CFN Election: Lawyers Raise Questions Over Candidate Screening
Questions over how candidates were screened have emerged at the centre of a dispute threatening to disrupt the Children’s Forum Network’s (CFN) 2026 national leadership election.
Lawyers for presidential aspirant Mary Julius have asked the Ministry of Gender and Children’s Affairs (MoCGA) to review her disqualification and halt the electoral process while her complaint is considered, according to a letter dated Oct. 2.
Brewah & Co. Barristers and Solicitors said Julius had initially been cleared to participate, interviewed and allowed to campaign before officials informed her two days before the election that she did not meet the prescribed age requirement.
The lawyers argue that Julius satisfied the requirement when she entered the process. They also say she was encouraged to raise funds for the programme and campaigned in different parts of the country before her disqualification.
Julius had earlier petitioned the ministry on Sept. 30, asking officials to reconsider the decision. Her lawyers subsequently requested that the election be postponed until the petition is determined.
The dispute has shifted attention from the election itself to the rules governing who can contest for the national presidency and how those rules were applied.
Some CFN members have reportedly questioned Julius’ exclusion, arguing that she remains below 18. That argument, however, does not by itself establish that she met the specific eligibility requirements for the CFN position.
The CFN describes itself as a child-led organisation working with government and child-protection partners. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) documented the network’s establishment as a platform through which children could express their views and participate in national discussions.
Recent CFN activities also show its continued engagement with the Ministry of Gender and Children’s Affairs and the National Commission for Children. In 2026, CFN and the commission participated in school sensitisation activities on the Child Rights Act 2025.
The lawyers’ challenge therefore places particular focus on the transparency of the candidate-vetting process. The central unresolved issue is whether the applicable election rules were correctly interpreted and applied to Julius, and whether the timing of her disqualification complied with the process.
Some members have claimed that officials deliberately delayed the election to remove particular candidates have not been independently established. The ministry’s explanation is needed before those allegations can be assessed.
The legal challenge now leaves the election process facing an unresolved eligibility dispute, with Julius’ representatives seeking a pause while the ministry considers her petition. The outcome will depend on the applicable CFN election rules and the ministry’s response to the legal challenge.