Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698746845356.pdf (Namibia)
~ ~tit TIlE RALLY FOR DE~IOCRACY AND PROGRESS (RDP} P. O.
Box 81500 Olympia, Windhoek * Tel/Fax: +264 (0)61 255973 * Fax2E-mail: +264 (0)88615773 * Email: hq@rdp.org.na * 18 Schonlein Street, Windhoek West * Website: www.rdp.org.na Statement by Honorable Mike Kavekotora, RDP Member of Parliament on the Motion debating in future Presidential, National, Regional and Local Authority elections in Namibia the use of Electronic Voting Machines The 7th March 2018 INTRODUCTION Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members, Voters in democratic societies go to elections to freely choose their leaders and representatives.
ingredients of democratic elections important are transparency, credibility and fairness.

Some of the most Namibia introduced EVMs under the pretext that it will be an efficient, faster and and transparent reliable voting method in the conduct of elections.

Preceding the actual introduction of EVMs was the law reform process carried out by the Law Reform Development Commission (ELDC) of the Ministry of Justice.
fair, credible free, During the consultations with stakeholders, the ELDC received in October 2011 proposed reforms from ten (10) political parties, of which the Rally for Democracy and Progress (RDP) was one of them.

Some of these proposals were implemented while others were not.
With regard to the EVMs the collective position was that the EVMs were still an untested technology but the political parties took note of the fact that the EVMs have already been purchased by the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN).

It was therefore proposed that the EVMs be introduced at the then upcoming by- elections in parallel or simultaneous to the use of traditional ballot papers as a way of creating the this parallel running of the two effectiveness and efficiency of EVMs.
However, systems never materialized.

ELECTORAL LAW AMENDMENTS and gaining or disprove confidence experience to prove Page 1 of7 Hon.

Speaker Ultimately the EVMs were formally introduced as one of the voting method through the Amended Electoral Act, Act 5, of2014.
For the purpose of this debate, I will make reference to some relevant sections of the new Electoral Act: Section 99 of the Electoral Act, Act 5, of 2014 is referring to voting by secret ballots and reads as follows: (1) Voting in any election in terms of this Act is by secret ballot.
(2) Every ballot paper, including a ballot paper used in respect of a voting machine, are in the form as prescribed and must contain- (a) in the case of an election on party lists- in alphabetical order, of the registered political parties or the abbreviated name, if any, of each such political party or organisation; the distinctive symbol, if any, of each such political party or organisation; the names, (i) registered organisations taking part in the election; (ii) (iii) and (iv) in accordance with section 77(5); or the photo of the head of each such political party or organisation submitted (b) in the case of an election otherwise than on party lists - in alphabetical order, of all the duly nominated candidates in the (i) the surnames, election and the other names or initials of the candidates as the Commission may determine; if any, (ii) the name and, the abbreviated name and distinctive symbol of the registered political party or registered organisation by whom each candidate was nominated, or, if a candidate was not nominated by a registered political party or registered organisation, the word "independent"; and (iii) a photo of each candidate; and (c) the other particulars as may be prescribed.
Page 2 of7 Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members, in Namibia.
several pertinent questions fair, credible and transparent During debates on the Bill in this August House on October 2014, RDP representatives asked the Minister of Regional and Local Government, Housing and relating to the anxiety of the Rural Development opposition parties who doubted the efficiency and reliability of EVMs to conduct free, The well-grounded elections mistrust of EVMs emanated from the fact that the Amended Act, Act 5, of 2014 was to be implemented partially, the requisite Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) as per Section 97 (3 & 4).
In this regard, questions were raised in view of the then, and still, existing scientific proof since April 2010 that the Indian EVMs acquired by the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) are vulnerable to fraud, as discovered and explained in finest including video demonstrations, by a research team of three renowned detail, attacks on real EVMs and two successful security analysts, who carried out identified several other potential vulnerabilities.
The same Indian EVMs were repeatedly subject to court interventions, when i.e., Using EVMs without that ruled that in January 2012 Delhi High Court the EVMs are not and added that the Electoral Commission of India should hold in July 2011 the Supreme Court of India asked the Indian Electoral the EVMs should be );> Commission to consider and respond to the request modified by providing a simultaneous printout of the voter's ballot on paper; );> "tamper-proof', wider consultations with the Executive, political parties and other stakeholders; in October 2013 the Supreme Court of India directed the Electoral );> Commission of India to introduce Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail system for fair and credible the next general elections elections; the Electoral Commission of India informed the Supreme Court that EVMs );> with the Voter Verified Paper Trail were successfully and satisfactorily used at 21 polling stations in Nagaland during assembly elections in February 2013; and that the New Delhi constituency utilized EVMs with Voter Verified Paper );> Trails in its constituency elections on the 4th of December 2013, enabling voters to verify if their vote was recorded correctly, and being hailed as successful and a positive experience!?
to ensure free, in India, in order Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members, Page 3 of7 During these debates in Parliament, the then Minister of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural Development never disputed the fact that, with the current EVMs, there is no way, whatsoever, of verifying the ballot in case of an election challenge in a court of law.

