The National Elections Commission (NEC) will today begin hearing into the merits of the trial of electoral fraud and irregularities as filed by a contender in the Nimba County Senatorial elections.
The case which is before Hearing Officer, Cllr. Boakai P. Harris, is expected to start at 12 noon today with the contending senatorial candidate, respondent Edith Gongloe-Weh and the movant producing witnesses along with both oral and written evidence in favor or against allegations of fraud and irregularities in the just ended senatorial elections.
Article 4, Section 4.2 of the New Elections Law provides that “The said complaint shall state clearly the particulars of the person complained of, the act complained of and the date and place of occurrence.”
Cllr. Harris who denied both the NEC lawyers Motion to Dismiss and Madam Gongloe-Weh’s request for a Motion to strike reminded the parties that the issues of irregularities and fraud filed against NEC regarding its data clerks is bordered on the integrity of the Commission.
“The complaint has to be heard and the Commission along with the parties must delve into the merits of the matter; so the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike are all denied,” Cllr. Harris stated.
Earlier, lawyers representing candidate Gongloe-Weh argued that the lawyers who signed the answer are without legal capacity to practice law as they are not licensed to practice law in Liberia for the year 2020.
The respondent told the hearing officer that the entire motion should be dismissed because the lawyers that signed the motion and ClIr. Cooper W. Kruah, the lead counsel for the movant are without legal capacity to practice law in Liberia.
“They are not in good standing with the Liberian National Bar Association, and therefore, none of them is in possession of a license issued by the Liberian National Bar Association, which is the single evidence that a lawyer has paid his/her bar due, completed ten credits of continuing legal education and paid his professional license fee to the LRA for the year,” the respondent lawyer stated
On Monday, Cllr. Taiwon Gongloe, the lead counsel representing candidate Gongloe-Weh earlier informed the hearing officer that Cllr. Cooper W. Kruah representing the senator-elect be denied representation in the case because he was not in good standing to practice law in Liberia and besides as a government minister, he needed to have been in office doing the people’s job on a working day except if on an excuse from his boss, President Weah.
Cllr. Philip Y. Gongloe, of the Gongloe & Associates argued that CIlr. Cooper Kruah, Atty. Othello G. Kruah, Sr. and Prince M. Kruah, Sr. are not licensed lawyers and therefore are not in good standing with the Bar Association and accordingly, they are not allowed to practice law in the Republic of Liberia until they regularize their status with the bar in according to the policies regarding membership to the Bar.
But the NEC hearing officer on yesterday advised the parties that the NEC will try to avoid all the legal technicalities so that the hearing can proceed since the matter borders on the integrity of Commission, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.
Madam Gongloe-Weh has earlier filed a complaint on December 18 at the Election Magistrate in upper Nimba County notifying the court about her assigned agents’ observation in the tally rooms that some unprecedented and grave discoveries were noticed in the conduct of the recent tally and data entry.
Contrary to the provision as contained in the counts, the respondent complained that on December 13, while the votes in Nimba County were still being tallied, filed a complaint alleging irregularities and suspected fraud, which according to the complaint gave another candidate undue substantial advantage in the outcome of the elections.
Her allegations outlined, “The exchange of vote counts of 162 with candidate Garrison Yealu’s vote count of seven in the Airfield Zone 2 polling place 2 in Sanniquellie city; electoral district # 2 by the data personnel.”
In her complaint, she also alleged that some 11 ballot boxes were discovered with broken seal of the tally tees and inappropriately placed with boxes with only copies of those tees found and named in precincts such as 22010, 33080 and 33250, among others.
At the same time, the movants’ is contending that the complaint, as filed by the plaintiff, lacks the required particularities, such as the date and place of the occurrence, the act complained of and the particulars of the actor and that these omissions on the part of the plaintiff, contravenes the said provision for which the motion should lie.
They argued that same is grossly false and misleading, in that the electoral process in the named centers was freely and fairly conducted, guided by the established electoral protocols.
The defendants further consider it as mere allegations, as enumerated by the plaintiff without prove and without any notice to provide evidence thereto thus amounting to a vague complaint uniquely suited for a summary dismissal.
The defendants who notified the hearing officer of its ability to fully establish the factual version of the plaintiff’s manufactured contentions during trial said same must be denied and dismissed because at no time did the defendants ever exchanged 162 votes belonging to the complainant with seven votes belonging to Garrison Yealue in the named polling place.
The defendants said also a fit subject for dismissal is that the seals of all of the referenced tally Tees were never found to be broken as alleged and that the Tees were appropriately placed within their content and that all of said tees were accounted for, then and are available now with the commission.
The defendants also give notice that they will provide evidence to this assertion during trial pointing out also that at no time did they refuse to make available any record that was being processed within the Tally room.
The defense lawyers said the tally room does not operate or process data in secrecy, rather it is an opened process in which all representatives of candidates, and Civil Society Organizations have unhindered access in lull glare of the proceedings.
The defendants argued that it is a contradiction for the plaintiff to say that she discovered acts of irregularity and fraud and then later sought to verify same thereby wondering how the plaintiff discovered the alleged fraud without a verified data available to her.
Defendants said that there was no instance were the Liberia National Police refused to take delivery of any sensitive electoral materials at two precinct at the J. W. Pearson High School and further contended that contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion that on the day of polling, some unspecified materials were missing, resulting to the use of foreign sub-standard materials in the named precincts in District #1, there were no materials introduced whose usage affected the credibility of the voting process in the referenced precincts.
Defendants further maintain, as to the above, that if even they assume without admitting to the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegation that is trivial and immaterial for the plaintiff to cry victim about a material that was generally used by all of the candidates and voters, without any objection from anyone including the plaintiff at the time said material was being used.
The defendants told the hearing officer that the plaintiff participated in the process up to the tally room and that none of the “Many female electorates” ever brought said issue to the attention of the commission during the time that they were allegedly disenfranchised.
Additionally, Defendants say that assuming without admitting that the allegation is factual, there was a specific period allotted for registered voters to have verified their names at the precincts were they registered, therefore if a voter failed to have taken advantage of said opportunity, he/she cannot come on the day of voting to search for name.
Defendants say that same is a misrepresentation of the reality, in that the TEE from polling place 33069 was never missing, as alleged by the plaintiff because if the said TEE, which contained the raw data from said polling place was missing, then there could not have been any tally record of the votes from the referenced polling place because it is the TEES that conveys said records.
Defendants said the decision of the representatives of the plaintiff to willfully leave the tally room, created no ground for the stoppage of the then on-going tally process, and that the continuation of the exercise in the presence of 99 percent of the participants was in no way a violation of any provision of the Elections Law.
Defendants further said they could not have waited for the return of people who walked out without notice as to their time of return.
Meanwhile, Article 10, supported by chapter 6, section 6.1 of the New Elections Law, under Contested Elections, which provides amongst other things, “That a political party, or candidate who feels cheated in an election shall have the right to file a complaint with the commission, and such complaint must be filed no later than seven days after the announcement of the result of said elections.”