Lawyer Mbeta says UTM’s Ndasauka lied on presidential poll skulduggery
Lawyer Frank Mbeta representing President Peter Mutharika, the first respondent in the historic presidential election case, witnesses for UTM presidential candidate Saulos Chilima, the first petitioner, lied in his claim of poll skulduggery.
Darlington Ndasauka, who was UTM’s consulting team leader at the National Tally Centre in Blantyre during the vote tallying and tabulation process, was in the witness box on Friday for cross-examination by lawyers representing Mutharika, and lawyers representing the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC), the second respondent.
Ndasauka admitted to have a typing error on his allegation that the electoral body used a bogus result at one polling station, thereby inflating the result of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Mutharika.
The court used a result sheet of a centre where Mutharika got six votes, Chilima 24 and Malawi Congress Party (MCP) contender Lazarus Chakwera 677 votes.
But Mbeta said Ndasauka lied.
“You have noted that this witness has said some of the alterations were made to favour Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika but, during cross examination, he conceded that the statement was wrong and exaggeration and there was no evidence in that and it should be actually removed,” Mbeta said.
During the grueling cross-examination on Friday, Mbeta pinned Ndasauka over the primary source of valid votes.
“In his sworn argument, he seemed to suggest that the log book is the source of valid votes.But we heard the witness said the primary source of valid votes per candidate is form 60c that is what I was trying to capture and he has told the court that indeed the primary source is form 60c,” he said.
But Ndasauka later insisted that the primary source is the log book.
Earlier, he admitted having basic knowledge on use of the forms when Mbeta pushed for more answers on the matter.
“I have basic knowledge which I trust. I was not at the polling centre but I had contact with our monitors,” he said.
Ndasauka’s testimony, like the previous witness, Miriam Gwalidi, dwelt on altered result sheets.
The cross-examination by Mbeta, is expected to finish on Monday, according to an undertaking the lawyer made in court. Then Ndasauka will face a friendly re-examination from Chilima’s legal team to correct mistakes he has made in his testimony.
Chilima and Chakwera (second petitioner), are challenging the re-election of President Mutharika, alleging that the presidential results in May were marred by irregularities and fraud.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
Is it just me who is thinking that there is collusion between the MEC lawyers and MUtharikas’ lawyers? We have MEC which is and has always been in alliance with DPP regime. That is the problem we have in Malawi.
Ndasauka and Chilima are cut from the same clothe and their answers were devoid of any reasoning and boardered on plain stupid. Their responsies at times were a disgrace to say the least. They failed to properly answer even the simplest of questions.
1. Did tippex change the results? Yes it affected the integrity and credibility of the results. There is a reason why it is advisable that when a mistake has been done then that entry is supposed to crossed by 1 line in a way that the entry in not masked.
2. Did the use of duplicate forms affected the results? Yes they did. Duplicate copies as the name suggest can only be used alongside the original copies and there should be no duplicate without an original form. It boils down to authenticity, integrity and credibility of the results. If a mistake is done on the original form then it should be attatched to the duplicate form to render it credible and authentic.
3. Is the form on page 14 of the log book same as form 66c? No they are similar but not the same. A form in the log book is just a page in the book whereas form 66c is a complete document on its won. I would be surprised if form 66c was written page 14 on it!
4. Is it possible to copy results from form 66c to the log book. In other words: which one is the primary source of data? The log book is the primary source of data because it is the one whch is filled first from the day the ballots are received to the day the whole voting process is finished. Form 66c cannot be filled without checking the entries in the log book.
5. Are the valid votes the only ones which are used to determine a winner? No because election is a process and as a process the number of invalid votes and unused votes are equally important in determining a winner. How? Well, I can demonstrate to backup my reasoning: Let us say candidate A got 200 votes and candidate B got 180 of the valid votes. If there are 20 invalid votes, 10 null and void votes and 100 unused ballots against a total of 600 ballots received, would candidate A be declared a winner if 90 ballots are unaccounted for? The proper answer would be no. It is for this reason that MEC forms have entries for aĺl those votes for accountability purposies and MEC did not indicate that 1 entry is more important than others.
Gwalidi demonstrated to the court how changing the enteries of null and void votes, unused ballots etc etc can change the number of candidate votes without it being changed because those entries are filled first and the candidate vote is entered later which means manipulation of candidate vote can result in alterations in the enteries which are entered first. She also demonstrated with an example that MEC did not follow its own procedures and some log books were signed before data was recorded in it which means in some cases signatures were not necessarily used to authenticate records.
My plea to UTM and MCP laywers is that all your witnesses should be coached in a way that they should not contradict or disprove Gwalidis’ testimony which is what the MEC and Mutharikas’ laywers will go flat out to do.
As a constitution court, its duty will be rule whether the election was conducted in accordance to the constitution and the accompanying acts (PPA and ECA). I do not believe that the constitution and the acts mandate MEC to conduct election with irregularities as long as those irregularities does not affect the outcome of the votes. I believe that if irregularities do happen then they should be justified by MEC and should not be as a result of carelessness and incomptency on its part. Any divergent precedent set by the court has a potential to make or break Malawi and I can see Malawi burning if the court can rule that the May 21, 2019 was an example of how MEC should be conducting elections in Malawi. It is my hope that the court will reflect on how the precedent it set in Mulli case regarding demonstrations has impacted on Malawi. I rest my case.
I agree with what you are saying and feel it becomes very tricky because of setting precedence. Irregularities will always be there as were in the American and Indian elections. The issue really is where will the line be drawn. They should not accept complacency on the part of MEC, however if they are quick to annul the elections based on irregularity then we can safely assume that going forward election cases will be a trend in Malawi because if you just look hard enough you will find one. Also just being open minded it’s becoming obvious that even the monitors from the political parties were complacent ( Not signing documents). Or not being trained like Mr Ndasauka. This case is probably what we needed as a country as an eye opener for future elections. When monitors see wrong doing they should gather as much tangible evidence as possible and report.
It is clear by now that MEC handled the election very carelessly and incompetently to an extend that the election was not credible. If this is what should MEC be doing doing during elections then, as a country, we are in trouble. WE should vote again to send a clear message to a partisan MEC that we cannot allow it to bastardise our democracy.
UTM witnesses are a disgrace shame!!
FOOLISH ANSWERS ARE ANSWERS TOO !!
Malawians win. Thieves loose – never stole people’s votes.
mukamayimira bodza amalawi tikudziwa momwe mukhala ndi kumwera ziwoneka pitilizani dziko lilibe mwini