our respective countries, exchange ideas on best desirable wayforwardandcapacitateeachanothertowardsabetterandefficientjudiciarythatisenabledtoprotectelectoralrights.Wecannotcontinuetohavecountriesinourcontinentbeingpariahsandalaughingstockintheworld,”heaffirmed.Theoverallobjectiveoftheconferencewastoshareexperiences,discussnewchallengesfacedinresolvingelectiondisputes,andexplorehowanongoingforumforpeer-to-peerengagementcanstrengthenelectoraljusticeinAfrica.ThisculminatedintheformationofaprovisionalandinformalAfricanElectoralJurisprudence Working Group (pending approval/mandate from relevantauthorities)comprisingofrenownedjudgesfromEthiopia,Kenya,Niger,NigeriaandSouthAfrica,alongsidethefourco-hosts.Theworkinggroupwastaskedwithdeveloping a structurewith clear objectives, terms of reference and a plan ofaction,includingsecretarialservices.Goingforward,thefollowingresolutionswerepassed:

1. Give Working Group a mandate to immediately start working whilefinalizingadministrativeandlogisticalissues.ParticipantsemphasizedtheneedtoensurethatthecompositionoftheworkinggroupisinclusiveofallregionsinAfrica.

2. DevelopmentofaTrainingCurriculumonAfricanElectoralJurisprudence.

P a g e |4

3. Production of knowledge products such as an African Election Digest,BenchBookorOnlineCompendium.

4. RecognizeandtakeadvantageofexistingforumssuchasbutnotlimitedtotheArushaCourt,theAfricaJudgesandJurists’Forum–establishworkinggroupswithinexistingentities.

5. Decidehowtomaintainongoingdiscussionswithoutlosingmomentum.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS Africaholdsmoreelectionsthananyotherregionintheworld,withanaverageof15to24majorelectionsannually.Anemergingtrendindicatesthatelectionshavebecomemorelitigiousandpoliticianshavemovedfromtheballotboxtoresolvingelectiondisputesincourts.Thiscanbeattributedtopoorplanningandlogistics,tightanduncleartimelimits,lackofseriousnessonthepartof litigants,unscrupulouslawyers, irregularitiesbeingnotedduringthepre-electionperiodincludingvoterregistration,politicalpartyprimaryelectionsandprocurementofelectionmaterials.AccordingtotheIFESAfricaRegionalDirector,MrRusdhiNackerdien,Nigeriancourtsreceived1527electoralpetitionsin2007,anincreasefrom574in2003,withonecurrentlystemmingfromthe2019presidentialelection,whileinKenya,388petitionswerefiledin2017,anincreasefrom188in2013.Resultantly,thishas put amajor strain on courts, Judges andMagistrates, some ofwhom lackadequateknowledgeonelectoralprocesses.Itwasagainstthisbackdropthatthefourco-hostsconvenedtheAfricanElectoralJurisprudence Network inaugural discussion in a bid to bring together keystakeholders fromdifferent parts of theAfrican continent, to discuss issues ofmutualconcerntowardselectoralrights,electoraljusticeandelectoraldemocracyinAfrica.Theobjectivesoftheconferencewere:

1. Toshareexperiences,discussnewchallenges faced inresolvingelectiondisputes,andexplorehowanongoingforumforpeer-to-peerengagementcanstrengthenelectoraljusticeinAfrica.

2. Todetermineacceptablestandardsofevidenceforelectionpetitions,howcourts can determinewhether irregularities have had an impact on theoutcome of an election and explore what other unique evidentiarychallengesexistforelectioncases.

3. To explore how the use of social media can be regularized withoutunderminingtherighttofreedomofexpressionandaccesstoinformation.

4. Todeterminehowelectiontechnologyshouldbehandledwithrespecttoelectoraljustice.

5. To discuss the role of the judiciary in ensuring that appropriate,enforceable sanctions and penalties are utilized for state officials whoabusestateresources.

P a g e |5

Theprogrammeforthetwo-dayconferencewasdeliveredinsixoverarchingsessions,namely(Annex2):

1. Judicialroundtable–challengesfacedinresolvingelectiondisputes.2. Evidentiaryissuesinelectioncases.3. Elections,socialmediaanddisinformation.4. Electiontechnology.5. Themisuseofstateresourcesonelectioncampaigns.6. Africanelectoraljurisprudenceworkinggroup.

Theconferencewasfacilitatedusingaparticipatoryapproachthatincludedopendiscussions to maximize on ideas and thoughts of the participants, to betterunderstand new challenges undermining electoral democracy in Africa andexplore a desirable way forward based on participants’ experiences andinternationalbestpractice.Thedialoguesessionsfocusedonenhancingcollaborativepartnershipsthroughsettingupasturdyongoingforumthatemphasizespeertopeerengagementandcollaborative understanding of some of the risks, challenges and existingcapacities among judges to efficiently and effectively ensure the protection offundamentalrightsinelectoraldisputesinAfrica.

Figure1:GroupPhoto

P a g e |6

SESSION SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS Duringthefirstsessionsawparticipantsdeliberatedontheroleofjudgesvis-à-vis challenges faced in the protection of electoral rights and the resolution ofelectiondisputes.JudgePresidentP.Tlaletsihighlightedthatstakeholdersoftenlosesightof thepurposeofelections,arguingthatanelectionprocessmustbemoreaboutcitizensandvoters’rightsandlessaboutpoliticalparties,yetthereappearstobemorebiastowardstheprotectionofpoliticalparties.Thishasresultedintheerosionofvoters’fundamentalrights.Heemphasizedthatan independent judiciary shouldensure that the fundamental rightsof citizensandthoseeligibletovoteareprotectedandtheseincludefreedomofexpression,freedomofassembly,freedomfromdiscrimination,equaltreatmentbythelaw,fairpublichearingandjusttreatmentbyelectionadministrativeinstitutions.JudgeTlaletsi appealed to participants to ensure that their understanding andinterpretation of the law is aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of thevotersinadherencetotheprinciplesoftheruleoflaw.In analyzing the feedback presented below, it is evident that while there arevariousuniquefacetsoftheelectiondisputeresolutionineachofthecountriesrepresented, one theme ran acrossmost presentations. Thiswas the stringenttimelines in the resolution of election petitions. Stipulations requiring that apetition must be heard within specific timeframes results in most petitionersfailingtomeetthesetimelines,hencepetitionersfallvictimtodeniedelectoral.The tablebelowprovidesasummaryofpresentationsanda followupplenarysession based on the topic; Judicial Roundtable: Challenges faced in resolvingelectiondisputes:

NameofCountry Challenge Recommendations from thePlenarySession

ZambiaPresenter - Justice HildahChibomba, President of theConstitutional Court ofZambiaA constitutional youngdemocracy that holdselections every five years.The General Elections aretripartite, consisting ofPresidential, Parliamentary

