Serame, who recently lost the party's primary elections, is challenging the outcome in a determined effort to secure her political future. The loss came at the hands of the Minister of Health, Dr Edwin Dikoloti, who secured a significant victory over Serame in the southern region. The defeat was seen by many as a major setback for Serame, potentially signalling the end of her short political career. However, Serame has not accepted the outcome quietly. She believes that Dikoloti may have violated certain sections of the BDP primary election rules and has been vocal in her call for a re-run. Initially, Serame’s appeal to the southern region committee was dismissed, further complicating her position. Yet, undeterred by this setback, Serame has taken her case to the party’s central committee (CC), of which she is also a member. The stakes are high for Serame, as the outcome of this appeal could either solidify her standing within the BDP or mark the end of her political journey. The decision of the CC will be closely watched by both her supporters and detractors, as it could set a significant precedent of how internal party disputes are handled within the BDP. Serame's determination to fight for what she believes in reflects her commitment to her political career and to the principles she stands for. Whether or not her appeal is successful, it is clear that Serame is not ready to exit the political stage without a fight. In her appeal to the CC, Serame indicated that the elections were held on such other date that was not communicated through the letter dated July 16, 2024, therefore this violated regulations 8(e) and (f) of BDP regulations for the conduct of primary elections.
“The violation of date and time compromised the flow of information as acknowledged by the committee in paragraph 15.1(h) of its decision, directly communicating to regulation 8(e) and (f) of the BDP regulations for conduct of primary elections. Regarding the above submission, the constitution of the party acknowledges that during the primary elections campaign, we as candidates assemble and work with teams through which we pass information such as dates and times of elections from the relevant party structures. The committee acknowledges in paragraph 15.2(f) of its decision that there was no communication in this respect,” she had said. Furthermore, she said this has resulted in injustice and has compromised fair elections. Therefore, she indicated that she was prejudiced in areas of her strong support, which she feels was overlooked by the regional committee.
According to her, these irregularities have denied a significant number of party members their right to vote, and to have a choice of representative. In addition, she said the committee misinterpreted the cut-off date referred to in Regulation 1(b) concerning the final date for registration and verification of names on the final voters’ roll. She continued: “At the hearing, I submitted that the voters’ roll that was used during the elections was different from the first and second membership lists that were verified accordingly prior to the election date. This was far much a cry for most of the BDP members in the constituency, to say the least.” Therefore, Serame said to resolve the possible discrepancies, she suggested a verification process to compare voters' names in the membership lists and the final voters' roll. She said the CC is to note that the committee did not have information regarding this issue but nevertheless proceeded to conclude that the rolls were the same, against her submissions at the hearing that they were not, something that is not denied by her opponent. Serame said the omission of names has compromised fair elections.
Moreover, she stressed that if the results were the other way around, her opponent would have seen the injustice and total violation of the constitution and regulations. She also complains that the committee's findings that failure to use the ink was not prejudicial to fair elections undermines the integrity of the electoral process. Her submission is that the use of the ink in the election process helps eradicate election fraud among others. “The fact that there was no use of ink in some wards presented risks of multiple voting. Further, elections were held at night in most areas, which was a breeding time for election fraud. At the hearing, I substantiated that this fraud took place and the fact was to be corroborated by my witness,” she indicated. She said the regional committee refused her appeal on the basis that the opponent was equally affected by the irregularities which occurred during elections. However, her submission is that the elections were unfair and indeed caused prejudice to her as established by the committee in paragraph 15.1(h).
She indicated that naturally, any violation of the electoral processes compromises the validity of the outcome of fair elections, the consequence of which is prejudice to candidates and voters alike. Therefore, she said in this case, she has demonstrated prejudice. “I suffered as a result of the violations of regulations that prevailed at the primary elections in particular with reference to dates and times, names of voters omitted from the voters’ roll, and my opponent transporting election officers,” she said. She revealed that the regional committee should have defended the constitution and not the irregularities that occurred during the elections in the manner as apparent from its decision. In addition, she said Dikoloti was involved in transporting election officers during voting, and it is reported to have happened in Digawana.
