2022-05-23

West Bank and Gaza

Core Program / position paper

Based on MUSAWA's role as an independent civil monitoring body, and its belief in democracy and the principle of direct periodic elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and the right of citizens to choose their representatives, MUSAWA formed a team to monitor the elections of the Palestinian Bar Council for 2022-2025 in the Jerusalem and Gaza stations, which was held on May 15, 2022, with the approval of the Central Elections Committee of the Bar association.

MUSAWA’s monitoring team included 24 observers, distributed over 11 stations in all of the northern governorates, and one station in the southern governorates, where 4 monitored the Ramallah station (the Palestinian Red Crescent Society), 3 in Jenin (The Blind Society), and 2 in Nablus (Nablus Businessmen Forum), 4 in Bethlehem (The Bar’s headquarters), 2 in Hebron (The Children Happiness Station), 1 in Tubas (The Bar’s headquarters), and 1 in Jerusalem (the professional associations complex), and 1 in Qalqilya (the headquarters of the union), and 1 in Jericho (The Bar’s headquarters), and 1 in Tulkarm (The Bar’s headquarters), and 4 in Gaza (The Bar’s headquarters).

MUSAWA’s team included members such as lawyers, a faculty of Education graduate, an accountant, a journalist, and MUSAWA’s legal monitoring officers. They carried out the monitoring process with impartiality and transparency, after receiving specialized training in monitoring, the rights and duties of the monitoring officers, and the difference between the monitoring officer's work and the candidate representatives' work. They documented the violations they observed and the procedures they took, within the legal limits, and submitted written reports with supporting evidence to MUSAWA’s administration.  (The monitors' reports and attachments are kept at MUSAWA).

MUSAWA's monitoring team commenced its duties on the morning of 5/15/2021 until the morning of the next day 5/16/2022, from before the opening of the ballot boxes until the end of the vote-counting process and the announcement of the results. MUSAWA notes that its oversight role began with the announcement of the decision to hold the elections. It includes all phases of the electoral process, starting with approving the names of the General Assembly members (the ones eligible to vote), the candidacy phase and the withdrawal of candidates, then the electoral campaign phase, and ending with the polling and counting processes. MUSAWA also organized two simultaneous electoral debates that enabled representatives of electoral lists and a large number of independent candidates to express their visions and electoral programs, and enabled the lawyers eligible to vote to examine these visions and programs before they cast their votes. MUSAWA's administration supervised the performance of its monitoring team at every step from the beginning of the voting process until the announcement of the results.

The following are the most prominent violations that marred the voting and counting phases, according to what was monitored and documented by the MUSAWA monitoring team:

1. The overall performance was chaotic; It expressed the lawyers' overwhelming desire to participate in the electoral process, their commitment to their right to choose their union leadership through elections, and their thirst for long-awaited elections.

2. The voter turnout in the northern governorates (Jerusalem station) reached 77%, with about 5,250 voters out of 6,857 lawyers have the right to vote. While the turnout in the southern governorates (Gaza) reached 93.6%, according to what was announced by Mr. Zaher Al-Dahdouh, a member of the Elections committee at the start of counting, and the percentage reached 93.7%, according to what was revealed by Mr. Muhammad Abu Ras, chairman of the Elections Committee, upon announcing the results.

3. Poor organization and lack of control of the electoral process in all polling stations clearly affected the conduct of the electoral process, and the following are indications of this:

– The delay in opening the ballot boxes in the Bethlehem, Jenin, and Jerusalem stations, which delayed some voters from casting their votes until the arrival of the head of the Committee, which is contrary to the instructions of the Central Elections Committee. The chairman of the Committee was late in Jenin. The person in charge of opening the professional association complex in Jerusalem arrived late. The entire election committee arrived late in Bethlehem.

– The number of members of the Central Elections Committee is completely inconsistent with the number of voters causing the committee to lose control of the organization and entrance of the voters into the polling halls, and this staggering number of voters led to overcrowding in the polling hall. The committee’s role is to organize the polling process inside of the polling station, but the number of committee members was not enough to control the polling process given the increasing number of voters, and made it impossible for the committee, from the middle of the polling process up untill the end, to go back to how things were in the morning. In several stations, most notably the Ramallah station, the lawyers, voters and monitors stepped in to help control and organize the voting process.

– The polling stations were not provided with voting materials as there were no pens in the polling booths in the Ramallah station, lack of ballot papers in the Jericho station, and the election ink was not approved in all stations.

– A disruption of the work of the election committees, particularly in regards to preserving the invalid ballot papers and the voters’ bar membership card, crossing out the names of the voters, and organizing the voting process for male and female lawyers from outside the polling stations.

– A voter in the Ramallah station, whose health condition prevents him from voting, sought help first from another voter, before a member of the Elections Committee intervened and assisted him, but it was not confirmed that he actually got to vote as the head of the committee did not monitor his voting process.