1. Period from adoption of relevantlawstoholdingofgeneralelections

Zambia adopted a new Constitution abouteightmonthsbeforethegeneralelectionsthatwereheldinAugust2016.Aheadofthesameelections, the country also adopted a newelectoral law in the form of the ElectoralProcessActNo.35of2016. Consequently, theintroductionof thenewConstitutionand thenew electoral law within a few months of ageneralelectionpresentedachallengeoflackof familiarisation by stakeholders on key

-Time limits provided by thelaw in most African countriesnegativelyimpactingtheroleofthe Judiciary in resolvingelectiondisputes. In that light,reasonable time must beallowed for the courts toprepareandschedulecasesforhearing.-It was agreed that althoughthis challenge has a negativeimpact on the Judiciary, it isactually the prerogative of

P a g e |7

and Local Governmentelections. The last GeneralElections were held on 11August 2016, under a newconstitution,whichcameintoforceon5January2016.Theconstitution as amended,introduced among otherthings, new provisionsrelating to the Zambianelectoral process. Of notewas the introductionofnewnormative, structural andinstitutional arrangementsfortheresolutionofelectoraldisputes.Amongthekeynewconstitutionalprovisionswasthe creation of theConstitutional Court ofZambia, one of two newsuperiorcourtsaddedtotheZambian Judicature.PursuanttoArticle128(1)oftheConstitutionasamended,the Constitutional Court’smandate is to considermatters relating tointerpretation and violationoftheConstitution.Althoughsome electoral disputesmayinvolve abuse of humanrights, the Court of Zambiahas no jurisdiction over thebill of rights, which is theprerogative of the HighCourt. Article 28 allowspersons to petition theHighCourt of Zambia when theyallegethattheirfundamentalrightsasprovidedinPartIIIhave been infringed or areabout to be violated. Thus,theHighCourtisthecourtoffirst instance in matters ofbreachofanyoftherightsintheBillofRightsandappealsliewiththeSupremeCourtofZambia.Theconsequenceofthe above arrangement is

provisionsrelatingtotheelectoralprocessingeneralandresolutionofelectoraldisputesinparticular. Notably,thenewelectoralregimeintroduced strict new time frames withinwhichelectoraldisputesweretoberesolved.Apart from the electoral laws, theConstitutional Court itself, the finaladjudicator in electoral matters in Zambia,started operations only a fewmonths beforethe2016generalelections.

2. PresidentialElectionPetition

-Article 128(1)(c) of the Constitution ofZambia,mandatestheConstitutionalCourttohear matters relating to an election of aPresident.Ifthereisadispute,asthecasewasin2016,Article103(1)requiresthatamatterrelatingtotheelectionofaPresidentbefiledwithin7daysofthedeclarationofaPresident-elect.-Further, the law stipulates that theConstitutional Court must hear an electionpetitionrelatingto thePresident-electwithin14daysofthefilingofthepetition.-The time frame for hearing a presidentialelection petition proved inadequate for boththe new court and the complainantsconsidering that some witnesses had to bebroughtinfromvariouspartsofthecountrytotestifytotheissuesincontention,amongotherlogisticalissues.

3. Parliamentary and ElectionPetitions

TheConstitutionof Zambia requires that theHighCourthearsanddeterminesthepetitionchallenging the election of a Member ofParliamentwithin90daysof the filingof thepetition.

-Inthecaseofthe2016generalelections,HighCourt Judges had on average two or threeparliamentary election petitions to hear anddetermine within the mandatory 90-dayperiod.Thisputalotofpressureonthejudgeswho were required to complete electionpetition cases allocated to them within thestricttimeframe.

legislatorsandpoliticalpartiestoaddressthelegalframeworkaccordingly,hencetheneedforjurists to makerecommendations and workcloselywithlawmakers.-The Judiciary must beconscious of need to managetime to ensure petitioners donot suffer deprivations andinjustice;casesmustneitherberushed nor be prolongedunnecessarily.-Courtsarepivotalinensuringeffective balance to ensure nopartysuffersprejudiceandthiscan only be achieved throughupholdingtheruleoflawinanimpartialmanner.-Pre-election disputes shouldnotgobeyondtheelection.- Commendable to create anAfrican Chapter of ElectoralJurisprudence Networktowardsahybridofaregionaljurisprudencethatwillactasastandard for review in eachjurisdiction.-Experience has shown thatcomparativeapplicationoflawhelpslawtobemoreeffectivelyappliedandguides individualsonwhattodo.-Therefore, the Network mustendeavor to develop acompendium or law reportwhereAfrican judges file theircases to enable them tonavigate towards certainminimum practice that is inlinewithbestpractice.-Encourage partnershipsbetween the Judiciary andsecurity organs to ensure thesecurity of Judges andMagistrates is guaranteedduring election petitionhearings.

P a g e |8

thattheConstitutionalCourtcannot delve into aspects ofhuman rights violationsoccasioned in the electoralprocesswhichmay form thebasis of some complaints inelectoraldisputes.Thislimitsthe Court’s leverage to onlyaspects of determiningwhether or not the electionwas valid and not to extendtobreachesofhuman rightsintheelectoralprocess.

-In addition, the Electoral Process Act, 2016,set anew threshold fornullifyinganelectionthrough section 97 which made it moreonerous for the petitioner challenging theelectionofaMemberofParliament.

-Inthepetitionsthatensued,somepetitionersfound it difficult to prove that there waselectoralmal-practice; they couldnotadducesufficientevidencethatsuchmalpracticewaslinked to the candidate whose election waschallenged.

-Insomecases,theproblemwasnotsomuchprovingandlinkingtheelectoralinfractionstothecandidate,butitwastheadditionalburdenof proving that the malpractice influencedmost of the electorate from voting for acandidateoftheirchoice.

-The judiciary is however yet to submitrecommendationsondesirablewayforwardtoensure efficiency and effectiveness in thehandlingoffutureelectionpetitions.

-Timely amendments toelectoral laws to accord theJudiciary and other keystakeholders ample time tofamiliarize themselves withanychangestothelaw.-Continuous training onelectiondispute resolution foradvocates.- Inrelationtothequestionofinternal and structuralindependence, participantsresolved to preventinterference from theExecutive by conductingthemselves in a professionalandimpartialmannerasinthecaseofSouthAfricawheretheConstitutional Court has beenfirmanddecisiveon the issueofindependence–Itwaspointedoutthatitisupto judges to interpret the lawand affirm the rule of law asconstitutional democracy isbasedonupholdingtheruleoflaw-judgeshavethepowertodoso.

