– on ‘ridiculous’ Region 10 parliamentary seat issue
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has responded to the issue of a parliamentary seat for Region 10, raised once again by the small splinter party – the Alliance For Change (AFC).

The PPP, in a press release, said the AFC has made “the ridiculous statement” that they would be attending Parliament selectively due to what they claim as the AFC seat being given to the PPP.

“We had to correct such a statement at a press conference on November 24, 2006, but the AFC continues to repeat a falsehood in the hope that, if done repeatedly, it would be believed,” the statement said.

The Party, in its release, stated that after the counting of votes at the place of polls the result of the elections was declared by the Acting Returning Officer.

The statement said that declaration showed that the AFC received three thousand, one hundred and sixty six (3,166) votes and the PPP three thousand, one hundred and eighty nine (3,189) votes.

The declaration was signed by all counting agents of political parties present and also by GECOM on the evening of August 28, 2006.

The release continued that the AFC made no objections, nor did they call for a recount, as is provided by the law.

It said on August 31, 2006, the Chief Election Officer made his declaration based on the count at the place of polls, certified by the agents of political parties and the GECOM officials.

On resuming duty, it said, the Returning Officer subsequently made another declaration which showed that the AFC got three thousand, one hundred and eighty eight (3,188) votes and the PPP three thousand, two hundred and seventy three (3,273) votes.

The Chief Elections Officer wrote all the parties that contested the elections during the first week of September informing them of the results, the release said.

It added that he then requested the parties to extract names from their respective lists for Parliament and the Regional Democratic Councils.

According to the release, on October 20, 2006 the Chief Elections Officer published the official results of the persons elected, and he also repeated the results, which were sent to the parties in September 2006.

It said in November 2006 an undated document, with the words “Returning Officer” defaced (scratched) started to make the rounds and claimed that the AFC received three thousand, three hundred and fourteen (3,314) votes, compared to the PPP’s three thousand, two hundred and eighty two (3,282) votes.

“It is on this basis that the AFC started to make its claim for the seat. It should be noted that they said nothing at the time the votes were counted. Their counting agent signed off on the statement of poll and they made no call for a recount,” the release said.

The PPP release added: “It is therefore downright dishonest for the AFC to be making statements that they were wrongfully denied the seat. The PPP is also appalled that Trotman, a lawyer by profession, would have been making such statements, even though the matter is being heard in the courts in a petition filed on behalf of the AFC.”

It continued, “The clear intention seems to be to compromise or influence the outcome of those proceedings and we are forced to return to this due to the falsehood and misinformation emanating from the AFC.”