The European Union (EU) election observers have called on the government to put in place clear and comprehensive laws to guide the use of election technology.
They say the gap in the legal framework contributed to mistrust and political tension during the 2025 General Elections.
In its final report, the EU Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) says the introduction of new election technologies by the Malawi Electoral Commission (Mec) lacked transparency, clear communication and adequate consultation with stakeholders.
EU EOM Deputy Chief Observer Anne Marlborough said the technologies were introduced too late in the electoral process, the procurement procedures were unclear and the public was not sufficiently informed about how the systems would operate.
“The late introduction of election technology, combined with limited transparency in procurement and insufficient public information, reduced confidence in the electoral process,” Marlborough said.
- Advertisement -
According to the report, Biometric Voter Verification Devices (BVVDs) were used on polling day to verify voters, enable voting outside registered polling stations and transmit images of result sheets.
Election Management Devices (EMDs), which had earlier been used for voter registration and candidate nomination, were used to transmit consolidated results from constituency and district tally centres.
“Mec owned and operated all the systems, with limited involvement of the technology supplier. The electronic systems were used alongside the traditional paper-based system,” Marlborough said.
The report notes that EMDs and the Election Management System were procured in 2024 through a restricted international tender, where only three companies were invited to bid and just one submitted an offer— an approach some stakeholders described as unusual.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
It further states that BVVDs were only considered and procured in mid-2025, just months before the elections, with little public information on decision-making, tender requirements or how the technology would support the electoral process.
“Because of this, the introduction of technology became a major source of controversy in 2024 and 2025.
While Mec repeatedly assured stakeholders that the systems were secure, there was limited evidence of robust technology governance,” reads part of the report.
The observers say this lack of clarity fuelled rumours, mistrust and, in some cases, protests.
The EU EOM also highlights legal and procedural gaps.
In June 2025, Mec rejected opposition calls for an independent audit of the technology, arguing there was no legal obligation to do so.
Five opposition parties challenged the decision in court, but less than a week before polling day, the High Court ruled that Mec had the authority to decide on the use of technology and whether to allow an audit.
The court further ruled that only paper-based results were legally valid, a clarification the observers say had not been clearly communicated by Mec earlier.
The mission also raised concerns about training and preparedness.
Observers were denied access to seven out of eight technology training sessions.
In the one session observed, training materials were found to be adequate, but practical training—particularly for special voting situations—was limited.
“On election day, voting was largely peaceful and well organised. However, in 11 percent of polling stations observed, device-related problems caused delays,” the report says.
It adds that in 85 percent of cases, voters were identified using alternative methods because fingerprints could not be captured. Observers also reported poor handling of devices, low battery power and challenges in transmitting results from tally centres.
The EU EOM concluded that while challenges are common when new technology is introduced, long-term success depends on clear laws, strong management, effective communication and sustained use across multiple election cycles.
The mission has recommended that Mec clearly define operating procedures, establish a robust legal framework for election technology, improve stakeholder communication and make non-sensitive procurement and governance documents public to rebuild trust in future elections.
Malawi Law Society Davis Njovu has echoed the EU observers’ concerns, calling for clear legislation on election technology.
He noted that the last election was characterised by disputes between some political parties and Mec over consultations and the specific roles of manual and electronic systems.
“Fortunately, last-minute guidance from the court helped ease tensions and paved the way for peaceful and credible elections. However, such clarifications should be addressed early through clear, sober legislation,” Njovu said.
He added that any legal amendments should only be enacted after wide consultations with political parties, civil society organisations and the public to ensure the laws are objective, practical, comprehensive and fair.
Mec spokesperson Sangwani Mwafulirwa has acknowledged the EU report.
“The Commission wishes to highlight that the EU is one of several domestic and international organizations— including Sadc, the African Union, and local civil society groups—that have shared vital feedback.
“Rather than addressing these points in isolation, the Commission will review all recommendations as part of a broader, structured election postmortem scheduled for 2026.
“This process will involve a systematic evaluation of all observer insights to identify necessary administrative and legislative reforms. there will also be engagement with stakeholders” Mwafulirwa said
He said Mec remains committed to an inclusive consultative process that strengthens Malawi’s electoral integrity.
“We view this feedback as an essential roadmap for continuous improvement as we strive to deliver elections that meet the highest international standards of accountability,” he said.
