Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:05:48 +0000
By INNOCENT SIACHITOBA
THE landmark judgement by the Constitutional Court on the prisoners’ right to vote is truly a step in the right direction and this will for the first time in Zambia’s electoral process add voices of the minority groupings.
The ruling is welcome and it ought to be embraced by all political players without chauvinism. After all, Zambia is not the first country to allow inmates to take part in national elections.
The Prisons Care and Counselling Association (PRISCCA) under the headship of Dr. Godfrey Malembeka ought to be profoundly recommended for the unwavering step they took by taking the issue of prisoners’ right to vote to the Constitutional Court. This is history in making as far as enhancing Zambia’s democratic standing is concerned.
There are other countries where inmates especially awaiting-trial detainees are allowed to vote. For instance, in United Kingdom such inmates are allowed to vote although the turnout tends to be low due to logistical and/or operational challenges. These are issues stakeholders in the electoral process will equally be concerned about as they involve this unique population segment.
According to the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Mudford Mwandenga, revealed that as of 17th May, 2017, the inmate population countrywide was at 21,370 against the holding capacity of 8,250, representing a national overcrowding of approximately 159 percent.
However, this analysis is not based on overcrowding but only interested in the inmate populace.
If this number (21 370) is properly segregated in terms of age, sex, case type, nationality and/or religion, you may find out that the number of inmates who are eligible to vote is approximately 15 000 plus due to the composition of inmates. Some are juvenile inmates who are below 18 years, while some are Prohibited Immigrants awaiting for either court appearance or deportation to their countries. Equally, there are those inmates whose religious beliefs do not allow them to take part in national elections.
There have been comments on social media where commentators have argued that inmates would automatically vote against the ruling party and because of this they may refuse to vote because they wouldn’t want to be seen as siding with any political party. Still other analysts have claimed that voting against the ruling party they may risk themselves losing Presidential pardon in an event the sitting Head of State is re-elected. Such fears, they say, will lead to voter turnout.
It must be stated that the right to vote differs from one country to another. In some countries the right to vote among prisoners is strictly restricted while in some countries convicts are disenfranchised for the period of their jail term.
The right to vote is succinctly laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In article 21 (1) “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. And in subsection 3 of article 21, it states that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures”.Commenting on these clauses, the Penal Reform International who conducted a survey in 2016 on the Global Overview of the Right of Prisoners to vote submits that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘though not a treaty in itself, is generally considered customary international law and therefore has a binding status’.
The other global convention that promotes right to vote is The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This treaty equally spells out the right to vote. In article (25) (b) it states that “To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors”.
Even though these clauses do not clearly categorise who should take part in elections of that particular country, the message is that every citizen who is eligible should be allowed to vote. However, the problem again is what kind of elections inmates should participate. These are legal challenges will certainly be dealt with by the legal experts as they meet the major stakeholders, the Electoral Commission of Zambia and Zambia Correctional Service.
In countries where restrictions are imposed on inmates not to vote, arguments have wholly centred on the type of offence an inmate committed and also the sentence slapped on such prisoners.
For instance, the right to vote in Kuwait according to the findings by Penal Reform International is not dependent on the length of the prison sentence, but on the severity of the offence. The Electoral Law denies voting rights to those ‘convicted of a criminal felony or an offense involving moral turpitude or breach of trust, until he is rehabilitated.
Additionally, in some countries restriction on who should vote purely relies on the type of elections, whether they are general elections, parliamentary or local government elections. For instance in nations like Czech Republic and Ukraine, prisoners do not vote as they are not considered to be members of the community and are not affected by communal challenges.
In the Zambia context, the voting process among inmates will need to look at various issues such as registering eligible inmates and procedures in casting votes. For instance, in UK, unconvicted inmates vote via postal ballots. The likely challenges that will be faced will be the process of registering eligible inmates.
There are inmates who do not have National Registration Cards but are 18 years above. The way forward to such a challenge will be resolved by issuing new NRCs so that inmates can register to vote. The Correctional centres will be instrumental in making sure that eligible inmates whose NRCs were lost or did not have are issued with new ones.
The other area that will need total adherence is the classifications of inmates. Different literature reviewed so far evidently indicate that there is no clear difference between a pre-trial detainee and a convict, a juvenile and an adult inmate, general population and new admission, general population restraint and general population centrally monitored, close custody and punitive segregation, pre-hearing detention and imprisonment, sick and terminally ill and so on and so forth.
The government through the Home Affairs will require the services of statisticians or demographers who will manage the prison statistics from the time inmates are brought to prisons and the time they are leaving. Having a clear classification of inmates in prisons will not only help managing the case-flow but also help the Electoral Commission of Zambia to register inmates. A strong understating of the prison population in terms of case type and/ or incarceration status will surely minimise chances of mismanaging the electoral process. It might make sense if such database is automated through a centralised computer system.
It is therefore prudent that the landmark judgement is totally appreciated and that the level of utmost confidentiality during the voting process must be promoted at all cost so that inmates do not feel emotionally uncomfortable after casting their votes.
