Zambia's Election Chaos: Electoral Commission Battles Confusion Over 'Tick' vs. 'X' Ballot Marks

Ahead of Zambia's August 13 General Elections, the National Reconciliation Party for Unity and Prosperity (NRPUP) urgently demanded clarification from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) on ballot marking procedures and the timely announcement of results. In a letter dated August 9, 2026, from Aongola & Co. Legal Practitioners and Makebi Zulu Advocates, the party warned that unresolved ambiguities could undermine confidence in the electoral process, especially with polling scheduled in just four days. They argued that any inconsistency in ballot treatment could lead to disputes during counting.

NRPUP specifically challenged reports suggesting voters might be allowed to use a tick or check mark. Citing Regulation 33(d) of the Electoral Process (General) Regulations, 2016, which states a voter shall signify their vote by “marking the ballot paper with a CROSS in the appropriate place,” the lawyers contended that the regulation’s language was clear and should not be altered by administrative instructions without lawful amendment. They called for the withdrawal or correction of any conflicting instructions unless ECZ could provide specific statutory authority for such changes, emphasizing the need for clear and uniform criteria for ballot validity before polling commences.

Regarding results management, NRPUP expressed concern over intentions to delay the progressive announcement of results until August 17, 2026. They argued that such a departure from established practice, where results are announced progressively from polling stations, would create an “information vacuum” and hinder independent verification by political parties, candidates, observers, and the electorate. The party demanded confirmation that results would be announced publicly at each polling station, copies of result forms provided to polling agents, and polling-station-level results published accessibly to form the basis of all subsequent aggregation. Failure to respond within three hours of receiving the letter would lead to legal redress.

In response to such concerns, ECZ Chief Electoral Officer Brown Kasaro clarified at a stakeholder meeting in Lusaka that while the commission traditionally uses an ‘X’ in voter education, any single, clear mark is acceptable, provided it remains within the specific area for the chosen candidate. He strongly cautioned against false narratives claiming an ‘X’ signifies rejection, reiterating that marking more than one candidate would invalidate the ballot. Kasaro also emphasized two critical rules for a vote to count: voters must not write names or initials on the ballot paper, as either would spoil the vote.

Addressing widespread rumors, Mr. Kasaro assured the public that citizens with painted or artificial nails would not be turned away from polling stations. Polling officers have received specific instructions to apply the mandatory indelible ink to both the base of the nail and the surrounding skin, ensuring visibility without restricting anyone’s constitutional right to vote. He reminded the public that the only requirements for voting are a valid Voter’s Card, a National Registration Card, and being duly registered on the voter roll.

Further supporting the ECZ's position, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) president Antonio Mourinho Mwanza clarified that the law does not exclusively mandate the “X” mark. He referenced the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016, stating that Section 60 focuses on whether the voter’s choice can be reasonably determined, rather than strictly requiring an “X.” Mwanza pointed out that Section 68(2)(d) stipulates a ballot should be rejected only if it is “not reasonably possible to determine the voter’s choice.”

Mwanza further highlighted Regulation 46(2) of Statutory Instrument No. 63 of 2016, which expressly deals with ballots marked “otherwise than by means of a cross [X].” This regulation states such a ballot “shall not by that reason be invalid if the intention of the voter clearly appears on it,” provided the mark does not identify the voter. This confirms that the 2016 regulations already recognized the validity of marks other than an “X” if the voter’s intention is clear. Additionally, the ECZ’s 2026 Election Trainer’s Manual, page 101, explicitly accepts non-X marks where the voter’s choice is clear, or when “the voter makes any mark in a single line indicating their choice.”

In conclusion, Mwanza affirmed that the ECZ is not breaking the law by accepting clear marks other than an “X.” He asserted that the ‘X’ is not the only mark allowed by law, and a tick or any other mark is not automatically illegal under the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016 and the Electoral Regulations, 2016, as long as it clearly indicates the voter’s intended choice. These rules and regulations have been in existence and applied by the ECZ since 2016, ensuring that the primary focus remains on accurately discerning the voter’s will.