Exit Alfandika, enter Munkhondya: MEC continues making its defence in Malawi elections case
After a grueling process by Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and UTM Party lawyers, Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) Chief Elections Officer breathed relief with the end of his re-examination by his lawyer Tamando Chokotho which provided an opportunity for MEC to build its case.
Alfandika told the court that he had come to know of the missing pages in the BDO Jordan auditors report during the cross-examination by MCP lawyer, Modecai Msisha on Monday, December 2 2019 who wanted to pin his as to why they never picked up the issue with the auditors if the report was discussed by the Commission.
The MEC boss said he did not agree with all things in the audit report and wrote a management letters to the auditors highlighting the issues he did not agree with as it is done in any audit process but up to date they have not responded.
“After a long waiting, the auditors said that they have noted that the reports was being used in the court as evidence and they were concerned with that and they would not do any amendment,” Alfandika told the court.
Counsel Chokotho produced a letter by Alfandika to BDO.
UTM and MCP lawyers tried to object to the letter but after a debate the document was accepted and presented in court.
MEC boss also took time to explain causes of inconsistencies during ballot paper reconciliation and vote counting which was the cause of most of the corrections on results sheets.
Causes for imbalance, if ballot papers were obtained from another centre and not updated the record. Also when you do physical count and the number found is less than what was supposed to be.
Alfandika said the ballot paper reconciliation cannot balance if some extra ballot papers were obtained from another polling station, which is a normal practice, and the presiding officer forgets to add that to the total number of ballot papers received.
He added this challenge can also occur when during physical counting of the ballot papers received it is discovered that the actual received were more or less than indicated.
Alfandika, who holds a Masters degree in Economics from Chancellor College, also explained that there no relationship between economics and electoral laws and that in elections are no suppositions but facts.
The petitioners has started cross -examining MECs director of electoral services, Henzily Munkhondya.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
The writer is making a worse situation worse. I don’t think the explanation on failure reconcile ballots is admissible. Ballots moving between polling centre’s was one way of cheating. It would only make sense if the ballots were transferred from MEC warehouse to the site at the time extra ballots were needed. How? They could have engaged the military.
Zikuoneka kuti Alufandika has managed to partially punch 7 holes into the 147 madando. All the other witnesses for MEC and APM also partially managed to punch a total of about 20 so called holes into the 147 madando presented as evidence by UTM and MCP. That leaves about 120 issues still intact. I guess if we do simple mathematics, it has taken a good six months to ‘punch’ a total of 27 partial holes into the petitioners’ evidence, 33 months (close to 3 and half years) would be required for the respondents’ defenders to probably finish punching ‘holes’ into the 147 madando. It is therefore not a surprise that the issues that appear to matter most, like this of one MEC official’s signature found on documents from more than one different poll station’s locations, or one and the same computer being found to have been used at two different physical locations at the same time or MEC accepting the use of ‘fake’ ballot papers. So after almost six months of court proceedings, MEC and APM defence lawyers and witnesses have, let’s say scored 27 marks out of 147 which translates to a 5.4% score! Unless the concourt uses the quota system to select successful candidates, I do not see how this ‘punching’ of holes can be described as a success in the cross-examinations of the MEC and APM defenders’ camp so far? Unfortunately most exams that I know have time limits in which candidates are given to complete giving answers to exam questions. In this case I understand December 6th 2019 has been given as the duration of the exam. The exams results will be out within the next 45 days. Let us wait patiently to see who between the petitioners and respondents will have scored the marks beyond the ‘pass mark’ as set and determined by the panel of the constitutional judges. Whoever has obtained the marks required to pass this first ever ‘pollcase’ examination for our beloved country, let us applaud them and accept the fact that in every exam there are bound to be both successful and unsuccessful students. In this case only one camp will be successful!
your analysis is just a waste of space.
Sounds nice
Let’s wait and see. Muzaona chimene chidameta nkhanga mpale. Muzamwa tameck. Jyststsrt campaining for 2024 bus yopita kumalingunde yapita
Mcp UTM tinene zoonadi zativuta. We were happy when we saw him sweating yet did we not know that he was going to punch our private parts. It’s us now sweating.
Sorry watiwaza Slufandika
Wishful thinking. Alufandika did not punch any holes in the UTM & MCP led presidential election case on irregularities and illegalities. Let’s just wait for the verdict by 20th January 2020.
You are a lier my friend. U will be surprised when judgement comes. U don’t have ears to hear about evidence on irregularities submitted and how compelling this evidence is. Osamapanga ma comment mwa umbuli. Cadet wachabechabe
Unless ma judge akuveleni chisoni tu, otherwise MCP & UTM Evidence yeni yeni palibe. MEC’s argument is straight forward,,, tabweletsani contrary results yanu????? mukulephera. Petitioners claims irregularities were done to in favour of APM, now MEC has its own figures to support their argument, nanga inuyo a MCP ndi UTM anu alikuti??????????????????????
My friend listen to the objective ‘irregularity’ if someone received ballots from other polling station and fail to record it as received, that forms not require him to use tippex. All balancing were done on counting of votes at the polling station. This anormally would have been discovered on balancing right at the polling centre, certified by all monitors cancelled and right the new figures on top of cancelled and fully signed by all. By the time these form 66Cs were sent to constituency tally centre all figures had balanced. If not then that is irregularitiy.
He also claimed some electrolates did not cast their votes, instead they fold the ballot and went away with it. To me this is not true or it follows to be irregularity. The stuff issued the ballot, the person went into the Boothe fold it into his pocket, immediately after the Boothe the sequence was to an open place to cast his vote where some staff and monitors were observing ,why didn’t they question them on the ballot(MEC sleeping on the job). Suppose he exchanged with another paper. Have we been told of any existence/realization of any other paper in the box. No! Do not think you can fool us all at same time.
Anthu awa, miti yasiya kugwira ntchito