GhanaPresenter - Justice AgnesDordzie of the SupremeCourtofGhanaGhana boasts of a highrecord of peaceful andsmoothdemocraticprocessesof transferring power fromone political party to theother since 1992. TheJudiciary,asthethirdarmofgovernment, has played itsrole well in resolvingelectoral disputes and has

-Since 1992, Ghana experienced its first andreal challenge associated with a disputedelectionin2012.-The then main opposition party leaderrefused to accept results of the presidentialelections arguing that the electoral processhad been manipulated. He filed a petition,which was submitted to the Supreme Court,appealingtothecourttohavetheresultsoftheelectionannulledandthathebedeclaredthewinneroftheelections.-Thechallengehadhowevernothingtodowiththe independence of the court but had to dowiththeprocessofadjudication.-The main challenge was undue delay indeciding the case owing to the very large

P a g e |9

demonstrated outmostindependenceovertheyears.

volumes of electoral materials that werepresentedby thepetitioners to support theirallegations of over voting and otherirregularities. The court had to bring in anexperttohandlethosematerials.-While the petition ought to have beendetermined within a reasonably short time,hearingtookeightmonths,resultinginaverytense political atmosphere. The proceedingswere telecast live, that also put a lot ofpressureonthejudges.-The Supreme Court however managed toidentify the challenges that resulted in thedelay and made recommendations foramendment of the Supreme Court rules ofprocedure.-Thesehavebeenputinplaceandenactedintolaw, setting timelines for every stage of theproceedingshencenodelaysareanticipatedinfutureelections.

ETHIOPIAPresenter - JusticeSolomonAreda Waktolla, VicePresident of the SupremeCourtofEthiopiaAnancientcivilizationwithamonarchy regime forthousands of years until itwasoverthrownbyamilitaryregimein1975.Themilitaryregimestayedinpoweruntil1991 when a newgovernment was formedresulting in a newconstitution that wasadopted in 1995. AlthoughEthiopia remained a one-party state, the country hasheld General Elections everyfive years since 1995Accordingtothejudgeitwasregrettable that electionshavebeenheldforthesakeofformality,resulting inpublicprotests and revolts against

1. Citizenssystematicallydeniedaccesstoelectoral rights, for example eligiblevoters denied access to voterregistration.

2. Lack of trust in organs involved inelectoral dispute settlementparticularly the National ElectoralBoard,theJudiciaryandthepolicewhoare accused by the opposition ofserving interests of the ruling partyowing to a proven recordof failing toconductthemselvesinanimpartialandneutralmanner.

3. Limitedroleof judiciaryowingto lackofpublicconfidenceinthesame–mostcaseswerenotsubmittedtothecourts.

4. Election dispute resolution process iscumbersomeandcharacterizedbyalotof red tape. For example, voterregistration complaints must passthrough multiple decision-makingcommittees such as the GrievanceHearingCommittee.

5. Inadequate electoral laws, limitedunderstandingofelectorallawsbytheelectoratealsoposingamajorchallengeinEthiopia.

P a g e |10

thegovernment.Protestsandarbitrary arrests,characterized the last fouryears.Withthecominginofanew reformist PrimeMinister, all politicalprisoners were releasedwhile a political reformprocesswaslaunched.

NIGERIAPresenter – JusticeEmmanuelAgimoftheCourtofAppealofNigerianElections in Nigeria arefraught with a plethora ofchallenges ranging from theadministrative, legislativeright through to theenvironmental framework.ThisishowevernotuniquetoNigeria.Mostelectionresultsin sub Saharan Africa arequestionable. It was againstthis background that JudgeEmmanuel Agim posed anumberofthoughtprovokingquestions promptingparticipants to questionwhether it is ideal forAfricatocontinueusingthecurrentsystemofdemocracydespiteevidence that it is notworking in the Africancontext.

JudgeAgimsuggestedthatthemainchallengeAfricafacesiscontinuedinsistenceonasystemof democracy through elections, which isclearlynotsuitableforthecontinent.Overtheyears, the continent haswitnessed increasedelection related violence, disputed outcomesandlitigation.Thisclearlyshowsthatthereissomething fundamentally wrong with thesystemthatisbeingusedbyAfricans.Whyiseveryelectioncharacterizedbyrefusalof the outcome, manifesting in extensiveviolence, gross human rights violations andothercrimes?We are all conscious of principles that weshouldfollow,whynoviolenceandlitigationinother continents such as Europe? Is ithistoricalorculturalexperience,whichallowsthemtoacceptelectionoutcomes?Whatwerethesystemswewerefamiliarwith,weretheyworkingforus,howcouldwehaveimprovedonthosemorefamiliarsystems?Is thereneed for judicial interference inpre-election disputes, why not leave society todetermine how political parties shouldorganize themselves? Should pre-electionlitigationcontinueafteranelection?How should we continue applying theprincipleofsubstantialcompliance?Wehaveapplied it for years and it is not working.Rather it has helped those who have “won”electionstoescapewithimpunity.Useofarmedforcesandpolicewithallkindsofintimidatingweaponsatpollingstations–

P a g e |11

isthatelectionbeingconductedinafreeandfairenvironment?Wecontinuetoseeahabitofdisobedienceofelectoral laws, yet we insist that petitionersmust prove that there was substantial non-complianceinprovingtheircases.In 2007 all ballot papers in Nigeria had noserial numbers as prescribed by the law,wasn’tthatsubstantialnon-complianceyetthejudiciary, which judged that there wassubstantialcompliance,validatedtheelection.Regulatory requirements fulfillment is oftenignoredresultinginmassviolationofcitizens’right to vote and choose candidates of theirchoice.Demand for evidence, witnesses and otherrequirements,hasfrustratedelectoraljustice,asithasprovendifficulttogatherallevidenceand other requirements within the specifictimeframesprovided.Impunity for electoral offences continues toposeamajorchallenge.Nobodyhaseverbeenprosecuted yet every election comes with ahuge amount of electoral offences such aselectionrelatedkillings,votebuyingandsoon.We continue insisting on electoral tribunalsthat haven’t been able to address electoraloffencesastheyoccur.Most African countries have a challenge ofweakregulatoryframeworksforcingjudgestoabide by supreme law rules and regulationsalthoughthesemayassaultajudge’snotionofsubstantialjustice.

NIGERPresenter – Justice IbrahimMoustapha, Vice Presidentof the Constitutional CourtofNigerThesystemusedinNigerina bid to resolve election

1.Disagreementsbetweenthoseinpowerandtheopposition.Thelastelectionthatwasheldin 2016 was subjected to a lot of criticismowing to a misunderstanding regarding theofficial opposition leader’s candidature. Hewas initially barred from contesting theelection,adecisionhecontested,claimingthathewasbeingprosecutedforpoliticalreasons.

P a g e |12

disputes is largelyeffective.Thiscanbeattributedtotheappointment of the sevenjudgesof the ConstitutionalCourt which is the highestauthority.Ofthese7judges,2 are appointed by thepresident andofficer of thenational assembly (1 each)The other 5 are appointedby peers, lawyers in thecountry, human rightsorganizations,andacademiarepresentatives. judgeMoustapha confidentlyannounced that all mattersaredealtwithincompliancewiththelaw.

