Poll material handed to someone in mini-bus - witness
A former presiding officer (PO) yesterday admitted that after the close of poll on Elections Day she had turned her ballot box and elections material over to someone in a mini-bus, whose designation she was unsure of. Deborah Hudson made this revelation while being examined by Jeananime Munroe, counsel for the Chief Election Officer, Stanley Singh. Hudson told the court that as part of her duties on Elections Day, she had prepared a poll book and statements of poll but had not been able to accompany the ballot box to the Elections Commission (EC) office. She explained that, prior to the election, she had been told to expect a mini-bus to collect her ballot box and, like the other presiding officers stationed at her polling station, had hastened to hand over the ballot box to the five or more people who had been in the bus. She also revealed that although she had worked as a PO on Elections Day, she had never been given a letter of appointment but had instead been told that she would be working as a PO. Under cross-examination by Peter Britton, SC, counsel for the petitioner, Hudson testified that she could not recall whether any of the persons in the bus, had shown her any identification. As such, Britton suggested, and the witness agreed with him, that she could not have known for a fact that these persons worked for the Elections Commission (EC). Britton also had her admit that she could not be sure that the ballot box had arrived at the Elections Commission since she had not accompanied it. When asked how she had been appointed PO, Hudson testified that she had attended a meeting at the East Ruimveldt Secondary School, where some persons had been announcing the names of those who would be appointed POs. She said hers had been one of the names called but told Britton that she could not identify who had done the calling. Britton then had her look at an official EC document listing POs and had her note that her name was not on the list. Britton then yielded to Munroe who, produced a SOP and asked the witness whether it had been prepared by her and came from her polling station. Hudson answered in the affirmative and the document was tendered into evidence. Britton then took the opportunity to question Hudson about the SOP. Hudson revealed that one of the two pages of the document bore a signature that she had not put there. Britton then drew to the court's attention that, whereas both documents were headed "general", the document with the differences also carried the word "regional". Following this, the witness also testified that the figures on the one with "general" alone looked like hers but those on the other one did not. The court then heard the testimony of Felicia Edwards, the last witness for the day. When examined by Munroe, Edwards said that, during the course of her duties, she had prepared about seven SOPs. She further testified that she thought she had signed all of them, a claim she maintained when cross-examined by Britton. Britton then showed her a copy of a SOP that she accepted as bearing her signature. He then produced another SOP which was unsigned but which the witness accepted as hers. She made it known that if she had failed to sign a document it had not been deliberate and told the court that the date affixed on the document had not been put there by her. Before concluding his cross-examination, Britton asked the witness if she had been provided with mechanisms to phone in her results to the Elections Commission. Edwards applied in the affirmative but told the court that, on Elections Day, she had not done that because no one had told her to do so. The petition has been brought by Esther Perreira, who is challenging the 1997 elections on the grounds that the process was so flawed that it could not be said to accurately reflect the will of the electorate. She has named among respondents, the Chief Elections Officer, as well as former presidents Janet Jagan and Desmond Hoyte. The hearing will continue on Monday.
|