The changes to the procedures of the electoral courts are likely to lead to more prosecutions for electoral crimes and seem to leave more room for disputes. Adelimo Manuel Muchange, president of the Supreme Court, provided clarification on this matter on August 23.

To speed up electoral challenges, a system of electoral courts was created. Matters are decided in the first instance by the district courts, but the Constitutional Council (CC) also functions as the highest electoral court.

The district courts resolve irregularities and questions of interpretation (electoral litigation), such as whether a polling station manager's decision was legally correct. But the district courts are also the first port of call for complaints of electoral crimes (illicit). The district courts have to rule on these offenses within 48 hours.

But during the process, many crimes are not charged because the pressure is on to change the election result. Muchange has therefore decided that all complaints submitted to the district court must be immediately summarized and sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP). In turn, the MP must decide whether the complaints meet the requirements to be accepted and whether there is a possible crime involved. At this stage, the case is assigned a special electoral crime number. Both procedures must be carried out in a short space of time to allow the district court to make a decision within 48 hours.

But Muchange's statement includes a clarification that could help the protests by giving them more time. Muchange states that "the deadline for filing an appeal is 48 hours from the posting of the notice publishing the election results", which means much more than two days after the event being protested. "The deadline for lodging an appeal is 48 hours from the date of the posting of the notice publishing the election results."

Muchange reiterates two existing rules. The first is "prior challenge" - if you haven't challenged a decision made at a meeting you attended, you can't go to court later. The second is that the electoral law is clear when it says that "The request does not require any formality" but that all the evidence must be presented in the first complaint.

Muchange's intervention is useful and should lead to more electoral crimes being tried and also guarantee more regularity in the actions of the district courts, which are not well trained. But the explanation also comes at a time when there is a four-way power struggle. The courts fall under the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court.

The Constitution and the electoral law create a hybrid electoral system in which the Constitutional Council (CC) is the supreme electoral court, but the CC is an entirely autonomous body. The remaining electoral decisions are made by independent electoral commissions and district courts, under the purview of the TS. In a battle fought this year, the CC drastically reduced the power of the electoral commissions and district courts, particularly when it came to recounting votes.

The other body is the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP), which is not a ministry despite its name, but an independent public prosecutor and an attorney general. It has been largely marginalized when it comes to electoral crimes, and Muchanga's ruling brings it back. For example, in last year's local elections, a district court in Maputo City found that a district STAE had falsified public notices, but there was no prosecution. The new procedure should mean that such evidence of crime will be followed up. (CIP eleições)