The Edition
facebook icon twitter icon instagram icon linkedin icon

Latest

No grounds to annul presidential election: top court

Fathmath Shaahunaz
21 October 2018, MVT 17:48
Lawyers of the opposition coalition exit the Supreme Court after the verdict hearing on the presidential election case. PHOTO: NISHAN ALI/MIHAARU
Fathmath Shaahunaz
21 October 2018, MVT 17:48

The Supreme Court on Sunday ruled that there were no grounds to annul the Presidential Election held September 23 and order to hold the election again.

President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom of ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), who lost the election by a wide margin of 38,000 votes to opposition candidate Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, had filed a constitutional case at the apex court, accusing the Elections Commission of committing election fraud and seeking to annul the election results.

After concluding hearings for the case last week, the full bench of the top court unanimously ruled that there were no grounds to order the EC to hold the election again.

No evidence to back accusations

Prior to the pronouncement of the verdict, Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi noted the main points raised in the case filed by the president, and stated that the ruling party's legal team had failed to submit any evidence to back their accusations.

The issues raised by PPM included the "unlawful" awarding of ballot paper printing to M7 Pvt Ltd; the alleged use of special inker rings and erasable pens at polling stations; doubtful security at locations where ballot papers were kept; the abrupt shift of the National Complaints Bureau to another location; the lack of use of UV lights to cross-check the legitimacy of the ballot papers; campaign activities held at polling centres, and other such issues.

However, the Chief Justice noted that PPM was not able to prove any of these allegations in court:

- The presidenthad accused that EC awarded ballot paper printing to M7, a company of which Jumhoory Party founder Qasim Ibrahim's family members are shareholders, in order to manipulate the election results. The court stated that the suspicion was not enough to prove the allegation, and that EC had claimed to have attained the finance ministry's permission to award the project as per the Public Finance Act.

- The ruling party was not able to specify at which polling stations the erasable pens, chemicals that could remove ink, or special rings that supposedly could place checkmarks on ballot papers, were allegedly used. The EC did not receive any complaints of the sort, and it has also denied these accusations.

- There was no evidence submitted to prove security flaws in the locations where the ballot papers were kept, and how it allegedly facilitated election fraud.

- The EC has denied accusations that the work of the Elections Complaints Bureau was stopped, while the ruling party had not submitted any evidence to prove otherwise.

- The president's side was unable to prove or specify at which polling centres the secrecy of the ballots were compromised, or campaign activities held, or ballot papers carried outside, or papers were taken inside the centres, or ballot boxes had more papers than they should have.

- While the ruling party has raised the issue of the lack of UV light to check the legitimacy of ballot boxes, the apex court noted that there were no laws or regulations mandating the use of UV lights to crosscheck ballot papers.

- While PPM also alleged that the seals on some of the security envelopes used to carry the ballot papers after vote counting were broken when they were brought to the EC, there was no evidence suggesting that this resulted in a change in the election results.

No grounds to order an investigation

The chief justice stated that an election in Maldives could only be nullified only under circumstances that affected the results of the election. Noting that opposition candidate Solih won the election over President Yameen with a prominent lead of 38,000 votes, Chief Justice Dr. Ahmed Abdulla stated there was no evidence submitted that could indicate a change in the election results.

The court further declined the president's request to order an investigation by the police and military, stating that there was no concrete proof of undue influence on the election.

However, the chief justice highlighted that if any criminal activity were believed to have occurred at the election, it could be filed under common procedure at the relevant institutions, and that the prosecutor general was accorded the power to order an investigation in such circumstances.

He further pointed out that the parliament was accorded the power to hold any member of the EC accountable, should it be found that they had misused their authority and responsibilities.

The case against the election results was overseen by the full bench of the Supreme Court.

President Yameen's legal team had also sought to put forward three secret witnesses in the case. However the court had earlier declined the request, stating that the case lacked reason to be granted secret witnesses.

The opposition coalition had also intervened in the case.

Many supporters of the opposition coalition gathered near the Supreme Court on Sunday ahead of the verdict hearing, protesting the annulment of the election. The top court's final ruling was met with joy by the supporters.

Share this story

Related Stories

Discuss

MORE ON NEWS