2.Limitedtimetomakedecisionsonelectiondisputesposedamajorchallenge inpreviouselections. However, this has since beenresolvedthroughlegislativereformshencethetimeframewasextendedtoonemonthfrom15days.3.Fundingissues-thejudiciaryhasnotbeenable to cover the entire country duringpreviouselections.4. Skills – reports handled by people withinadequateskills.

KENYAPresenter - JudgeMbogholiMsaghaoftheHighCourtofKenyaKenya is a very interestingcountry as it is always inelectionmode.WhileArticle160 of the Constitution ofKenya establishes theJudiciaryasanindependentarm of government,cushioning the Judiciaryfrom interference in itsdecisions, this is notnecessarily the case on theground. According to JudgeMsagha, threats against theindependence of theJudiciary are heightenedduring election periods.Also, election petitions areusually heard in a highlypolitically chargedenvironment as they arefiled soon after electionresults are announced.Elections are thereforehighly emotive and drawmore attention from thepublic and candidates than

1. ThreatstotheJudiciary’sindependence

In 2017 following the Supreme Courtdetermination of the presidential electionpetition,thepresidentofKenyathreatenedto“fix” the judiciary. The verbal threats werecoupled with a drastic reduction of theJudiciary’s budget after the Supreme Courtnullified the presidential election, thusimpendingsomeof the Judiciary’soperationsdue to budget cuts. In addition, there havebeen real concerns over the security ofindividual judges and judicial officers whilehandlingelectoraldisputes.The Judiciary Committee on Elections hashoweverworkedcloselywithsecurityorgansto ensure that their security is guaranteedduringthehearingofelectionpetitions.

2. LateamendmentstotheElectoralLegalFramework

In Kenya, there has been precedent ofamendmentstotheelectionlawsveryclosetothe election date. This results in lategazettementoftherulesthereforebothjudgesandelectionpractitionershavelimitedtimetofamiliarizethemselveswithanychangesinthelaw.

3. Balancing between an increasingnumber of election disputes andusualcourtwork.

P a g e |13

anyothertypeofcasesinthecountry.

In2013,atotalof188electionpetitionswerefiled before the Magistrates Courts and theHigh Court. In 2017, this numbermore thandoubledwith388petitionsbeing filed.Whilein 2013 any Judge or Magistrate who washearing an election petition was exemptedfromhandling usual courtwork, in 2017, anadministrativedecisionwasmadethatJudgesandMagistrateswouldhearpetitionsevenasthey continued to hear and determine othermatters.

4. Stringenttimelinesintheresolutionof election petitions especially thepresidentialpetition

While theother courts have a statutory timelimit of 6 months to hear and determineelection petitions, the Supreme Court has aneven stricter time limit of 14 days. This hasproven challenging to both litigants and theCourt.TheCourthashadtosit forextremelylonghoursandpartiesattimesfeeldissatisfiedwith the time allocated to them and theamountofevidencethattheycanpresent.TheJudicial Committee on Elections and theJudiciary have on several occasions maderecommendations for the constitutionalprovisiontobeamendedtoatleastextendthetimeto30days.

5. AlesspreparedBarIll-preparedness by some advocates who insome instances were copy-pasting thepresidential petition yet the law and rulesgoverning the presidential election petitiondifferedfromtheotherelectiveposts,resultinginsomeinconsistencieswiththelaw.

6. Engaging the public on ElectionDisputeResolution

Electionpetitionsarousealotofinterestfromthe public hence the courts are faced withsome challenges that include crowd controlduringhearings.

SOUTHAFRICAPresenter - Judge Shongwe,Former Chairperson of theElectoral Court of SouthAfrica.

1.LegalcertaintyOne of the challenges faced by litigants inrecentyearswasthequestionofwhichcourthad jurisdiction to hear an appeal from theElectoralCourt.ThequestionwaswhethertheappealwastotheSupremeCourtofAppealordirectly to the Constitutional Court. The

P a g e |14

S.165oftheConstitutionofSouth Africa makesprovision for theestablishmentofcourtsandtheadministrationofjustice.This means that courts areindependent and subjectonlytotheconstitutionandthe rule of law,which theymust apply impartially andwithout fear, favor orprejudice. Further, theElectoralCourt is entrustedwith dealing with electoraldisputes and has power toreview,hearanddetermineappealsagainstanydecisionoftheElectoralCommissionrelating to an electoralmatter. The South Africanjudiciary system strives tomaintain independence,accountability,responsiveness andopenness. The country hashowever experienced itsownfairshareofchallengesregarding electoral disputeresolution, although suchchallengesarenotasmajorasinothercountries.

ConstitutionalCourt,afterinterpretingSection96(1) in a manner that was constitutionallycompliant found that an appeal from theElectoralCourttotheSupremeCourtofAppealwas competent. This development howeverproved that ambiguous or incompleteprovisionsinelectorallawsorotherActscanbeasourceofconflict2.TimelyresolutionofdisputesThis has been a challenge in South Africa assomepetitionersfailtosubmitdocumentsandintheproperformthatisrequired.3.Lackofapermanentstructure/courthousespecificallycreatedtoresolveelectiondisputes–thereisneedforsuchastructureandmustbeadequatelyequippedwithhumanandfinancialresources.

AfricanCourtofHumanandPeople’sRightsPresenter-JudgeSylvainOre,PresidentoftheAfricanCourtofHumanandPeople’sRights.Human rights protection inthe contextof elections is afundamental issue.Therefore, a regional courtwas put in place to ensureprotection of human rightsand freedoms inAfrica.Out

P a g e |15

of the55countries thataremembersof theCourt, only30 members have ratifiedtheprotocol.In 2009, the CourtadjudicatedforthefirsttimeonthecaseofSenegal.Sincethen, the African Court ofHuman Rights has handledover 200 cases. Out of the200 cases, 80 have beensuccessfully completed. Forinstance, the African Courtpassedadecisionregardingthe protection of humanrights, right toequalityandindependence andimpartialityof the judiciaryinIvoryCoast.Anupcomingcaseinvolvesamendmentofelectoral laws associatedwiththecompositionof theelectoral commission andthis is to be amendedfollowing an initiative by alocal Non-GovernmentalOrganisation.Thepresidentof Ivory Coast alreadycommittedtoimplementthedecisionofthecourt.

SESSION 2: EVIDENTIARY ISSUES IN ELECTION CASES Thesecondsessionfocusedondeterminingacceptablestandardsofevidenceforelectionpetitions,howcourtscandeterminewhetherirregularitieshavehadanimpactontheoutcomeofanelectionandexplorewhatotheruniqueevidentiarychallengesexistforelectioncases.Thepanelwastaskedwithaddressingthefollowingquestions:

1. Whatshouldthestandardofevidencebeforelectionpetitions,andhowcanacourtdeterminewhetherirregularitieshavehadanimpactontheoutcomeofanelection?

