• Holding polls on old nomination lists, outdated voter list causes concerns
• No legal provision to cancel accepted nominations: Rathnayake 

With the conclusion of the Parliamentary Elections last week, the Election Commission (EC) after a brief break is to commence preparations to hold the delayed Local Government (LG) Elections early next year. 

The holding of LG Elections has opened a fresh debate on whether the nomination lists already accepted by the EC should be cancelled and fresh nominations called for the polls.

Several issues have been pointed out as reasons for the call to cancel the current nomination lists for the LG Polls by political analysts. Key among them are two facts. 

The first of these is that a considerable number of candidates at the delayed LG Elections have contested last week’s Parliamentary Elections and been elected to office, creating vacancies in the LG nomination lists. 

The second issue is that the delayed LG Elections would be held under the 2022 voter registry, whereas there have been new voters added to the registry in more recent years.

Supreme Court order

Following petitions filed by various political parties and election observer groups, and upon finding that Fundamental Rights (FR) had been violated by the postponement of the 2023 LG Elections, the Supreme Court ordered the EC to hold the postponed elections immediately.

Earlier in September, the Cabinet approved a proposal to cancel the previously submitted nominations for LG Elections and to call for fresh nominations. 

This joint proposal was put forward by the former Prime Minister and the then Foreign Minister, citing concerns that over 900,000 newly eligible voters from the updated 2024 electoral list would be deprived of their right to vote or to be nominated at the upcoming elections. 

Additionally, the Local Authorities Elections (Amendment) Act No.30 of 2023 mandates a 25% youth representation in LG nominations.

Due to a court order, however, the election will proceed using the original nominations and outdated voter list, raising deeper systemic issues.

EC position

EC Chairperson R.M.A.L. Rathnayake, speaking to The Sunday Morning, stated that the Local Authorities Act did not contain any provision for revoking or cancelling nominations. “There is no law [allowing revocation or cancellation]. According to the present situation, we have no legal right to cancel the nominations,” he said.

“If we conduct the LG Elections, they will have to be held with the nominations that have already been submitted and based on the 2022 voter registry,” he added. 

He noted further issues with the outdated nomination list, such as candidates who were deceased, had migrated, or had switched political parties. However, the EC lacks the authority to update or amend the list.

Rathnayake emphasised the limitations of the EC’s power to act independently on this issue. While the current situation poses challenges, he stated that the commission must proceed with the election as soon as possible, as mandated by the court. 

“After the Parliamentary Elections, we will have to schedule dates for the LG Elections,” he added.

Rathnayake noted that in cases where a candidate contesting the Parliamentary Elections was also listed for the LG Elections, if the individual won a seat in Parliament, they would no longer be considered a candidate at the LG Elections.

Ramifications of outdated lists

Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) Chief Operating Officer Prof. Arjuna Parakrama pointed out that the nomination and voter lists were now outdated. “Individuals who are now 18 or 19 years old don’t appear on that list. The list needs updating and this requires a policy decision,” he said.

People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi added that election delays had complicated local governance. He noted that for the past two years, there had been a freeze on promotions, demotions, and recruitments due to these delays, while also pointing out that some candidates were deceased, had migrated, or had realigned with different political parties.

Prof. Parakrama emphasised the ramifications of outdated lists: “How can you impose something on the public that is no longer valid? Voter lists, candidate nominations, and political coalitions have all changed in the past two years.”

“People might vote for candidates who are deceased, have moved away, or are no longer citizens. These are real concerns,” he added.

Prof. Parakrama highlighted the need for the EC to ensure a free and fair election, adding that the commission should seek Supreme Court clarification if legal provisions did not cover the current situation. “If there is confusion or if they feel the law doesn’t cover this, then clarification should be sought,” he added.

Hettiarachchi further highlighted concerns about the disenfranchisement of young voters. He noted that although some youth would be unable to vote due to delays, this was within the “law of the land,” as the EC was bound by the list of registered voters at the time of the initial election declaration.

Questioning the fairness of holding elections with outdated data, Prof. Parakrama remarked: “Is it truly a free and fair election if they hold it two years later with an outdated candidate list and voter registry?”

He further said that if the EC sought clarification and the Supreme Court confirmed that fresh nominations could not be called, then at least there would be the assurance of having attempted to address the issue in good faith.

“If Parliament needs to enact a constitutional change immediately, they can do that,” he added. 

Legislative intervention required

Hettiarachchi further underscored the importance of legal clarity, reiterating that only Parliament, not the EC, had the authority to cancel previous nominations. 

“Lawmakers have to play their role,” he asserted, noting that the EC was limited to implementing the laws set by Parliament. He also noted that the Supreme Court had directed the EC to proceed with the elections and that any cancellation required legislative rather than judicial intervention.

“We have to keep in mind that there is also a court order instructing the EC to proceed with the election. This cannot be ignored,” he said.

Hettiarachchi added that in his view, the EC did not have the right to seek further legal intervention. “Only Parliament can cancel previous nominations and call for fresh ones,” he stated. 

He emphasised that it was the duty of policymakers to address these issues. “Politicians are the policymakers; they need to understand the issue and respond accordingly. The EC’s role is to implement the laws passed by Parliament,” he noted.

He stressed: “The next Parliament must address this situation seriously. If not, the EC has to proceed with the elections to avoid complications over not complying with the court’s decisions.”

Election fatigue 

Prof. Parakrama noted that fresh nominations could potentially be completed within a 60-day framework, aligning with a feasible time frame for the elections. “January or February is possible, with March as the latest,” he said, emphasising the need for adequate time for candidates to campaign and for citizens to prepare.

He also pointed to a general fatigue and lack of resources following the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections. “The campaigning is much less now compared to the Presidential Election. People are not actively campaigning on the ground; they likely lack funds and resources,” he noted.