– The polling halls are not suitable to the huge number of voters, in terms of the organization of the polling process inside and in terms of the space in some stations. In the Ramallah station, the place designated for the monitors inside the polling station was far away, which made it hard for them to monitor and observe the voting process clearly and smoothly. Some of them were moved to the middle of the hall on a side stage located adjacent to the polling tables. Only one polling hall was allocated for the polling process in the Ramallah station despite the huge number of voters, and the entry and exit of voters was not organized. The Bethlehem station was very small, which hindered the smooth conduct of the process.

– The use of mobile phones; The mechanism for the collection of the voters’ phones was not organized and was not dealt with properly and clearly with all voters, as they were able to make phone calls while casting their votes and in front of the committee members in the Ramallah station, and it also happened in Jericho and Bethlehem stations where the voter did not comply with the order of the committee member and resumed his phone call. Additionally, photos were taken of the ballot papers in the stations of Ramallah, Tubas, Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem. The monitors in the Ramallah Station asked the committee members to collect the voters’ phones before casting their votes, which the committee somewhat adhered to, but that only lasted a short while due to the immense number of voters in front of the polling station.

– Cases of altercations and shouting among the voters, as some of them have been waiting for many hours to cast their votes.

– Lack of a designated member from the committee to observe the ballot boxes in all stations, as the voter cast his vote and placed the ballot paper without the supervision of the committee, and the boxes were surrounded by a large number of voters, lawyers, and monitors due to the overcrowding inside the station and some voters would ask the monitors where to put the ballot paper. The committee in the Bethlehem station left the hall and the ballot boxes, and went outside to solve an issue happening at the station’s door.  The committee also left the polling hall in the Nablus station at 4:45, leaving only the monitors inside. The location of the ballot boxes was changed without anyone's supervision in the Hebron station.

– Failure to organize a mechanism for the voters’ entry into the polling hall, as the committee used to take their membership cards or their ID cards, and then call each one by name, which hindered the progress of the process and increased the overcrowding in the stations. In some stations, it took more than three hours for voters to enter to vote, and this led to inequality in dealing with the voters, as entry was not made according to the order of receiving the cards, which forced some of the voters to leave without exercising their right to vote due to the long wait, such as in (The station of Ramallah, Jenin, Bethlehem, and Hebron).

– The process of erasing the voter's name from the paper record delayed and impeded the process, considering the large number of voters in the Ramallah station which reached (1266) voters. The committee members in the Ramallah Station argued over the mechanism of organizing the voting process, and there are constant arguments between them and the voters.

– In several stations, the polling hall was overcrowded with people who are not committee members, monitors or voters.

– The lack of organization led to the entry of candidates into the polling halls despite the presence of their representatives, to ensure that the process goes properly and without fraud, and they interfered in the work of the committee, such as in The stations of Ramallah and Nablus.

4. Disregarding the directions of the Central Election Committee of the Bar regarding every lawyer’s right to vote in the station in which his name is listed, unless an exceptional circumstance arises that prevents the lawyer from voting in the station in which his name is listed, but this procedure was not followed as most lawyers voted in different stations without the existence of an exceptional circumstance. This constituted a serious problem that affected most of the electoral process and led to confusion and delay given the length of time required for coordination from the station where the voter’s name was listed which took more than two hours, so that his name would be crossed out from the records to enable him to cast his vote in another station.

5. The voter's name is crossed out in the Hebron station after he has finished voting, and not after receiving the ballot paper as per the instructions of the Central Elections Committee.

6. The acceptance of ballot papers, 75 to be exact in the Jenin station, that did not contain the signature of the head of the sub-committee. Accordingly, the head of the committee submitted a report on this to the committee and they complied, but that was only after he was notified by MUSAWA.

7. Electoral campaign continued in all stations throughout the whole polling process, by distributing cards and brochures to voters, influencing their vote, and urging them to elect a specific list or certain people, as well as the voters and monitors were wearing scarves representing a certain voting bloc, sending text messages to voters, and cheering loudly inside the polling hall in favor of a specific list in the Tubas station, a voter chanting inside the polling hall in the Jerusalem station that he voted for the Jerusalem list, and voters displaying their ballot paper after casting their vote in the Nablus station. In addition to that, an independent candidate in the Jerusalem Station was seen campaigning and advertising for himself to urge voters to vote for him.

8. A Violation of the Central Elections Committee’s instructions to not to have more than 5 voters inside the polling hall in the Ramallah, Jenin, Hebron, and Jerusalem stations, and the voters in the Hebron station gathered behind the polling booth, in addition to the presence of voters inside the Ramallah station in huge numbers and in an uncontrolled manner waiting for an empty polling table as some of them were forced cast their vote at the committee staff table.

