LUSAKA - The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has maintained its position regarding the marking and validity of ballot papers, following what it described as misleading statements by some stakeholders, including political party leaders.
The Commission said the manner in which a ballot paper is marked, as well as the determination of its validity, is provided for under Section 60 (6) (b) of the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016.
The provision states that a voter shall not have their vote rejected if they have received a ballot paper marked under subsection (5) (c), and shall mark the ballot paper in a way that indicates the candidate the voter wishes to vote for.
The ECZ said this provision requires a voter to mark the ballot paper in a manner that clearly indicates the candidate they wish to vote for, adding that the law does not prescribe a cross as the only mark that may be used.
The Commission also referred to Regulation 33(d) of the Electoral Process (General) Regulations, 2016, which instructs voters to use a cross when marking their ballot papers, but provides that where a cross has not been properly shown, the ballot paper should be treated together with Regulation 46, which sets out when a ballot paper should be rejected.
According to the Commission, Regulation 46(2)(b) provides that a ballot marked otherwise than by a cross should not be rejected simply because a different mark has been used.
The ECZ said the provision requires consideration of whether the voter's intention is clear and the mark does not identify the voter.
The Commission therefore maintained its earlier position regarding the marking and validity of ballot papers, saying it distinguishes between the marking of a ballot and the criteria used to determine whether a ballot is valid or invalid.
The ECZ said voters are instructed to use a cross, but the absence of a cross does not, by itself, make a ballot invalid. It said what matters is whether the voter's intention is clear and the ballot meets the requirements for validity.
The Commission further said this had been the practice as far back as 2006 and was therefore neither a new position nor a new interpretation of the law.
The ECZ urged all stakeholders to provide accurate information to the public and avoid statements that may unnecessarily confuse voters or undermine confidence in the electoral process, particularly during this critical period.