We all know that our courts are courts of evidence and in the absence of paper trail there is no way any aggrieved party can challenge an election.
Moreover, the Minister never disputed that the only way to ensure trust and confidence of the electorate in the EVMs is by adding a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail, which will enable the voter to see a paper printout of their electronic ballot, displaying name and/or symbol of the chosen Party or Candidate of her or his choice, before dropping in a ballot box as provided for in the Law.
It appeared then, and even now, that the government of the day is indifferent to the fact that EVMs are banned in: The Netherlands (2006) - due to the secrecy risk of electronic eavesdropping; Republic of Ireland (2009) - due to lack of transparency and trust; Germany (2009) - Supreme Court declares EVMs unreliable and unconstitutional due to lack of transparency to a common voter; United States - California and other States ban EVMs without Paper Trail, and United Kingdom and France - decided not to implement EVMs for more or less similar reasons.
Hon.

Speaker, Hon Members The new Electoral Law (Act 5, of2014) was passed without convincing answers as to how the EVMs contribute to the enhancement of freedom, fairness, credibility, verifiability and transparency of elections.

Even though the amended Act has incorporated the VVPAT, its implementation commenced on October 17,2014, with the exception of Sections 97 (Clauses 3 -4) and 99 (Clauses 1 - 2).

This is very worrisome.


More so because despite the fanfare that accompanied the introduction of EVMs, the RDP and other parties can now testify that contrary to the stated objectives of EVMs, these machines are unreliable, untrustworthy, and insecure and they have in actual fact slowed down the voting, the counting process and the release of election results in Namibia.

Voters are unable to verify how their votes are allocated.
Page 4 of7 Besides the afore-stated shortcomings, ECN has relied on foreign technicians to deal with technical hiccups.

This unfortunate scenario exposes Namibian elections to possible manual and electronic manipulations by foreigners.

Hence, the EVMs remain under suspicion over their alleged tamper-ability and security problems during elections despite all assurances from ECN.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members, I am convinced that the EVMs were introduced hastily as a sure method by the ruling party to continue rigging elections without risking embarrassing themselves in the courts of law as it happened during the 2009 court challenge It is inconceivable that ECN and its backers in this matter have chosen to behave as if the new Electoral Act has not made provision for manual voting as per Section 99 of the Electoral Act.
Since 2015, the RDP has engaged various offices, institutions and the Parliament to seek redress in this matter: a) State President In August 2015 the RDP sought audience with the Head of State, President Hage Geingob, the EVMs.

The President assigned the Prime Minister to discuss our concerns.
to discuss the concerns about b) Prime Minister On the 14thOctober 2015 an RDP delegation met with the Right Honourable Prime and her delegation that included the then Minister, Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila, Attorney General, Mr. Sacky Shanghala, to discuss the EVMs concerns, mostly the use of these machines without paper trail.

This meeting was also attended by ECN representatives.
The ECN representatives assured the meeting that the acquisition of VVP AT was one of ECN's priorities under MTEF 2016-2019 and will only take 9 months to the 2015 Regional and Local Authority complete.

Elections were to be the last elections to use EVMs without VVP AT.

ECN further promised that Page 5 of7 c) ECN Ever since RDP consultations with the Prime Minister, ECN has not demonstrated its seriousness to deliver on its promise.
To add salt to injury, they have lately come up with flimsy excuses, that there are irreconcilable errors in the introduction of paper trail.

d) Parliament Failure by ECN to deliver on its promise has left the RDP with no other option but to bring the EVM issue back to this August House, on September 21, 2017, by way the of a number of questions directed to the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, responses given on EVMs were not that convincing.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members, Let me conclude by stating the following: First and foremost Swapo is the ruling party and everything it does matter.

The reluctance of the ruling party to use EVM~ during their congress held in November last year is a clear demonstration that even some Swapo members are questioning the reliability and credibility of EVMs.

The ruling party cannot and should not expect other stakeholders to trust the system if they are casting doubt on the same system.
In view of the above, I recommend the following: • EeN to revert back to the traditional voting method as provided for under Section 99 of the Electoral Act.

• Engaging all stakeholders on how to effectively and efficiently conduct free, fair, credible and transparent elections in Namibia.

• Interrogate some credible democracies that are reluctant clarity as to why they are reluctant to use EVMs.
to use EVMs to get Page 6 of 7 I recommend that this matter be referred to a relevant Parliamentary Committee for further investigation and report back to this August House.

I Thank You.

Page 7 of7