UNC Political Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar is openly questioning whether the public can have confidence in the Elections and Boundaries Commission.
The Opposition Leader’s concern comes on the heels of an Election Petition filed on Monday, 21st August 2023 in the High Court of Justice.
In this petition, Ms. Denacia Natalia Gopaul-Jones, an elector in the Electoral District of Lengua/Indian Walk is asking the Court to determine whether the United National Congress candidate, should have been validly elected and returned for the Electoral District of Lengua/Indian Walk.
The proceedings arose because of a tie in the highest number of votes received for that District between the UNC’s candidate and the PNM’s candidate.
However, when the ballots were counted there was a ballot which was clearly a vote for the UNC but did not have the initials of the Presiding Officer at the back. That ballot was rejected by the Presiding Officer, despite the objections of the UNC representatives present at the count.
In response to the UNC’s written objection and request for clarification to the EBC, The Chief Election Officer Ms. Fern Narcis-Scope by letter dated 19th August 2023 (copy attached) stated:
“My investigations reveal that at the polling station the Presiding Officer rejected the ballot as it did not bear her initials…”
The UNC says the EBC’s action was unacceptable, and the determination misinformed, misguided and contrary to the principles of democracy.
On Monday 14th August 2023 the EBC announced that the PNM candidate was the winner of the election with 1,430 votes as compared to 1,425 votes credited to the UNC candidate Ms Gopaul.
Ms Gopaul requested a recount under the Election Rules which was undertaken over the two-day period ending Wednesday 16th August. The result of that recount was announced by the EBC on Thursday 17th August as being a tie in the number of votes for the UNC and PNM candidates.
At the recount, a ballot which with a clear vote for the UNC candidate but which did not have the Presiding Officer’s initials came up again for scrutiny. That ballot was again rejected by the Returning Officer, despite the UNC’s objections.
The UNC says once more in response to the their written objection, The Chief Election Officer writing to the UNC on 20th August 2023 confirmed that the Returning Officer rejected the ballot because it had no polling station number and no initials of the Presiding Officer.
This meant that there was a tie following the recount and as a result the Returning Officer directed a final count. This was done on Thursday 17th August and presided over by the Assistant Chief Election Officer. At that final count, again despite the UNC’s objections, the ballot in question was rejected by the Assistant Chief Election Officer who stood by the decision of the Returning Officer made in the recount.
The UNC said the EBC’s officers never, during the initial count, the recount or the final count, marked the ballot as questioned, despite the UNC’s insistence at all times.
In her letter to the UNC dated 20th August, Ms. Narcis-Scope informed the party that “…there is no room under the Election Rules to now treat the ballot as a questioned ballot…” and stated that due to the tie, the election was declared void.
The party says the failure by the EBC’s officials to mark the ballot as questioned meant that the UNC candidate could not request a check of the results and a final determination of that questioned ballot.
The correspondence of the Chief Election Officer to the UNC on this matter is decidedly evasive and equivocal. Further, the EBC’s letters of 19th and 20th August 2023 are glib attempts to shut down any legitimate enquiries by thin suggestions and reliance on its allegation that our election officials did not object to any rulings or that we did not request the ballot to be marked as questioned.
The EBC’s position on this matter is that there is no longer any opportunity to question a ballot cast for the UNC because it was not marked with the letter “Q”.
The UNC is extremely concerned that an elector who has cast his/her ballot for the UNC has been disenfranchised and ignored as a result of the curious and negligent actions of the EBC’s officers. They did not initial the ballot in the first place. What is worse is that the EBC did not correct the ballot when the omission was discovered at the recount neither did they do so at the final count. That is an absolute dereliction of duty.
They said what is even more disturbing was that the EBC refused to mark the ballot with a “Q” despite our objections and requests. If the ballot were marked with a “Q”, then officials would have been able to re-examine the ballot again during a recount of the results. Our lawyers have advised that in any event an objection or non-objection to a ballot does not and cannot bind an elector or the electorate, since ballots are to be counted strictly in accordance with the law and not the wishes of the parties attending the count.
The UNC says it is therefore clear to them that something is amiss. It is clear to us that someone desperately does not want that ballot to be counted because the UNC would be victorious. It is clear to us that the EBC, instead of being transparent and open about what happened, is hiding behind vague statements and the silly reason that we allegedly did not object or allegedly did not ask that the ballot be marked with a “Q”.
The fact that counts are conducted in secret gives ample room for perverse decisions to be made on ballots so as to favour one political party over another.
The UNC said this behaviour by the EBC is an attack on our democracy.