2. Whatotheruniqueevidentiarychallengesexistforelectioncases–includingtheintroductionofelectronicevidence,andthechallengeofshortdeadlinesforinvestigationandadjudication?

Thefollowingweretheresponsesbythepanelists:

P a g e |16

• Thebasicprinciplesofthelawofevidencerequirethats/hewhoalleges

existenceoffactsinanissues/heplacesbeforethecourtbearstheburdenofproducingsufficientevidencetoprovethosefacts.

• Incommonlawcountries,thestandardofproofexpectedincivilmattersison the preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, he who asserts theexistence of certain facts in issue must produce sufficient evidence toconvincethecourtthattheexistenceofthosefactsaremoreprobablethannot.

• Acomparativestudyofelectoraljurisprudencehashowevershownthatinelectoralmattersthecourtsareleaningtowardsastandardofproofwhichisalittlehigherthanwhatisgenerallyrequiredinothercivilmatters.Inrecent decisions of the courts where validity of election results arechallengedonallegationsofirregularities,thecourtshaveheldthatitisnotenough toprove the irregularitiesbut theremustalsobeproof that theallegedirregularitiesaffectedtheoutcomeoftheelections.

• Thereisaclearindicationfromthesecasesthatthecourtsinmoderntimesaremindfuloftherightsofanindividualtovoteandareslowincomingtoconclusionsthatwillaffecttherightsofavoterordisenfranchisinghim.

• For instance, in Raila Odinga and Others v IEBC and Others (2013), theSupremeCourtclarifiedthatlegalburdenofproofrestswiththepetitionerthroughout the petition. The evidentiary burden however may keepshiftingfromthePetitionertotheRespondentdependingonhowwellthePetitioner depending on how well the Petitioner discharges his legalburdenofproof.

• ThistrendwasalsowitnessedinGhanaandUganda,meaningthatthatthesettledpositionofthecourtsnowisthatindecidingelectoralpetitions,ahigherstandardofevidenceisrequired.

• Byanalyzingandtakingintoconsiderationtheevidencepresentedtothecourtandthecircumstancesunderwhichthe irregularitiesoccurredthecourtwouldbeabletodecidewhethertheirregularitieswereasaresultofadministrative errors or deliberate fraudulent acts to compromise theresult.Deliberatefraudulentactswillaffecttheoutcomeoftheresults.

• FourparticularchallengeswereidentifiedandpresentedbyIFESasfollows:

RoleofApexCourtsinexaminingevidence–particularlywhentheyhave both original and final jurisdiction for presidential petitions.Electoralcourts are usually established to handle election disputeswith the ability to take the lead evidence and cross-examination ofwitnesses for the court to reach findings of fact.Thisis markedlydifferentfromthestructuraldesignofapexcourts,whichareusuallyappellate courtswithout the institutional resources for hearing vivavoceevidence.Thispointstoapotentiallynewroleforcourtregistrarsinseekingsomeofthisevidence.InKenya,theCourtRegistrarhadonlyabout24hourstoscrutinizethousandsofresultssheets in24hoursusing a sampling method. But do the Apex Courts have adequateresourcestotakethatroute?

P a g e |17

1. Electronic Evidence - There is needto protectthe credibility andevidentiaryvalueofelectronicevidencesinceitwasmoresusceptibleto tamperingandalteration.AnvarP.K.vP.KBasheer&Others, (2014)10 SCC; “Electronic evidence presents unique characteristics whichnecessitate carefultreatment. Compared with physical or otherformsof exhibitevidence, electronic evidence is relativelymoredifficulttodetect and trace the signs of tampering. It canbechanged ormanipulated much more easily than paper or otherformsofevidencewithouthavinganyobvioustraceofsuchalterationfor instance theWilliamOdhiamboOduolv Independent Electoral andBoundariesCommission&2Others,ElectionPetition(Kisumu)No.2of2012.

2. ElectionAnnulments–Courtshavetakenthreeapproachesnamely;aprescriptive approach, in which annulment depends on thepresenceofcertainkindsofirregularity,withoutregardtotheirimpacton the outcome of the election (Mexico 5%). The second beinganoutcomedeterminativeapproach,inwhichirregularitiescanleadtotheannulmentofanelection,providedthattheyaffecttheresultoftheelection;andamixedapproachinwhichcertainirregularitiesaresoseriousthattheyprovidegroundsforannulmentevenintheabsenceof proof that the result was affected, while other irregularities canprovidegroundsforannulmentonlyiftheydidaffecttheresult(UK).What then happens if there is disinformation, foreign interference,abuseofstateresources,etc?Howcanyouprovethat thosetypesofissueshavehadanimpactontheoutcomeofanelectionratherthananadministrative irregularity?Thishaspotential toposea challenge infuture.

3. Impunity for offenses - Does there need to be concurrentadministrativeandcriminaljurisdictionforsomeoffensessuchasvotebuying? So that sanctions can be imposed in amore timelymannerwithoutahighstandardofproofandcriminaljusticeprocedurestobefollowed?”

Feedbackfromthefloorpointedtotheneedforjudgestomakeuseoftheirjudicialdiscretion and be more purposive in defining when there is substantialcompliance–thejudiciarymustusecommonsenseandhelpcommunitiesachieveelectoral justice by applying both qualitative and quantitative approaches.ParticipantsinsistedthateveryelectionpetitionisaninvitationofEMBstoshowwhatitdidwasinaccordancewiththelaw.Further,theindependenceofEMBsmustbestrengthenedtoensurethattheydonotcontinueservingtheinterestsofthosethatappointthem

SESSION 3: ELECTIONS, SOCIAL MEDIA AND DISINFORMATION The power of socialmedia in providing information to and interaction by thepublicisunprecedentedandhascreatedanewphenomenonofcitizenactivismand journalism. The rapid spread of the use of social media has resulted intransformationofcommunicationworldwide.Currentlytherearealmost2billion

