Eustace calls on DPP for action; addresses OAS election report

The Leader of the Opposition and President of the New Democratic Party has called for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to authorize the criminal prosecution of certain officials in the December 9, 2015 general election.

In a press release issued last Wednesday, May 18, president of the New Democratic Party (NDP) Arnhim Eustace alleged that certain officials were responsible for the counting of votes {{more}}contrary to Section 40 (f) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA).

In his release, Eustace stated: “Lawyers acting for the NDP will formally request of the Director of Public Prosecutions that he issue fiats for the institution of criminal prosecutions of the officials who were responsible for the counting of the votes contrary to s. 40(f) RPA.”

Section 40 (f) of the RPA states that “any election officer who… (f) wilfully counts any ballot paper as being cast for any candidate, which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe was not validly cast for such candidate, is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction on indictment, to prison for two years.”

Eustace is alleging that invalid ballots were counted at two polling stations, and cited as proof that in a sworn affidavit as proof of such.

Under Rule 40 (1) of the House of Assembly Election Rules, it stipulates that “any ballot paper – (a) which does not bear the official mark… shall subject to this rule be void and not counted”.

In his release, Eustace alleges that the officials complicit in this offence, but also the respective election officers.

“I submit therefore that they too have repeatedly committed the election offence.”

Furthermore, the Opposition Leader addressed the matter of the final report from the Organization of American States (OAS) on SVG’s last general election that was recently released – with particular regard to the issues of incorrect application of seals, absence of presiding officer stamp and initials on some ballots, and partiality of Returning Officers toward the ULP candidate and agents that were identified.

The report, at page 17, stated: “Notwithstanding the concerns noted above, the OAS Observers did not discern any fraudulent or other activities at the Final Count which could have materially affected the outcome of the vote in which the ULP candidate won by 313 votes.”

Eustace countered that just because the OAS observer mission did not “discern” any fraudulent activities does not mean there was no fraud.

“The OAS has spoken to what it did in fact observe, and correctly so. Do the disquieting activities observed by them affect the numerical result, and is that relevant? That is strictly a matter for the court to interpret on a qualitative and/or quantitative basis, using applicable legal principles. The OAS has, without doubt, pronounced sufficiently upon the illegal issues that plagued the conduct of the … election.”

He added: “Further, the OAS report corroborates and therefore vindicates the affidavit evidence of Mr Exeter and his representative with respect to the improper sealing of ballot boxes, the objections to mutilated ballots, and the demonstrated impartiality… .”(JSV)