The Mozambican Bar Association (OAM) believes that the criteria used by the Constitutional Council (CC) to validate the results of the October 9 General Elections are not provided for by law. The lawyers propose that the work of validating the results be publicly observed to ensure transparency.

In a statement, the OAM recalls that the CC intends, with no room for retreat, to validate the results of those elections by simply comparing the notices of the political parties and the National Electoral Commission whose data coincide. And, in the absence of a coincidence between the notices issued by the political parties and those issued by the CNE, the CC will validate the CNE's results

According to the OAM, this criterion being used by the CC is not legal and is "undoubtedly" an "innovation".

According to the document we have quoted, the legal authenticity of the results of the notices is embodied in the declarations made by the signatories themselves. In this sense, the veracity of the notices (documents) cannot be achieved by simple confrontation, "but by testimonial evidence".

"Any exercise contrary to this is purely innocuous and illegal, which cannot be tolerated nor acceptable in a constitutional court, such as the Constitutional Council, especially when it is, as is the case, the highest and unappealable instance," it reads.

The lawyers suggest that if the CC intentionally wants to guarantee transparency in the tabulation of the actual results, it should "then hold a public hearing of the respective electoral process, with the presence of the election agents, journalists and observers, producing evidence that is legal and admissible by law".

"Let it not be said that the respective legislation does not provide for public hearings, since it is clear from Article 201(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure that "Apart from the cases provided for in the previous articles, the practice of an act which is not permitted by law, or the omission of an act or of a formality which is prescribed by law, shall be null and void only when the law so declares or when the irregularity committed may influence the examination or decision of the case". As is clear to see and easy to understand, the holding of the public hearing does not influence the examination or decision of the case and that in this case the 'cause' is nothing more than the discovery of the material truth and/or electoral truth of these elections."