P a g e |18

activesocialmediauserspermonthandover500millionviewsperday.Armedwithasmartphone,everycitizenisnowapotentialjournalist,abletodisseminateinformation in near real time. Digital media has been a game changer for allstakeholdersincludingEMBs,politicalparties,candidatesandvotersthemselves.Theadventofsocialmediahasboostedelectoraldemocracybycreatingamoreinformed, activeand involvedelectorate.The powerofdigitalmedia lies in itsaccessibilityand lackofregulationsandcontrol. It isavailable toeveryone,buttherein lies itsgreatestrisk.Noteverythingpeoplereadonthewebanddigitalmediaistrue.In2018,NewYorkMagazineestimatedthatnearlyhalfofeverythingonthewebcouldbe false.Studiesgenerallysuggest thathumansgenerate lessthan60%ofinformationavailableontheweb,whileghostsorrobotsgeneratetherest.Overthepast fewyears,alarmingtrendsofmisinformationanddisinformationdeliberatelyintendedatleadingvotersastrayhaveemerged.Inresponsetothesegravethreatstodemocracy,free,fairandcredibleelections,variousstakeholdershave taken a variety of actions. Social media platforms themselves haveintroducedarangeofmeasures intendedtocurbdisinformation.Facebookhastoughened up the rules governing political advertisement to create moretransparency.Ithasextendedthistoanumberofcountriesholdingelectionssoon,or in the recent past, including South Africa, India, Nigeria, Ukraine and theEuropeanUnion.Itwasagainstthisbackdropthatthissessionfocusedondiscussingtheimpactofsocialmediaanddisinformationondemocracy,free,fairandcredibleelections.Theobjectivewasforparticipantstoexplorehowtheuseofsocialmediacanberegularizedwithoutunderminingtherighttofreedomofexpressionandaccesstoinformation.Thefollowingsubmissionsweremade:

ü Disinformationcampaignsdon’tinventsomethingwhollynew–theyexploitandtakeadvantageofexistingfaultlinesinasociety.

ü Hate speech is a very common tactic that is amplified andmanipulated indisinformationcampaignashighlightedinthediagrambelow:

P a g e |19

Figure2:Adepictionofhowdisinformationmayleadtohatespeech,violence,instabilitytherebyunderminingdemocracy

ü Some countries have taken more proactive measures including new

legislationtoregulatetheuseofsocialmedia.Forinstance,Section89(1a)of the Election Act of South Africa criminalizes publication of falseinformation. In addition, recently proposed regulations against socialmediaplatformsthatfailtoprotectcitizensagainstharmfulcontent.

ü Whilesomecountrieshavetakenmeasurestoregulatesocialmedia,itwashowevernotedthatthereisnocountrythathasmanagedtosuccessfullyputinplaceaneffectiveregulativeenvironmenttocurbdisinformation.

ü The most tempting solution has been to try and regulate flow ofinformation, data privacy laws and allow for targeted dissemination ofmessages.

ü EMBsarealsotakingstepstohelpcurbdisinformation;theIndependentElectoral Commission of South Africa launched an online reportingplatformaheadof2019elections.Thisplatformallowspeople to reportfakenewsanddisinformationlinkedtotheimpendingGeneralElections.

ü However, such regulations on social media have been met with mixedreactionsand results,withsomearguing that“attempts toregulate freespeecharea slippery slope,” that curtail freedomof expression therebyunderminingdemocracy.

ü Itwas pointedout thatone of the fundamental rights,which underpinsdemocracy, is freedom of expression – therefore, robust protection offreedomofexpressionduringelectionsenhancesratherthandiminishesfree,fairandcredibleelections.

ü Participants were urged to lean far more to the side of freedom ofexpressionbutremainguidedbytheirrespectiveconstitutions.

P a g e |20

ü African jurists to collaborate towards sustainable solutions that curb orminimizedisinformation.

ü Itwasresolvedthatthereisneedtobeproactiveandengagein“judicialactivism,”proposearegulatoryframeworkandmakeuseofownforensicjudicialskills,beinnovativeandpreventharm.

SESSION 4: ELECTION TECHNOLOGY In this session, participants focused on determining how election technologyshouldbehandledwithrespecttoelectoraljustice.Electoral processes inmost parts of Africa have remained largelymanual andpaper based. This has seen Africa becoming a testing ground for the use oftechnologyinelectionsasinthecaseoftheDemocraticRepublicofCongo(DRC)recently. Electionsareincreasinglybecomingdependentontechnologysuchasdigitalvoterrollsandelectionresults,biometricvoterregistration,andelectronicvotingmachines.It must however be noted that use of technology in elections holds manychallenges. International good practices around cyber security and open datarequireEMBstoacttransparentlyandtoensureelectionresultsareverifiableandcanultimatelybeacceptedbytheelectorate.Therefore,itisimportanttoprotectbothcybersecurityandtransparencyintheelectoralcontext–achallengethatisparticularlyuniquetoEMBs.Any introductionof technologymust promote core election principles, such astransparency and accountability of the process, as well as integrity andverifiability of election results. On the other hand, as societies evolve andtechnologies advance, international institutions are continually updating andrefiningstandardsforcybersecurity,transparency,opendata,andprivacy.Theseevolvingstandardsstemfrom–andmustadhereto–fundamentalpoliticalrightsestablished by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).Duringtheplenarysession,participantsmadethefollowingrecommendations:

ü Judgesandthegeneralpopulacerequiretrainingtoadapttotheadoptionoftechnologyinelections.

ü OverregulatingtheuseoftechnologymayposeachallengeasexperiencedinKenya.

ü The involvement of judges and other key stakeholders is critical informulationofregulationsassociatedwithadoptionofelectiontechnology.

ü Alignmentofelectorallawswiththesupremelawsofthecountryiscriticalto avoid disputes, as the case ofNigeriawhere the use of election cardreadersisnotprovidedforintheelectorallaw.Focusmustbeonensuringthatlawsprotecttheuseoftechnologyandenhancecredibilitytoprotectvotersandtheentireelectionprocess.

P a g e |21

ü Introduction of technology must be completed by strong transparencymechanismsanddomesticationof international instrumentsguiding thesame.

ü Manycountries focusmoreon securityof informationat theexpenseoftransmission and other important issues relating to transparency andaccountabilitybyEMBs,resultinginlegalchallenges.

ü EMBsandcourtsthereforeneedtoengageeachotherandagreeonbestpossible way forward regarding sharing information as has beendemandedbymostoppositionpartiescampaigningfortransparencyandaccountabilityateverystageoftheelectoralprocess.

SESSION 5: MISUSE OF STATE RESOURCES IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Abuse of state resource is not limited to using public financial resources butincludesusing in-kindpublicresourcessuchasvehiclesandothergovernmentownedmaterialresources.Italsoincludesnon-monetarymaterialandpersonnelresources available to the state, including publicly owned media and othercommunication tools to strengthen the incumbent’s chances of winning a re-election.Whileincumbentpoliticalpartiesusetheirpositiontoincreasetheirchancesofre-election,directlymisusingpublicresources forpolitical gains canhaveveryharmful effects and contributes to an uneven playing field during electoralprocesses.Inordertoguardagainstcontinuedmisuseofstateresourceswhichgivesunfairelectoraladvantagetoincumbents,session5wasdedicatedtodiscussingtherolethatthejudiciarycanplayinensuringthatappropriate,enforceablesanctionsandpenaltiesareappliedwithrespecttostateofficialswhoabusestateresources.Although there are laws prohibiting misuse of state resources in electioncampaigns, enforcement of such laws remains a challenge. Ethiopia’s ElectoralCodeofConduct forPoliticalclearlyprohibitsuseofstateresources inelectioncampaigning but there continues to be non-compliance by the incumbent. AsimilarsituationwassaidtoobtaininNiger.Onapositivenote, itwasreportedthat the IndependentElectoralCommission(IEC)ofSouthAfricamonitorsenforcementofthePoliticalPartiesAct.Itoverseestheuseoffundsallocatedtoeachpoliticalpartytherebyensuringthereisnoabuseofstateresourcesinelectioncampaigns.ItwasnotedthattheIEChasthepowerto recommend to Parliament and encourage the removal of any commissionerengagedinmisconduct.Participants suggested that civil society organizations must be significantlyinvolvedinindependentmonitoringpossibleabuseofstatefundsduringelectioncampaigns.Itwasalsoresolvedthatthosefoundguiltyofabusingstatefundsmustbe held accountable. This entails strengthening state institutions that are

