Communication de M. Brian
Currin, conseiller spécial du Président Ravalomanana, adressée aux représentations
étrangères à Madagascar, prenant à témoin la Communauté Internationale du
mépris dont est victime le peuple malagasy dans l’expression de son choix.
---------------------------------------------
From: Brian
Currin [mailto:bcurrin@icon.co.za]
Subject: Elections
in Madagascar
Your Excellencies
For the past 20 years I have worked in peace process
facilitation and democracy enhancing. I regard myself as an independent
practitioner even although in most instances my introduction to a peace process
is through one of the parties. I endeavour to serve the peace process rather
than the interests of a single party.
As a result of concerns about the recent election
process in Madagascar and the election results being published by the CENI-T,
Mouvance Ravalomanana and the Dr Robinson Campaign requested me to examine
possible instances of voter fraud and / or anomalies that seem to be emerging from
the CENI-T. I travelled to Madagascar on the morning of 26 December and was
there until 29 December.
Having carefully considered the evidence that was
presented to me, there are, in my considered view, three areas of concern that
could have a material impact on the outcome and as a result render the election
process unfair and / or the outcome not a reflection of the will of the
voters as expressed on their collective ballot papers.
With regard to unfairness, there are two aspects:
1. The participation
of President Rajoelina in the campaign of Mr Hery, in contravention of article
15 of the Roadmap. There can be no doubt that President Rajoelina’s presence in Mr
Hery’s campaign and his outrageous reference to Mr Hery as the State’s candidate
would have unfairly swayed a considerable number of voters. In a nutshell Mr
Hery had an unfair advantage over Dr Robinson. As we know this issue has been
referred to the Electoral Court and I hope it will deal with the matter
appropriately;
2. The
question of undue influence in persuading voters to vote for a particular
candidate. Here I am referring to the buying of votes and the issuing of
pre-marked ballot papers in favour of Mr Hery. This issue has also been
referred to the Electoral Court with a request that all ballot papers be
reviewed and the fraudulent ones removed. Although this process may delay the
final results, surely a fair and accurate result reflecting the true will of
the votes, whether in favour of Mr Hery or Dr Robinson is worth waiting for.
For post-election political stability I would think that transparency is
crucial. The election must not only be fair it must also be seen to be fair. If
there are perceptions that Mr Hery cheated those perceptions must be addressed.
If the review shows that ballots were not bought as alleged and that Mr Hery
won the election fairly, democracy will be the victor.
With regard to the will of the people, I have been
shown countless examples where the results published by the CENI-T do not appear
to be a true representation of the results recorded on the forms completed and
signed by all candidates at the polling stations. To the extent that the CENI-T
computer published results deviate from the hard copy results, the former must
be corrected.
I will forward your Excellencies examples of mistakes
/ anomalies found in the CENI-T results. They are sufficiently significant that
they could have a material impact on the outcome. For that reason I wish to
propose that one of the international Auditing Firms be given the task of
auditing CENI-T’s computation / interpretation of the hard copy
results generated at the polling stations.
Your Excellencies, once you have taken note of the
mistakes / anomalies to which I refer I would hope that you share my concerns
and support the proposal for a professional audit, which could be carried out
quickly. Such an audit will also deal with perceptions of bias and or cheating
and thereby contribute positively towards a nation-wide acceptance of the
result irrespective of who the winner is.
In this email I am able to show your Excellencies an
example of what appears to be proactive wilful cheating by at least one person
at the CENI-T. However, having been given a tour of CENI-T and seen all the
checks and balances in place it is more likely that this fraud could only have
happened with the collusion of others.
Dr. Robinson won Andilamena a small district of about
25, 000 voters. He got support from 65% of the voters who went to the polls
giving him around 8,000 votes. You will find that result in attachment
ConsResultatDistictEtat(3). If your Excellencies look at
attachment ConsResltatEtat(2) which relates to another district
(Moramanga) which has more than 100, 000 voters your Excellencies will note
that the attachment is merely a copy of the Andilamena result. I am told that
Moramanga like Andilamena is deep Dr. Robinson territory and he is expected to
receive around 65% of votes cast there as well. Assuming the percentage vote
was the similar to Andilamena he would have 32, 000 votes there and not a mere
8, 000. Bearing in mind that the 4% difference between the candidates is only
around 200, 000 votes this anomaly on its own is significant.
I will shortly provide many more examples of anomalies
/ mistakes at the CENI-T which support my proposal for an independent audit of
CENI-T as analysis and computation of the election results.
Your sincerely
Brian Currin
Brian Currin & Associates
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire