Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) is now await­ing the out­come of its elec­tion pe­ti­tion re­gard­ing the Elec­tion and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion’s de­ci­sion on the Lengua/In­di­an Walk Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Elec­tions im­passe is­sue and the UNC ex­pects the EBC will not rush to hold a fresh elec­tion to un­der­mine the de­ter­mi­na­tion of its pe­ti­tion, Op­po­si­tion leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar said yes­ter­day.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar is al­so open­ly ques­tion­ing whether the pub­lic can have con­fi­dence in the EBC, af­ter the com­mis­sion’s re­jec­tion of a cer­tain bal­lot in the Lengua/In­di­an Walk mat­ter.

“This be­hav­iour by the EBC is an at­tack on our democ­ra­cy,” Per­sad-Bisses­sar said via a state­ment yes­ter­day.

“The UNC has al­ways stood in de­fence of free and fair elec­tions. In 2015, we stood up against the il­le­gal ex­ten­sion of the polls by the EBC be­cause of the weath­er. This time, the UNC is stand­ing up against a de­ter­mined at­tempt by the EBC to not count a UNC vote and de­clare our can­di­date, Ms Nicole Gopaul, the win­ner of the elec­tions (in Lengua/In­di­an Walk).”

Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s state­ment came af­ter the UNC filed an elec­tion pe­ti­tion in the High Court over the mat­ter. This in­volves UNC’s bid to have a bal­lot re­ject­ed by the EBC val­i­dat­ed.

In last Mon­day’s LGE, the UNC won the Princes Town cor­po­ra­tion, in which Lengua/In­di­an Walk is lo­cat­ed. How­ev­er, votes in Lengua/In­di­an Walk were an­nounced in the PNM’s favour and the UNC sub­se­quent­ly re­quest­ed re­count.

In two re­counts, PNM can­di­date Aut­ley Granthume and UNC can­di­date Nicole Gopaul tied with 1,428 votes.

The EBC then an­nounced fresh elec­tions, fol­low­ing which the UNC chal­lenged the is­sue on the ba­sis of a re­ject­ed bal­lot.

Ad­dress­ing this, Per­sad-Bisses­sar said, “This mat­ter is the ‘Per­fect Storm’. One bal­lot, con­sid­ered as re­ject­ed and ac­count­ed for, has re­peat­ed­ly been re­fused to be ini­tialled and count­ed by EBC of­fi­cials. That one bal­lot, cast for the UNC will de­ter­mine the re­sult of the elec­tion in that dis­trict.”

She added, “The UNC has every con­fi­dence in our Ju­di­cia­ry and will now await the out­come of these pro­ceed­ings.”

Re­trac­ing the is­sue, in­clud­ing the re­jec­tion of the bal­lot twice and in­ter­ac­tions with the EBC, Per­sad-Bisses­sar stat­ed, “The EBC’s ac­tion was un­ac­cept­able, and the de­ter­mi­na­tion mis­in­formed, mis­guid­ed and con­trary to the prin­ci­ples of democ­ra­cy.”

She cit­ed points the UNC has ques­tioned, adding, “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 didn’t 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.”

Per­sad-Bisses­sar said 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’.”

She added, “For far too long, the UNC has been com­plain­ing about the in­com­pe­tence and bias of EBC of­fi­cers. 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.”

POINTS CIT­ED BY PER­SAD-BISSES­SAR

• The bal­lot the EBC re­ject­ed “was clear­ly a vote for the UNC” but did not have the ini­tials of the Pre­sid­ing Of­fi­cer at the back. The par­ty said that bal­lot was re­ject­ed by the Pre­sid­ing Of­fi­cer, de­spite UNC rep­re­sen­ta­tives’ ob­jec­tions present at the count.

• EBC CEO Fern Nar­cis-Scope re­spond­ed to UNC’s writ­ten ob­jec­tion and re­quest for clar­i­fi­ca­tion, that her in­ves­ti­ga­tions re­vealed that at the polling sta­tion, the Pre­sid­ing Of­fi­cer re­ject­ed the bal­lot as it did not bear her ini­tials.

• 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 EBC CEO Fern Nar­cis-Scope’s 20th Au­gust let­ter to UNC, she said “…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 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 CEO’s cor­re­spon­dence to the UNC on this mat­ter is de­cid­ed­ly eva­sive and equiv­o­cal.

• 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 UNC elec­tion of­fi­cials didn’t ob­ject to any rul­ings or that they didn’t did 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”.

• Even more dis­turb­ing was that the EBC re­fused to mark the bal­lot with a “Q” de­spite UNC 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.

• UNC lawyers 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.