P a g e |22

currentlytooweaktoholdincumbentstoaccount.Forinstance,itwasreportedthat there has never been a case in Nigeria where an incumbent was heldaccountableforabusingstatefunds.ItwasthereforenecessarytosetupstrongAnti-Corruption Committees and strong accountability mechanisms goingforward.

SESSION 6: AFRICAN ELECTORAL JURISPRUDENCE WORKING GROUP Theissueofcollaborationandpartnershiparoseduringthetwo-dayconferenceasguidedbytheneedtocreateanAfricanChapterofanElectoralJurisprudenceNetwork that paves way for ongoing peer-to-peer engagement towardsstrengtheningelectoraljusticeinAfrica.Duringthissession,themoderatorwentfurthertoaskhowtheparticipantswouldenvisageanongoingAfricanElectoralJurisprudenceWorkingGroup.The conference resulted in the formation of an informal African ElectoralJurisprudenceWorkingGroupdesignedinawalk-inandwalk-outformat,pendingapprovals from relevant authorities. The Working Group comprised ofrepresentativesfromSouthAfrica,Nigeria,Kenya,EthiopiaandNigeralongsidethe four co-hostsand taskedwithdevelopinga structurewith clearobjectives,termsofreferenceandaplanofaction,includingsecretarialservices.

SESSION 7: FUTURE REGIONAL DISCUSSIONS AND INITIATIVES ON ELECTORAL JUSTICE Goingforward,aresolutionwaspassedasfollows:

1. Give Working Group a mandate to immediately start working whilefinalizingadministrativeandlogisticalissues.Participantsemphasizedtheneedtoensurethatthecompositionoftheworkinggroupisinclusiveofallregionsrepresented.

2. DevelopmentofaTrainingCurriculumonAfricanElectoralJurisprudence.3. Production of knowledge products such as an African Election Digest,

BenchBookorOnlineCompendium.4. Recognizeandtakeadvantageofexistingforumssuchasbutnotlimitedto

theArushaCourt,theAfricaJudgesandJuristsForum–establishworkinggroupswithinexistingentities.

5. Decidehowtomaintainongoingdiscussionswithoutlosingmomentum.

P a g e |23

ANNEX 1 CONFERENCEPARTICIPANTS

P a g e |24

P a g e |25

P a g e |26

P a g e |27

ANNEX 2

CONFERENCEPROGRAMMEProtectingFundamentalRightsinElectoralDisputesAfricanElectoralJurisprudenceNetwork–InauguralDiscussion16–17April,Johannesburg,SouthAfricaSouthernSun,O.R.TamboHotelKhanyaConferenceCenter,Room3Day1:TuesdayApril16,2019

OPENINGSESSION–THEROLEOFJUDGESINTHEPROTECTIONOFELECTORALRIGHTS9:00am Welcomeandopeningremarks-JudgeBoissieH.Mbha,Chairpersonofthe

ElectoralCourtofSouthAfrica

9:30am Objectiveoftheconference-RushdiNackerdien,AfricaRegionalDirector,InternationalFoundationforElectoralSystems

SESSION1:JUDICIALROUNDTABLE–CHALLENGESFACEDINRESOLVINGELECTIONDISPUTESElectiondisputeresolutiondoesnotbeginwiththeannouncementofelectionresults,butisanimportantpartoftheentireelectoralprocess.Electionsalsoinvolvefundamentalhumanrights,notonlytovote,standforelection,andformpoliticalparties,butalsorightssuchasfreedomofexpression,freedomofassembly,andfreedomfromdiscrimination.Assuch,Judgeshaveafundamentalroleinprotectingrightswiththerespecttotheunderlyingprinciplesforelections(forexample,whetheranelectionlawisconstitutional),throughtotheactualexerciseofcertainrights(forexample,whethersomeonehasbeenabletoeffectivelystandasacandidate).TheindependenceofthejudiciaryisconsistentlyunderattackinmanyjurisdictionsinAfrica.Electiontimepresentsintensifiedchallengesastheyinvolvecompetitionsforpower.Thesetworoundtablesessionswillprovideanopportunityforeachcountryrepresentativetosharethetopchallengesandanyuniquefacetsoftheelectiondisputeresolutionprocessintheircountry.Themoderatorwillmakebriefremarkstosetthesceneforeachroundtable,

P a g e |28

andwillkeeptimetoensureatimelyexchangeofexperience.Eachroundtableparticipantwillspeakfor8minutesontheexperienceofdealingwithelectioncasesintheirownjurisdiction.10:00am RoundtablePart1–ModeratedbyJudgePresidentP.Tlaletsi,NorthernCape

Division,SouthAfrica• JudgeHildahChibomba,PresidentoftheConstitutionalCourtofZambia• JudgeAgnesDordzie,SupremeCourtofGhana• JudgeSolomonAredaWaktolla,VicePresidentofSupremeCourtof

Ethiopia11:00am Groupphotoandteabreak11:30am RoundtablePart2–ModeratedbyJudgeD.Pillay,CommissioneroftheSouth

AfricaIEC• JudgeEmmanuelAgim,NigerianCourtofAppeal• JudgeIbrahimMoustapha,VicePresidentoftheConstitutionalCourtof

Niger• JudgeMbogholiMsagha,HighCourtofKenya• JudgeShongwe,FormerChairpersonoftheElectoralCourtofSouthAfrica

12:30pm LunchSESSION2:EVIDENTIARYISSUESINELECTIONCASESTheobjectiveofanelectionpetitionisgenerallytodeterminethewillofthepeopleintheelection,nottodeterminethefinalvotecountortoinvestigateallegedwrongdoing.However,determiningthewillofthepeople,andwhetheranyactionsoromissions–whetherintentionalornot–haveinterferedwiththewillofthepeople,canbeadifficulttaskforthecourts.Whatshouldthestandardofevidencebeforelectionpetitions,andhowcanacourtdeterminewhetherirregularitieshavehadanimpactontheoutcomeofanelection?Whatotheruniqueevidentiarychallengesexistforelectioncases–includingtheintroductionofelectronicevidence,andthechallengeofshortdeadlinesforinvestigationandadjudication?IFESwillprovidebriefcomparativeinformationandresearchonthethematictopic;theModerator/PanelChairwillspeakfor10minutesonthistopictosetthestagefordiscussion,eachdiscussantwillspeakfor10minutesontheirownexperienceonthisthematicissue,andthentheModerator/PanelChairwillmoderatediscussionamongparticipants.2:00pm PeerPanel–