9. The presence of two intelligence service officers in the hall of the Jenin station, and the entry of one intelligence officer to the station of Bethlehem who was then escorted out, and there were also security agencies officers deployed outside the Nablus station in large numbers disguised as civilians.

10. Voters did not leave the polling halls immediately after casting their votes, which affected the progress and confidentiality of the voting process, as one voter, who had already cast his vote, was interfering with the voting process of another voter, such as in the Ramallah and Jenin stations.

11. Lack of consideration for the confidentiality of the voting process (Voter Privacy), as the polling booths in the Ramallah station were clearly visible and not isolated, which enables anyone inside the hall to know the voter's choice, especially given the overcrowding inside the hall. In addition to an instance in the Jerusalem station where two voters are filling their ballot papers in the same polling booth.

12. Voters’ use of papers and cards during their polling process in Ramallah, as MUSAWA’s monitoring officers detected more than 17 voters using papers or small cards that contain names of candidates, which they take out of their pocket or bag and put a tick next to the names contained therein. The committee accepted MUSAWA’s request and provided the aforementioned voters with new ballot papers and invalidated their initial votes.

13. Bringing children inside the polling hall and during the polling process in the Ramallah and Jerusalem stations.

14. The representatives of the electoral lists accompanied the voters into the Jerusalem Station polling hall in an attempt to influence their voting.

15. Despite the committee’s instructions to extend the voting process until seven o’clock, the counting process began in Nablus station at ten minutes past seven, even though it was supposed to start an hour after the closing of the polls, i.e. eight o’clock. Then, based on a call made to the chairman of the committee, the boxes were closed, all the papers were returned and the counting began again at eight o’clock.

16. A candidate in the Nablus station hindered the counting process by strongly objecting and requesting to see every ballot paper, telling the committee, "How do I know that you will not rig the ballots!"

17. The Acceptance of ballot papers during the counting process against the instructions of the Central Elections Committee, such as papers with checkmarks in a place other than that designated for it, or above or next to the name of the candidate, and the acceptance of signs or marks other than a checkmark, such as a circle around the names of candidates or their electoral numbers, the approval of around six papers that had more than 9 candidates selected, and placing a repeated mark next to the candidate's name or another instance in Jenin’s station where one put a mark on both sides of the candidates’ name. Another voter at the same station made put a checkmark in the correct designated place, but made the mistake of marking the wrong name (not the one he intended to choose), and asked the committee to replace the paper, but his request was denied.

18. The presence of large numbers during the counting process who did not inform the sub-committee chairman in advance of their presence in the counting process, which affected the integrity and smoothness of the process, and it included instances of shouting, altercations, cheering, and making phone calls in most polling stations.

The following are the most prominent breaches and violations documented by MUSAWA’s oversight team in the Gaza Station:

1. The candidates’ representatives were not allowed to supervise the polling process, although Mr. Muhammad Al-Qar, the candidate of the Future List – as we were informed – submitted a request to the Bar to allow the candidates’ representatives to supervise the polling process, especially since there is no legal text that prevents this, given that the electoral legislations guarantee this right for the candidates’ representatives or agents.

2. Although MUSAWA submitted a written request to allow its team to monitor the polling and counting processes, which included the names of five monitors that form MUSAWA’s monitoring team in the Gaza station, but MUSAWA was only allowed one monitor for both the polling and counting process, which restricted the oversight role of the other four officers to only the outside of the polling stations. MUSAWA reported the negative effect of limiting the number of its monitors to only one, especially since the polling and counting process took approximately 24 hours, which affected MUSAWA’s ability to exercise its right in comprehensive oversight of the electoral process.

3. MUSAWA’s monitoring officer was subjected to a series of restrictions imposed by the Bar's administrative director, Mr. Alaa Al-Farra, who obligated her to remain on a platform, prohibited her from speaking to any member of the election committee, and prevented her from receiving notes or objections despite not having the power to restrict, prevent and manage, especially since the management of the electoral process is entrusted to the Elections Committee only. The restrictions were carried out in the presence of the chairman of the elections committee, in a way that indicates the intervention of Mr. Alaa Al-Farra and his encroachment on its powers. According to MUSAWA’s monitoring officer, she stated that these restraints targeted only her and not the other observers.

4. Members of the electoral supervisory committee, including the head of the committee, all belong to the same political party.

5. The electoral campaign continued until the end of the polling process, and some voters submitted written objections to the head of the Elections Committee regarding the continuance of putting up campaign posters in the Bar’s headquarters during the polling process. Moreover, Mr. Alaa Al-Farra prevented an objector from speaking in addition to not allowing MUSAWA’s monitoring officer to speak with him.

6. The continuation of the rallies and speeches at the door of the polling station, verbal exchanges and altercations between some candidates' supporters, and the electoral campaigning on social media until the start of the counting process.

