The National Newspaper of St. Vincent and the Grenadines $60.00 per month and lower
Ask about our Free 24 hour trial
FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
by DAYLE DA SILVA HEARING IN THE MATTER of two 2015 election petitions was expected to enter its fifth day today. Cross examination of the witnesses on behalf of petitioner Benjamin Exeter, the New Democratic Party’s candidate for Central Leeward in the December 9, 2015 General Elections, ended on Wednesday. Among those cross-examined
VOLUME 113, No.07
included Exeter, lawyers Maia Eustace and Zita Barnwell, and a number of agents employed by the NDP on election day. Eustace, in explaining her role as a roving agent for Exeter, said that agents were given notebooks to record any objections, the number of votes on the count and any disagreement with the count. Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, lead Counsel for the respondents, inquired whether tally sheets were provided to the agents, to which Eustace responded that this was to be provided by the election officers at the count. Both the notebook and tally sheet used by Eustace were submitted as evidence by the petitioners.
Eustace and the count Mendes asked Eustace if she had been able to determine whether or not any of the other agents had indicated that their count differed from that of the presiding officers. She responded that they seemed to be in accordance with the scores of the presiding officers. Eustace added that she was present at the final count which took place on December 10, 2015, one day after the elections, and despite some reluctance by the returning officer, they were provided with copies of the count. “There was not sufficient time to record all the information,” Eustace told the court, but she said that she was Left: Maia Eustace remained steadfast even under the
www.thevincentian.com
able to record some notes on the final day. She testified that there were instances where the number of names recorded in the Form 16, the document containing the final count, differed. According to Eustace, there were instances where it was evident that a figure was written over another, and cited polling station CLC, in which she said got 412, based on her count, but the document had 307. “But it seems like the 307 is written over something,” Eustace said. In relation to polling station CLB, she said she recorded 350 — 238 votes between the candidates, 111 unused and I spoiled ballot. But the document (Form 16) had 238, and here too, it appeared that it was printed over another figure, Eustace proffered. She was unable to indicate, however, if her numbers matched that of the other agents. Mendes said that based on the submissions made by Eustace, the results on the tally sheet matched what was recorded, such as in polling station CLB1, where the tally sheet and Eustace’s notes corresponded.
Petitioner takes the stand When petitioner Exeter was called on Tuesday, his cross- examination focused on his allegation that the ballots were pre-printed with the official mark, contrary to the law. But his evidence, photographs taken of ballots, did not show, as lead Counsel Mendes said, that they had any stamp on them. When Exeter insisted that his allegation had weight, he was drilled by Mendes and at times the judge, as to whether he was disregarding the
EC$1.50
Petitioner Benjamin Exeter was not as comfortable as this when he was crossexamined. (SVGTV Photo)
Supervisor of Elections Sylvia Findlay-Scrubb’s sworn affidavit, in which she said that she had made an error in saying the stamp and official mark were pre-printed, which amounted to a retraction of a statement to the contrary that she had made earlier. He gave no clear response to this inquiry. But in a later response to Mendes’ cross-examination, Exeter acknowledged that his polling agents were shown the ballots before voting began. The Senior Counsel brought it to his attention that he had not presented any evidence to say that any of his agents had admitted to seeing any stamp pre-printed on the Continued on Page 3.