Sunday, March 14, 2010

Election court Bahamas: Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel questioned

By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Staff Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net:



PARLIAMENTARY Commissioner Errol Bethel was questioned extensively yesterday regarding discrepancies in the protest votes cast in the Elizabeth by-election.

Mr Bethel was the first and only witness to take the stand yesterday during day two of the Elizabeth election court hearing.

Philip "Brave" Davis, lead attorney for Progressive Liberal Party candidate Leo Ryan Pinder, opened yesterday's proceedings by outlining the election court petition.

Mr Davis then read into the record the affidavit of Stafford Coakley, a licensed surveyor. According to Mr Coakley's affidavit, Mr Pinder -- the petitioner -- had asked him to mark out the residences of the protested voters on a map of the Elizabeth constituency. According to the surveyor, all but five of the protest voters resided in the Elizabeth constituency. The surveyor found that one of the voters in question lived at a home in Commonwealth Boulevard which does not fall within the boundary of the Elizabeth constituency.

When Mr Bethel took the stand, attorney David Higgins who represents him and Returning Officer Jack Thompson, read his affidavit into the court's record. Mr Davis then began his cross-examination of Mr Bethel. During the cross-examination, Mr Bethel admitted that a part of his duty was to verify whether persons whose names appeared on the register were in fact there. He said that his duties were to advise persons of the fact that they were not on the register if it came to his attention. Those notices he said could be sent to their addresses.

Letters are being used to identify the voters whose votes are being protested in the proceedings -- in order to protect their identity. Mr Davis pointed out that the issue with Voter A was over two different listed addresses.

Mr Davis noted that the voter had one address that would put the voter in the Fox Hill Constituency and another that would put the voter in the Elizabeth constituency. He noted that on the voter's card the word Elizabeth was written over Fox Hill. Mr Bethel said that Fox Hill had been stamped over Elizabeth. He said that Fox Hill had been stamped there just prior to the May 2007 general elections. Polling division 12 is now in Fox Hill he said. The other listed address for the voter was South Pine Barren Road, West Barn Close. Mr Davis pointed out that according to the voter's card, voter A was in Elizabeth polling division 4. He pointed out that the voter had voted in May 2007 and in the same constituency in February 2010. Mr Bethel said he could not confirm which was the correct address. He accepted Mr Davis' suggestion that the register had to be corrected or voter's card cancelled and a new one issued in this case.

In relation to a voter identified as voter C, the issue arose as to what appeared on the counterfoil relative to the voter's date of birth. It was revealed that the date of birth listed on the register was different than that listed on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the error was on the counterfoil. In relation to a voter identified as voter E who appeared in polling division 8, Mr Bethel pointed out that the discrepancy over the omission of Alligator Close to the voter's address listed on the register was because the computer could only take so many characters. The voter's full address would have read South Sandilands Road, West Fox Hill Road, Alligator Close.

In relation to voter D who voted in polling division 7, Mr Davis noted that in the constituency column, the word Elizabeth had been there but was crossed out and replaced with Yamacraw. He also pointed out that in the polling division column; seven was marked out and replaced with 8. This was also reflected on the counterfoil. Mr Bethel admitted that the address West Commonwealth Boulevard, South Malaysia Way would be in the Elizabeth constituency but the S for South was marked out and N for north was placed there instead, which would place the voter out of Elizabeth. Mr Davis pointed out that the oath taken by the voter also contained corrections. In the oath the voter had sworn that they lived in Elizabeth. Mr Bethel subsequently admitted that the corrections had been made by his office. Mr Bethel contended that the error was that the voter was obviously in the wrong constituency. Mr Davis suggested to him, however, that he was wrong to direct that such corrections be made. Mr Bethel, however, did not accept this suggestion. Mr Davis concluded his cross-examination yesterday by highlighting voter F. According to Mr Davis, voter F had been a registered voter from November 23, 2005 and had been placed in the Yamacraw constituency, polling division 6. Mr Bethel, however, told the court that he had never encountered the voter.

The election court hearing is expected to resume on Monday at 10.30 am. Dr Sands' legal team is expected and attorneys for Mr Bethel and Returning Officer Jack Thompson are expected to begin their cross-examination.

March 13, 2010

tribune242