Akash Sama­roo

Se­nior Re­porter

akash.sama­roo@guardian.co.tt

The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) has warned the Elec­tions and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion (EBC) that it will take the com­mis­sion to court if the sec­ond re­count for the Lengua/In­di­an Walk dis­trict is de­clared a tie.

On Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Elec­tions night, that dis­trict was de­clared in favour of the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) by a mar­gin of five votes.

At the time, it meant that the PNM had man­aged to wres­tle away one dis­trict from the Princes Town Re­gion­al Cor­po­ra­tion, which is tra­di­tion­al­ly a UNC strong­hold. How­ev­er, the cel­e­bra­tions for its can­di­date Aut­ley Grathume were short-lived, as a re­count re­quest­ed by the UNC re­sult­ed in a tie, with UNC can­di­date Nicole Gopaul al­so get­ting 1,428 votes.

Sec­tion 101 of the Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Peo­ple Act states that in the event of a tie, a sec­ond re­count shall take place.

That process com­menced on Thurs­day but Guardian Me­dia was in­formed that too end­ed in a dead­lock. By law, the next step is a re­turn to the polls for the dis­trict, as ac­cord­ing to Sec­tion 101 (15) of the Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Peo­ple act, “Where the re­count re­sults in an equal­i­ty of votes be­tween or among the can­di­dates ob­tain­ing the most votes the Chief Elec­tion Of­fi­cer shall so cer­ti­fy to the Re­turn­ing Of­fi­cer who shall de­clare the elec­tion void and a new elec­tion shall, as soon as pos­si­ble, be held in ac­cor­dance with these Rules.”

But in a let­ter sent to Chief Elec­tions Of­fi­cer Fern Nar­cis-Scope yes­ter­day, the UNC warned that it will legal­ly chal­lenge any de­ci­sion to de­clare the dis­trict a tie, which will ul­ti­mate­ly lead to a re-elec­tion.

Ac­cord­ing to the par­ty’s gen­er­al sec­re­tary Pe­ter Kan­hai, one bal­lot could be the key.

“There is, how­ev­er, one con­tentious bal­lot with a vote cast in favour of the UNC can­di­date that was deemed to be a re­ject­ed bal­lot on the ground that it did not con­tain the ini­tials of the Deputy Pre­sid­ing Of­fi­cer. The con­tro­ver­sial re­jec­tion of this bal­lot has led to the equal­i­ty of votes. If it is count­ed as a valid vote, the UNC’s can­di­date will have to be de­clared as the du­ly elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tive for this dis­trict,” Kan­hai wrote in the let­ter to the EBC.

Kan­hai added, “The UNC’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives who were present at both re­counts sub­mit­ted that there was no law­ful jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for in­val­i­dat­ing the said bal­lot be­cause the in­ten­tion of the vot­er was clear and the in­ad­ver­tent omis­sion and/or neg­li­gence of the DPO in fail­ing to ini­tial same was not a law­ful ba­sis for in­val­i­dat­ing it. At best, this was but a mere ad­min­is­tra­tive ir­reg­u­lar­i­ty on the part of the EBC’s of­fi­cial that could not dis­en­fran­chise the vot­er who ex­er­cised his right to vote in favour of the can­di­date of his/her choice.”

Kan­hai said there’s noth­ing in law which states that an unini­tialed bal­lot is a ba­sis for dis­qual­i­fi­ca­tion.

He said the UNC has sought le­gal ad­vice on the mat­ter.

“As a pre­lude to this, we here­by seek your ur­gent and im­me­di­ate con­fir­ma­tion that the de­ci­sion of Ms Pamela Ogiste to re­ject the said bal­lot for the rea­son that it did not bear the ini­tials of the Pre­sid­ing Of­fi­cer, rep­re­sents the fi­nal po­si­tion of the EBC in re­la­tion to same,” Kan­hai added.

Kan­hai warned, “Time is ob­vi­ous­ly of the essence, and this is an ur­gent mat­ter and hence we seek clar­i­fi­ca­tion and con­fir­ma­tion on this sim­ple is­sue by no lat­er than 12 pm to­mor­row (to­day). It is our in­ten­tion to dis­close this let­ter and your re­sponse to the Court as part of our le­gal chal­lenge.”

Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day con­tact­ed Nar­cis-Scope, who con­firmed re­ceipt of the UNC’s let­ter. How­ev­er, she said any an­nounce­ment on the next step for the dis­trict or re­sponse to the UNC will be made in due course.