Dr Bernard Ngalim
With Presidential elections scheduled for October 12, 2025, Elections Cameroon (ELECAM) should include political parties in finalizing the definitive electoral list. Although the Electoral Code allows multi-stakeholder observation during voter registration, ELECAM alone manages election technology. Moreover, only Article 84 of the Electoral Code regulates this technology by mandating the issuance of biometric voter cards. The limited scope of this provision leaves room for opaque management. Centralizing election technology exclusively under ELECAM fuels distrust. Digitalizing elections introduces internal and external cybersecurity risks.
I propose a multi-stakeholder model where ELECAM, political parties, and civil society actors strengthen electoral integrity and public trust. This is urgent as ELECAM prepares the final voter register for the October election. In 2004, Fru Ndi warned, “We must computerize it if we want a transparent and credible election.” The government eventually adopted election technology in 2012, but allegations of fraud persist. Digitalization introduced new risks, especially cybersecurity threats. These involve disrupting digital systems, manipulating, destroying, or stealing data.
How Cyber Threats Threaten the Integrity of Elections
If realized, malicious actors (hackers) could delete, modify, displace, or block access to voter names, polling stations, or entire databases. While external hackers pose a risk, internal actors, like ELECAM staff with authorized access, present a more immediate danger. ELECAM’s unchecked control over electoral systems creates opportunities for internal manipulation. In this context, internal cybersecurity risks are central. Different types of cyber threats demand specific mitigation strategies.
The Case for Multi-Stakeholder Management
The multi-stakeholder management of election technology requires ELECAM, political parties, and designated civil society organizations to jointly exercise control and oversight of electoral technology. This includes jointly selecting service providers and participating in key decisions about the deployment of technology. Importantly, if key stakeholders have the right to independently audit electoral technology, this will enhance electoral transparency and cybersecurity. This audit will include the collection, processing, storage, transmission, and verification of voter data over the electoral technology systems.
Election stakeholders are categorized as primary, established by the Constitution, and secondary, created by law. Article 3 of the Constitution recognizes political parties, political groups, and the electorate as key electoral stakeholders in the electoral process. ELECAM is a secondary stakeholder because it was created by a law that is subordinate to the Constitution. ELECAM cannot legitimately exercise exclusive control over elections while sidelining political parties. This increases opacity and creates opportunities for manipulation.
Recommendations to Remedy the Opacity and Manipulation
Mandatory Multi-Stakeholder Management Platform is Necessary
A mandatory multi-stakeholder management platform should include ELECAM, political parties, at least civil society organizations, the bar association, and religious authorities. This will increase transparency by eliminating ELECAM’s exclusive control over election technology. An election system is inherently interest-driven; giving one entity exclusive control creates bias and foments distrust. Digitalizing the electoral process is not a panacea for election fraud; it produces new risks.
To improve trust, Cameroon requires a platform where all stakeholders jointly decide on election technology and monitor its compliance with cybersecurity standards. No law prohibits such a platform, and ELECAM can do it for the October 12 elections. While implementation complexities like the parties to integrate may arise, all contesting parties or candidates should qualify for the purpose. A joint platform will mitigate cybersecurity risk by limiting internal manipulation, ensuring multi-stakeholder oversight, and improving system reliability.
Joint and Transparent Management of Election Database
In the absence of a multi-stakeholder management platform, other methods to build trust include giving stakeholders “read-only” access to the voter database and the right to independently commission audits of the electoral technology. The law does not prohibit these alternatives. In light of recent events, these alternatives are necessary.
For example, in October 2024, Maurice Kamto alleged that ELECAM had deleted about 120,000 registered voters from the roll—a claim ELECAM reversed only after public pressure. With database access, other stakeholders could verify ELECAM’s actions. It is impossible to verify or authenticate ELECAM’s claims. Such unilateral actions undermine trust in the electoral process. Providing stakeholders with access to databases, audit rights, or oversight over election technology would significantly enhance transparency and accountability. These enable all stakeholders to see all processes, including deletions, additions, modifications, and the reasons for such changes. The “read-only access” prevents other stakeholders from modifying, deleting, or adding to the registry.
To date, no publicly available cybersecurity threat audit or risk assessment of Cameroon’s election technology appears to have been conducted. While the assumption is that the systems are adequately protected against cyberattacks, continuous monitoring is critical to keep the system safe. As I have argued elsewhere, “integrating cybersecurity auditing and risk assessment [into Cameroon’s legal framework] can help organizations enhance their overall cybersecurity posture and improve their credibility and reputation.”
Conclusion
The collaborative management of election technology can ensure election integrity and transparency. Opening the management of election technology to political parties, election officials, and other relevant stakeholders guarantees an effective counter to cybersecurity risks. Without access to databases, audit capabilities, and technology management, political parties remain uninformed of the processes. This undermines election integrity. Accepting the outcome of the electoral process depends on trust. By adopting joint management of election technology, all relevant stakeholders will see justice being done. As the saying goes, “justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.” This is relevant to election management.