The experts awarded different scores to the various aspects of efficiency of electoral justice7 (see Table 3.2.2.1). First off, when it came to the time limits for filing objections with the REC (24 hours from the alleged violation or breach), 6 respondents each took opposing views. Political parties were somewhat more likely to disagree the time limits were appropriate, as they looked at this process from a practical perspective and considering the need to act quickly. whereas legal experts and academics tended to agree. Conversely, more respondents believed that time limits for lodging appeals with the Administrative Court were reasonable and well-regulated, whilst all those who did have an opinion agreed that time limits for ruling on objections/appeals were, excessively All those who had an opinion agreed that time limits for short to allow their merits to be properly ruling on objections/appeals were, excessively short to examined and for the institutions and for the allow their merits to be properly examined and for the relevant institutions to make equitable decisions. institutions and for the relevant institutions to make equitable decisions. This statement attracted agreement from 10 respondents, none disagreed, and 9 were undecided. Respondents who believed the time limits were inappropriately regulated agreed on the need to extend them but felt that doing so should not sacrifice the speed at which election results could be declared. This issue is particularly significant in local contexts where communities are highly polarized and electoral commissions often come under pressure to declare results quickly. There should be a detailed and broad-based consultation process to consider the need for extending time limits in electoral dispute processes. Experts agreed that time limits for resolving electoral disputes ought to be extended. With some slight variations of degree, the expert community saw authorities responsible (amongst other things) for adjudicating electoral disputes – the REC, the Administrative Court, and the ACA – as either ‘mostly’ or ‘completely’ inefficient. For all three bodies, the primary causes of this inefficiency were identified as political influence, lack of capacity, and unwillingness to react. In particular, the Administrative Court was seen as lacking the requisite powers in this area, which meant that, in practice, its rulings were reversed by politically-controlled electoral commissions. Lastly, more than one-half of those polled (10) disagreed that a system that facilitated easy filing of complaints existed and was easy to use. This meant the average score here was the lowest of all, at 2.33. however, respondents who did feel there was some sort of system of this type were also unanimously highly critical of its accessibility and ease of use. In this context, it seems particularly pertinent to consider the option of introducing a secure and transparent case management system that would provide all requisite information, explain procedures, rules, and types of redress, offer forms for download, and be used to publish decisions that would be regularly updated and available to the broadest public. 7 For each statement, many respondents could not answer or were neutral. 14