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

Bahamas Blog International

Godfrey 'Pro' Pinder of the United Christian Love Revolution Movement sues over rejected nomination attempt

By Juan Mccartney ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ juan@nasguard.com:



Attorney Godfrey 'Pro' Pinder is refusing to give up his quest to take part in the Elizabeth by-election, or at least be acknowledged as a candidate.

On Wednesday, Pinder - who had planned to run on the United Christian Love Revolution Movement ticket - filed suit in the Supreme Court asking the court to overturn the January 29 rejection of his attempted nomination by returning officer Jack Thompson.

Pinder has appealed on 16 grounds.

This means that the rejection has been suspended and will be challenged after the by-election on February 16.

In the appeal obtained by The Nassau Guardian, Pinder details the happenings on nomination day that led to his nomination being rejected.

Last Friday, Pinder showed up to nominate two minutes before noon, which is when nominations would have closed. After already being late, Pinder paid the mandatory $400 deposit fee to nominate for the election with a personal check.

However, the government requires that deposits be paid with a bank-certified check or with cash.

Thompson therefore rejected the nomination.

Among the grounds of Pinder's appeal are that the nomination rules do not specify the particulars of the payment amount in terms of the currency in which the payment should be made; that the practice of charging $400 as a deposit for nominees is discriminatory toward the poor; that the true nature of the payment type was not properly outlined on the nomination form; that Thompson was on a "frolic of his own and acted with bias" and out of self interests; and that Thompson and possibly other respondents named in the suit acted contrary to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Pinder also claims to have taken a Scotiabank-certified check to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel on the same day that his nomination was rejected, only to allegedly have Bethel turn him away saying, "I cannot accept that."

In the appeal, Pinder also claims Thompson failed to first state the facts and grounds for his decision to reject Pinder's nomination before endorsing the rejection letter.

Pinder is also requesting that Progressive Liberal Party candidate Ryan Pinder's citizenship records be subpoenaed and entered into evidence. Pinder claims that Ryan Pinder holds both United States and Bahamian citizenship.

Up to press time yesterday, Bethel said he had yet to receive notice of the appeal.


February 05, 2010

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Rodney Moncur - Workers Party Leader: Dr. Duane Sands (FNM) is Disqualified from running in the up-coming bye-election in the Elizabeth Constituency

WORKERS PARTY
Elizabeth Constituency Election Headquarters Of
Rodney Moncur / February 2nd 2010
Duane Sands is Disqualified



Article 48, Section 1(j) of the Constitution of The Bahamas states that ” No person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the House of Assembly who is interested in any government contract and has not disclosed the nature of such contract and of his interest therein by publishing a notice in the gazette within one month before the day of election.”

This is the supreme law of the land and, in the case of the up-coming bye-election in Elizabeth on February 16, 2010, this means that any one who contemplated running in the bye-election and who had a contract with the Government, had to make such a declaration in the Official Gazette on or before January 17, 2010, thirty days before the election.

That person should have then brought a copy of that Gazette to the Returning Officer on 29th January 2010, nomination day, as documentary evidence that he had complied with Article 28, Section 1(j).

On nomination day, Dr. Duane Sands declared before the Returning Officer in a letter dated 29 January 2010, that he owned shares in a medical company which had a contract with the Bahamas Government.

At no time before this, and in the stipulated time-frame did Dr. Sands disclose in the Gazette his interest as it related to this contractual relationship with the Government, although this disclosure is clearly stipulated by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

The first time that Dr. Sands disclosed his contract with the Government was on February 1st 2010, fifteen days too late, according to the Constitution; and this happened only because the disclosure was incidental in the Government Notice of Nomination in a Contested Election, published by the Parliamentary Registration Department.

I charge that the Returning Officer should have detected this flaw in the nomination of Dr. Sands, just as he detected a flaw in the nomination of Mr. Godfrey Pinder.

Once Dr. Sands had advised Mr. Jack Thompson, the Returning Officer, in his letter of 29 January 2010, that he had a contract with the Bahamas Government, Thompson should have then demanded, promptly and on the spot, evidence that Sands had complied with Article 48 1(j).

Unfortunately, he did not do this. And so Dr. Duane Sands, although in full violation of one of the fundamental rules of free and fair elections, is a candidate in the up-coming election.

This amounts to a grave travesty of democracy perpetrated on all the Bahamian people by the Free National Movement under Hubert Ingraham; and Dr. Duane Sands should disassociate himself from this shameful disgrace, withdraw from the race and return to his medical practice which this country so desperately needs.

I welcome political competition and I am not afraid of it. I have been in front line politics longer than all of the other candidates. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and every citizen, and the Government as well, must adhere to the provisions therein.

I charge that Dr. Duane Sands is disqualified from running in the up-coming bye-election because he has not complied with the requirement of the Constitution as outlined in Article 48,1(j), which constitutes one of the fundamental qualifications of a candidate.

And I therefore call on Dr. Duane Sands to act honourably and drop out of the bye-election forthwith; he and all his FNM hosts.

Rodney Moncur
Candidate


February 2, 2010

Bahamas Blog International