The Op­po­si­tion Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress is tak­ing le­gal ac­tion against the Elec­tion and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion (EBC) to­day (Mon­day) re­gard­ing a re­ject­ed bal­lot in the Lengua/ In­di­an Walk area where the EBC has called fresh elec­tions.

The EBC last Sat­ur­day an­nounced fresh elec­tions in Lengua/In­di­an Walk af­ter the UNC and PNM can­di­dates’ re­spec­tive votes tied twice—but the UNC claims the re­ject­ed bal­lot makes the par­ty the win­ner of this area and the EBC is wrong to re­ject it.

At yes­ter­day’s Op­po­si­tion me­dia brief­ing in Port-of-Spain, Barataria/San Juan MP Sad­dam Ho­sein said UNC po­lit­i­cal leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar wrote the EBC yes­ter­day (Sun­day) ex­pect­ing a re­ply from the Com­mis­sion by 4 pm about the bal­lot. The UNC had stat­ed it would take le­gal ac­tion.

Af­ter last Mon­day’s Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Elec­tions, the UNC re­quest­ed re­counts in 12 ar­eas in­clud­ing Lengua/In­di­an Walk. The area was de­clared on Mon­day in favour of the PNM. In the first re­count last week UNC can­di­date Nicole Gopaul re­ceived three more votes and PNM can­di­date Aut­ley Granthume, two less. Both tied. In a sec­ond re­count, there was still a tie: 1,428 votes each. PEP’s Bron­son Dou­glas had 87.

The EBC then de­clared the elec­tion for that dis­trict as void and fresh elec­tions were man­dat­ed, a his­toric de­vel­op­ment.

Ho­sein said yes­ter­day that un­der the law, fresh elec­tions must be held as soon as pos­si­ble, but the UNC would al­so be ad­dress­ing the mat­ter in the next 24 hours.

Ho­sein said the EBC had re­gard­ed the bal­lot in ques­tion as a re­ject­ed bal­lot be­cause there were no ini­tials of the EBC’s pre­sid­ing of­fi­cer at the back of the bal­lot. He claimed there was an “X” next to the UNC’s Ris­ing Sun sym­bol on the bal­lot, but the EBC was “now be­tween the peo­ple’s will and elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives. That’s why we’re rais­ing our con­tention”.

Ho­sein said in the last 24 hours there had been cor­re­spon­dence be­tween the UNC and EBC re­gard­ing clar­i­fi­ca­tion of the is­sue. He said UNC gen­er­al sec­re­tary Pe­ter Kan­hai wrote EBC’s chief elec­tion of­fi­cer Fern Nar­cis-Scope last Sat­ur­day say­ing the UNC sought le­gal ad­vice on the EBC’s de­ci­sion to in­val­i­date the bal­lot and it can­not be con­sid­ered “re­ject­ed “sim­ply be­cause of an omis­sion by an EBC of­fi­cial”.

Ho­sein said it was not a vot­er’s fault if the bal­lot did not have the ini­tial of the EBC’s pre­sid­ing of­fi­cer.

“It wasn’t the vot­er’s du­ty to in­spect the bal­lot but it’s the du­ty of the EBC of­fi­cials at polling sta­tions. EBC is dis­en­fran­chis­ing an elec­tor and vote be­cause of its neg­li­gence, omis­sion and ne­glect,” he said.

Ho­sein frowned on Nar­cis-Scope’s re­ply, that EBC’s probe re­vealed that at the polling sta­tion, the pre­sid­ing of­fi­cer re­ject­ed the bal­lot as it did not bear her ini­tials and her de­ci­sion was not ques­tioned by any can­di­date or agent. Nar­cis-Scope, he said, al­so had no ba­sis to con­clude there was any in­ad­ver­tent omis­sion and/or neg­li­gence on the deputy pre­sid­ing of­fi­cer’s part in fail­ing to ini­tial the bal­lot pa­per as al­leged.

Ho­sein said Per­sad-Bisses­sar is­sued a let­ter to EBC yes­ter­day ex­press­ing con­cern at the EBC’s re­sponse. She felt the vot­er’s in­ten­tion was clear from the bal­lot and “there is there­fore no law­ful jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for deem­ing a re­ject­ed or spoilt bal­lot.”

Per­sad-Bisses­sar asked the EBC for clar­i­fi­ca­tion of sev­er­al crit­i­cal is­sues. She deemed the EBC’s let­ter “eva­sive and disin­gen­u­ous” and de­mand­ed dis­clo­sure of the rea­sons for the re­jec­tion of the bal­lot. She cit­ed Rule 97 (4) of the Elec­tion Rules that man­date the EBC of­fi­cial to rec­ti­fy the omis­sion by ini­tialling the bal­lot in the pres­ence of the rep­re­sen­ta­tives for the can­di­dates.

Per­sad-Bisses­sar stat­ed, “The EBC is meant to fa­cil­i­tate the elec­toral process and in do­ing so it must be care­ful not to dis­tort the ex­pres­sion of the de­mo­c­ra­t­ic will of the peo­ple by pur­port­ing to in­val­i­date what is plain­ly a valid vote. The elec­toral process must be root­ed in and com­ply with the rule of law. Hence we con­sid­er the po­si­tion tak­en by the EBC to be disin­gen­u­ous and il­le­gal. We are there­fore tak­ing le­gal ac­tion in this mat­ter.”

Ho­sein said Al­der­men for Princes Town Cor­po­ra­tion can­not be se­lect­ed or named un­til the Lengua/In­di­an Walk is­sue is com­plet­ed.

Eyes on Ari­ma North­east

Mean­while, the UNC is await­ing the out­come of Ari­ma North­east “ques­tioned” bal­lots.

UNC MP Sad­dam Ho­sein said the UNC is al­so await­ing the EBC’s de­ter­mi­na­tion of bal­lots ques­tioned by the PNM in Ari­ma North­east. In last week’s re­count, the UNC’s can­di­date Jairz­in­ho Rigs­by won the seat by one vote with 624 to PNM’s Kim Gar­cia’s 623. The PEP’s Curt Clement got 81 votes. The PNM sub­se­quent­ly re­quest­ed EBC check on cer­tain bal­lots which the PNM ques­tioned.

UNC deputy leader Roodal Mooni­lal said the UNC was de­ter­min­ing may­ors, chair­men and al­der­men of the cor­po­ra­tions it won, but it would take a bit more time for con­sul­ta­tions.