Polls dispute resolution platforms improving

The media fraternity celebrates World Press Freedom Day every May 3. Last week I sat on a panel discussion as part of those celebrations. The topic of discussion was the connection between election dispute resolution bodies and the media.

A veteran media journalist was categorical that key bodies responsible for elections were sleeping on the job. On dispute resolution bodies, he pointed out that it was only earlier in the week that they had learnt that the Political Parties Dispute Resolution had been revived.

This last comment led me to wonder about citizens’ knowledge among of existing platforms for resolving disputes arising from the 2017 elections.

Unlike 2013, there are several platforms for resolving election disputes for this electoral cycle. First, political parties have taken their task of resolving disputes more seriously.

In 2013, little was heard about the existence and performance of appeal bodies within parties. Perhaps there was a belief that once a party made a decision members were expected to accept it without argument.

Over the past two weeks a different situation has been evident. Panels have been listening to disputes arising from party primaries. One would be forgiven for mistaking the hearings for formal court sessions. This is a commendable development and a demonstration of the maturity of our democracy.

The second development relates to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT). Contrary to the sentiments expressed at the panel discussion on May 3, the tribunal has always existed since its establishment as part of the Political Parties Act.

However, in 2013 the bulk of the disputes relating to party primaries were handled by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

This time round the tribunal is at the centre of the bulk of the dispute resolution process. But as the journalist said not many people are aware of the tribunal until the need to file a case there arises.

This is a lesson that public bodies have to learn. However effectively you discharge your mandate, if citizens do not have sufficient knowledge of what you are doing they will judge you harshly.

Public awareness must consequently form a key part of the work of dispute resolution bodies. PPDT should, as it nears the end of its work on the first leg of disputes from party primaries, find ways of communicating to the public.

The debate is always though how to communicate decisions of judicial bodies. Several judicial bodies complain that media find their judgments plain and boring and prefer to rely on secondary information from those who were in court.

The result is sometimes misinformation. To get around this issue, it is necessary that communicating judicial decisions and processes moves beyond the judgment.

A day after World Press Freedom Day I was involved in a second event where election dispute resolution was discussed. This was the launch of two reports discussing the work of the Judiciary through its Committee on Elections.

Lessons from the discussions were the importance of institutions responsible for conducting elections, and those charged with resolving disputes, preparing well.

In the words of Irene Khan, Director-General of the International Development Law Organisation, election dispute resolution tests the Judiciary as it is judicialisation of politics. What this means is that if care is not taken the end result may be politicisation of the Judiciary.

Engaging the public so that it is aware of disputes resolution mechanisms, operations of dispute resolution bodies, and the reasoning behind court decisions will help ensure that the public appreciates the work of agencies charged with the duty of determining election disputes.

At the end of the day we have to ensure that we make elections more credible and that the bulk of the contestations get resolved by citizens through the ballot. Those that find their way to fora for resolving disputes must be dealt with fairy and expeditiously.