7. Violation of the rules of silent observation by some monitors and their use of the media in the polling station to praise the electoral process, which caused chaos and impeded the smoothness of the voting process.

8. Activists of the Fatah Movement and the Fatah office gathered and organized marches in front of the polling station, which impeded the entry of voters to the polling station.

9. Some voters came to the polling station without their Bar membership card or even their personal ID, and were allowed to vote based on personal knowledge of them.

10. The collection of voters' mobile phones was not organized, as there were several cases of voters taking pictures of ballot papers and the Bar’s director would delete them in a rude manner, and another number of voters were flaunting their ballot papers and announcing that they had elected a specific list.  

11. The distribution of polling booths does not meet the requirements of the confidentiality of voting, especially booths No. 1 and 6 (the number of booths was 20).

12. Confusion in the voter register caused multiple voters to wait for verification of their eligibility to vote, especially since some members of the supervisory committee were voting whilst also managing the register, which led to confusion in the crossing out of some names after they cast their vote or crossing out other names that are entitled to vote.

13. Any spoilt ballot paper or any other problem that occurs was dealt with by the director of the Bar association, despite being out of his jurisdiction, whilst the chairman of the committee did not intervene.

14. The recount was done twice following the objections to the number of invalid papers.

15. The Bar’s director along with a member of the supervisory committee accompanied two voters to the polling booth.

16. The polling station is not suitable for people with disabilities even though the Bar should be aware in advance of their physical condition and disability, whether visual or mobility impairment. This was an insult to one voter who had to be carried on a chair, and a member of the committee intervened to explain the ballot paper to him.

17. The Approval of ballot papers that are not signed by the head of the committee, which made it impossible to distinguish them from invalid ballot papers.

18. The committee’s vote sorting panel did not display a precise number on the board as shown in the live broadcast, which forced some to calculate the number of votes manually, and in some cases it was recounted due to an error, which shows the weakness and inaccuracy of the sorting procedures.

19. The board did not include a box displaying the number of invalid ballot papers and the number of blank papers.

20. Mr. Zaher Al-Dahdouh, a member of the Elections Committee, announced after opening the boxes and counting the papers that the number of voters is (2415), those who did not vote (164), the number of invalid ballot papers (21), and the number of members of the General Assembly (2579). After the sorting was completed, Mr. Muhammad Abu Ras, the head of the committee, announced that the number of voters is (2441), including (2420) valid ballot papers, (21) invalid ballot papers, and the number of non-voters (164) voters, which showed that the number of the General Assembly members is (2605) lawyers who have the right to vote. The first and second announcements showed a difference in the number of papers amounting to (26) additional papers. This difference was also documented in the live broadcast on the Bar’s page, and MUSAWA learned that the candidate with the highest votes in the electoral list competing against the winning list submitted an appeal to the Elections Committee claiming that this difference significantly affected the results of the elections and demanded a recount. The same candidate had also previously submitted a written objection in which he expressed his opposition to extending the polling period from five o'clock to seven o'clock, as he believed there was no justification for that extension. The objection may not achieve a result, because deducting these votes, which they claim are added to the winning list, will not affect the outcome of the elections.

21. The voter turnout is remarkably high, which indicates that the lawyers are committed to exercising their right to vote and is also due to the poor procedures followed by the elections committee in conducting the elections.

22. The counting of the number of supporters and opponents, regarding the approval of the financial and administrative reports during the meeting of the General Assembly that preceded the polling day, was inaccurate and was characterized by “bulk counting” in the way that those who agree should stand on the right and those who oppose should stand to the left. This disarray in the counting process was caught on camera and published on social media, and yet the objectors did not receive answers to their objections.

23. A lawyer who is a Bar employee was able to cast his vote, and a lawyer who is suspended from legal practice was also able to cast his vote.

24. A candidate submits a written objection to the accreditation of three candidates, despite their failure to fulfill the financial obligations they owe to the Bar.

In the face of these violations, and for the purpose of reducing them, we deem it necessary to organize training sessions for the members of the Central Elections Committee in the Bar, its local committees, and their executive staff, regarding the mechanism of organizing the electoral process and everything related to the regulations and conditions of all phases of the polling process. Accordingly, we can use the experience of the Central Elections Committee in the elections of local bodies as a reference. There is also a need to increase the number of members of the local election committees to be consistent with the number of lawyers who have the right to vote. As well as the need to strictly follow the instructions of the Central Elections Committee, and not interfere in its performance or override its decisions in order to ensure the proper conduct of the electoral process, and the integrity and transparency of the elections.

Thus, the Election Committee should closely examine the violations included in our report, some of which might affect the election results, and take legal measures, in a way that gives legitimacy to the final results. It should also address the objections submitted to it as soon as possible and in accordance with the law and principles, whilst respecting the principle of periodical elections and the commitment to conduct them in the legal time.

With respect,

23/5/2022

MUSAWA