By Burnett Munthali
While some commentators like Lyson Sibande argue against allowing the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) access to the Smartmatic electoral system, broader global experiences suggest that the real concern should be about Smartmatic itself.
Smartmatic, a multinational company specializing in electronic voting systems, has been mired in controversy in multiple countries, raising serious doubts about its reliability and credibility.
In the Philippines, the use of Smartmatic technology in elections has been repeatedly challenged by both opposition parties and civil society.
Concerns have been raised over transmission delays, software glitches, and alleged foreign interference in the vote tallying process.
Filipino senators and watchdog groups such as the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) have called for the system to be scrapped altogether in future elections due to persistent irregularities.
In Venezuela, Smartmatic itself admitted that the results of the 2017 Constituent Assembly election had been manipulated by government officials.
This revelation seriously damaged the company’s global reputation and highlighted how easily such systems can be compromised from within.
The opposition and human rights groups in Venezuela have since used this example to warn other nations about relying on Smartmatic in national polls.
In Uganda, civil society organizations like the Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy (CCEDU) voiced strong reservations when the Electoral Commission considered adopting Smartmatic for vote transmission.
Opposition parties feared the system would be used to suppress voter data, particularly in urban opposition strongholds.
Even in Europe, Smartmatic’s involvement has raised concerns.
In Bulgaria, where the system was introduced for machine voting in 2021, political parties such as Democratic Bulgaria called for an audit after significant malfunctions in machines during the parliamentary elections.
Some machines froze, failed to produce receipts, or showed inconsistencies in vote counts, prompting legal action and a credibility crisis for the country’s election commission.
These examples from different continents clearly show that mistrust in Smartmatic is not merely paranoia or partisan fear—it is a reality informed by documented failures and manipulations.
In Malawi, as the country prepares for the 16th September 2025 elections, it is not only the DPP expressing concern.
Several opposition political parties, including the United Transformation Movement (UTM) and the Alliance for Democracy (AFORD), have questioned the transparency of adopting Smartmatic without independent technical audits.
Civil society organizations like the Malawi Electoral Support Network (MESN) and Youth and Society (YAS) have called for greater oversight and scrutiny of any electronic system introduced to manage elections.
Their concern is that Malawi may become yet another cautionary tale if Smartmatic is adopted without adequate safeguards, independent auditing, and transparency.
Rather than dismissing DPP’s concerns as opportunistic, Malawians must pay attention to global patterns and the voices of local accountability actors.
The integrity of the 2025 elections depends not just on who has access to the system, but on whether the system itself can be trusted in the first place.
The lessons from Venezuela, the Philippines, Bulgaria, and Uganda must not be ignored.
Malawi needs credible, transparent, and citizen-trusted elections—not blind trust in a system that has failed elsewhere.