• JudgeAgnesDordzie,SupremeCourtofGhana(ModeratorandPanelChair)

• JudgeMbogholiMsagha,HighCourtofKenya(Discussant)3:30pm TeabreakSESSION3:ELECTIONS,SOCIALMEDIA,ANDDISINFORMATIONMalignactorsareincreasinglydeployingtechnology-fueleddisinformationcampaigns–rifewithwidely-shared,inaccurate,andpolarizinginformation–aroundtheglobe.Regardlessoftheunderlyingmotives,thesecampaignsamplifyexistingandoften-deepseatedsourcesoftensioninwaysthatunderminepublictrustindemocraticinstitutionsandincreasethepossibilityofelectoralviolenceandpoliticalinstability.Inmanydemocracies,electionlawsandrulesgoverningtheuseofsocialmedia,bigdataandnewinformationtechnologiesduringelectionsmaynotexistorbeoutdated.Electionpetitions

P a g e |29

mayalsoincreasinglypointtothespreadofcomputationalpropagandaasgroundsforquestioningthecredibilityofelectioncampaigns,processesandoutcomes.IFESwillprovidebriefcomparativeinformationandresearchonthethematictopic;theModerator/PanelChairwillspeakfor10minutesonthistopictosetthestagefordiscussion,eachdiscussantwillspeakfor10minutesontheirownexperienceonthisthematicissue,andthentheModerator/PanelChairwillmoderatediscussionamongparticipants.4:00pm PeerPanel–

• JudgeMakhanya,FormerSouthAfricaIECCommissioner(ModeratorandPanelChair)

• JudgeSylvainOré,President,AfricanCourtofHumanandPeople’sRights(Discussant)

5:30pm Dayoneconcludes7:00pm DinnerDay2:WednesdayApril17,2019

SESSION4:ELECTIONTECHNOLOGYFordecades,manyhavehopedthattechnologywouldofferarevolutioninhowelectionsareconducted.Replacingtraditionalpaper-basedapproaches,itwasbelieved,wouldpresentadramaticimprovementinvoteridentification,fasterandeasiervotingandresults,higheraccuracy,increasedtransparency,integrityandpublictrust,andlowercost.However,electoraltechnologieshaveprovenvulnerabletofailureandsecuritybreaches,distrustbycontestantsandvoters,inflatedcostand,tolegalchallenge.Misperceptionandsuspicionofelectoraltechnologyhaveoftenprovenasdamagingasitsactualweaknesses-afactwellexploitedbylosingcandidates,particularlyincloselycontested,high-stakeselections.Howshouldelectoraltechnologybehandledwithrespecttoelectoraljustice?IFESwillprovidebriefcomparativeinformationandresearchonthethematictopic;theModerator/PanelChairwillspeakfor10minutesonthistopictosetthestagefordiscussion,eachdiscussantwillspeakfor10minutesontheirownexperienceonthisthematicissue,andthentheModerator/PanelChairwillmoderatediscussionamongparticipants.9:00am PeerPanel–

• JudgeEmmanuelAgim,NigerianCourtofAppeal(ModeratorandPanelChair)

• JudgeLamont,ElectoralCourtofSouthAfrica(Discussant)• JudgeDembaKandji,PrésidentdelaCommissionNationalede

RecensementdeVote,Senegal(Discussant)10:30am TeabreakSESSION5:THEMISUSEOFSTATERESOURCESINELECTIONCAMPAIGNSThemisuseofstateresourcescanbeamajorcorruptiveforceintheelectoralprocess,asitintroducesorexacerbatespowerinequalitiesandgivesunfairelectoraladvantagetoincumbents.Theseabusescancompromisetheintegrityofanelection,andreducepublictrustinthelegitimacyoftheprocessanditsoutcomes.Howcanjudiciariesensure

P a g e |30

appropriateandenforceablesanctionsandpenaltiesareutilizedforstateofficialswhoabusestateresources?IFESwillprovidebriefcomparativeinformationandresearchonthethematictopic;theModerator/PanelChairwillspeakfor10minutesonthistopictosetthestagefordiscussion,eachdiscussantwillspeakfor10minutesontheirownexperienceonthisthematicissue,andthentheModerator/PanelChairwillmoderatediscussionamongparticipants.11:00am PeerPanel–

• JudgeSolomonAredaWaktolla,VicePresidentofSupremeCourtofEthiopia(ModeratorandPanelChair)

• JudgeIbrahimMoustapha,VicePresidentoftheConstitutionalCourtofNiger(Discussant)

• JudgeWepener,ElectoralCourtofSouthAfrica(Discussant)12:30pm LunchSESSION6:AFRICANELECTORALJURISPRUDENCEWORKINGGROUPSession6willprovideanopportunityforopendiscussiononexistingregionalinitiativesrelevanttoelectoraljustice,thepotentialvalueofongoingregionalengagementonthistopic,examplesofinitiativesfromotherregions,andrecommendationsforfollow-ondiscussionsandactivities.1:30pm PanelChairedbyJudgeBoissieH.Mbha,ChairpersonoftheElectoralCourtof

SouthAfrica• Presentation-DevelopmentofanAfricanJudicialNetwork-JudgeSylvain

Oré,President,AfricanCourtofHumanandPeople’sRights2:15pm OpenDiscussiononFutureRegionalDiscussionsandInitiativesonElectoral

JusticemoderatedbyRushdiNackerdien,AfricaRegionalDirector,InternationalFoundationforElectoralSystems,andArnoldTsunga,Director,AfricaRegionalProgram,InternationalCommissionofJurists(ICJ)

• Discussant–Dr.GomolemoMoshoeu,CEOoftheSouthAfricanJudicialEducationInstitute(SAJEI)

• Discussant–MartinMasiga,SecretaryGeneral,AfricaJudgesandJuristsForum(AJJF)

3:00pm Teabreak3:30pm OpenDiscussiononFutureRegionalDiscussionsandInitiativesonElectoral

Justice(cont.)moderatedbyRushdiNackerdien,AfricaRegionalDirector,InternationalFoundationforElectoralSystems,andArnoldTsunga,Director,AfricaRegionalProgram,InternationalCommissionofJurists(ICJ)

CLOSINGSESSION4:15pm ConcludingRemarksandClosingSession–JudgeBoissieH.Mbha,Chairperson

oftheElectoralCourtofSouthAfrica