An issue has surfaced regarding extra marks found on vote papers used in the recently concluded Local Council Elections.

This matter was brought to light in a case submitted to the High Court against the Elections Commission by Mohamed Nazeeh, who contested for the M. Veyvah Council on a PNC ticket. He submitted the case to the High Court after three vote papers, which were initially considered invalid, were determined to be valid. This determination was made after the vote box was reopened and inspected.

In this election, an MDP candidate secured victory over Nazeeh by a difference of two votes. Nazeeh has requested the High Court to annul the Veyvah Council election and order the Elections Commission to conduct the election again.

Nazeeh’s lawyer, Ali Riza, stated in the court session today that dots were present on all three questioned vote papers. He noted that the dots were in three different places on the three papers and stated his belief that these were additional marks on the vote papers. He also highlighted that these are marks that compromise the validity of the vote.

Riza stated that the law stipulates if any mark other than a proper checkmark is present, that paper will become an invalid paper. He also said he believes that if there is a defect that compromises the validity of a vote paper, that matter must be decided by the court.

Riza further stated that if the marks appeared on the vote paper during printing, the Elections Commission must prove it. In Riza's view, if dots appeared during printing, those dots would not be in a specific, particular location.

However, he noted that on all three papers, the dots were in the box next to a candidate's name and it is believed that these were dots placed with a pen by the person who went to vote.

The lawyer for the Elections Commission stated that the marks on those three papers were not dots placed by the person who went to vote, but were dots that occurred during printing. The lawyer said the Commission also believes the court must decide on the outcome resulting from such defects.

The lawyer stated that no complaints were received on election day regarding those dots. The lawyer said that if those dots were present on the vote paper and the secrecy of the vote was compromised because of it, there would have been an opportunity to request another paper.

He stated that after the vote papers are printed, the Commission checks them. He said that the papers sent to the voting centers are "proper papers that do not have major defects." Therefore, he highlighted that those three vote papers were papers the Commission had sent after deciding they were papers with no issues.

He also noted that "ink drops are something that exist on very many papers." He stated that it is very clearly known that the marks on those papers are such dots and that it is not something that brings a change to the election result.

Therefore, he said there is no situation in this case where the election must be held again. The hearings for this case were concluded today. The next session will be for delivering the verdict.