Maputo — Mozambique's main opposition party, Renamo, has demanded the annulment of the ruling from the Constitutional Council which validated and proclaimed the results of the municipal elections held on 11 October.
Those results claimed a victory for the ruling Frelimo Party in 56 of the 65 municipalities. Renamo won in four municipalities, and the second opposition party, the Mozambique Democratic Movement (MDM) in one. Fraud was so blatant in the other four municipalities that the Constitutional Council ordered a repeat of the elections, either in the entire municipality or in several of the polling stations.
This came nowhere near meeting Renamo's demands. In particular, Renamo insists that it won the elections in Maputo and in the adjacent city of Matola. The Constitutional Council transferred tens of thousands of Maputo and Matola votes from Frelimo to Renamo, but this still left Frelimo in control of the two cities.
Renamo says it can prove its victories in Maputo and Matola because it has copies of all the polling station results sheets ("editais'), which show that it won. Neither Frelimo nor the Constitutional Council have published editais which show any other result.
On Tuesday, the Renamo mayoral candidate for Maputo, Venancio Mondlane, delivered an appeal to the Attorney-General's Office (PGR) seeking annulment of the Constitutional Council ruling.
A contingent of police prevented the reporters accompanying Mondlane from entering the PGR building - although journalists have been allowed to enter on similar occasions in the past.
The police also prevented the reporters from taking photographs or interviewing anyone in the vicinity of the PGR. Since this is a public area, the police action was illegal.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"There's no need for all this police apparatus', said Mondlane. "It's a violation of the right to information'.
Mondlane admitted that, under Mozambican legislation, there can be no appeal against Constitutional Council decisions. However, he argued that asking for intervention by the PGR is not really an appeal.
"If the Council takes a decision that exceeds its powers, and injures basic principles such as those of justice and equality, that means that the ruling it produced is contrary to the law and the constitution', he said. He believed that in this case, the PGR could intervene to restore legality.
Mondlane claimed that in its ruling, the Council had usurped powers that belong to the country's parliament, the Assembly of the Republic. Furthermore, it had failed to provide any explanation for its decisions.
The Council changed the results in nine municipalities, but did not explain why. In every case where it changed the results, the Council gave the explanation that "the results proceeded from the re-verification of the data in accordance with the proof produced'.
But it did not show this proof, even though the editais are public documents. The public thus does not know whether the Council used all the polling station editais, or whether it excluded some.
