High Court dismisses six cases filed by MDP regarding local council elections

The High Court has dismissed six cases filed by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) concerning the local council elections.

According to the High Court's website, complaints filed regarding the local council elections were dismissed on Thursday.

The case involves the P1.2 ballot box stationed in GA. Kolamaafushi, where it is alleged that invalid votes were determined in violation of the Elections Act and discrepancies were noted in the final counts. Despite submitting these issues with evidence to the Elections Commission's Compliance Bureau, the bureau reportedly responded that no evidence had been provided, without properly reviewing the submitted materials. Given the narrow margin between candidates, there is a significant possibility that the final result could change upon a recount of the invalid votes. Consequently, an election complaint has been filed seeking a court order to compel the Elections Commission to unseal the security envelopes and conduct a recount of the ballots from this box.

The second issue involves the YT.20 ballot box stationed in Hulhumale'. During the counting process, two valid votes cast for the MDP candidate for the Ihavandhoo Council Presidency were allegedly declared invalid, leading to discrepancies in the total vote count. Although these issues were submitted with evidence to the Elections Commission’s Compliance Bureau, the Commission declined to take further action, stating that the margin of victory was too large for the disputed votes to alter the final outcome. However, the petitioner argues that since the margin between the candidates is smaller than the total number of invalidated votes, a recount of the void ballots could potentially change the result. Consequently, the election complaint seeks a court order compelling the Elections Commission to unseal the security envelopes and conduct a formal recount of the ballots from that specific box.

The third issue concerns the T16.8 ballot box stationed in Hulhumale'. During the initial count, a valid vote was reportedly misclassified as invalid, leading to discrepancies in the total vote count. Although this matter was submitted to the Elections Commission’s Compliance Bureau with supporting evidence, the Commission declined to take further action, stating that the margin of victory was wide enough that the result would remain unaffected. However, the petitioner argues that since the margin between candidates is actually smaller than the total number of invalidated votes, a re-examination of these ballots could potentially alter the outcome. Consequently, the election complaint seeks a court order compelling the Elections Commission to unseal the special security envelopes and conduct a recount for that specific ballot box.

The fourth issue concerns the PT.1 ballot box stationed in Male', where it is alleged that several ballots were invalidated in violation of the Elections Act during the counting process. Despite submitting the case to the Elections Commission's Compliance Bureau with supporting evidence, the Bureau reportedly responded that no evidence had been provided, failing to review the submitted materials. Given the narrow margin of votes between the candidates, there is a significant possibility that the final outcome could change if the invalid votes are re-examined. Consequently, the election complaint seeks a court order compelling the Elections Commission to open the special security envelopes and conduct a recount of the ballots from that specific box.

The fifth issue concerns the E11.1 ballot box in R. Maduvvari, where votes for the Local Council and the Women's Development Committee were reportedly counted together. This procedural error resulted in a failure to clearly distinguish the number of votes received by each candidate, leading to discrepancies in the final tally. Although these issues were submitted to the Elections Commission's Compliance Bureau with supporting evidence, the Bureau responded by claiming no evidence had been provided, allegedly without reviewing the submitted materials. Given the narrow margin between candidates, there is a significant possibility that the final outcome could change upon a recount of the invalid ballots. Consequently, an election complaint has been filed seeking a court order to compel the Elections Commission to open the special security envelopes and conduct a formal recount of the ballots from that specific box.

The sixth case involves ballot box U4.1 in AA. Mathiveri, where several irregularities were reported during the counting process. The complaint alleges that the ballots for the Local Council and the Women's Development Committee were counted simultaneously, and that the counting area and officials were positioned too far for observers to monitor clearly. Furthermore, it was noted that the presiding official suffered a seizure, leading to disputes over the counting process and the determination of valid and invalid votes. The petitioner also claims that invalid ballots were not properly displayed during the process, leading to discrepancies in the final tally. Despite submitting these issues with evidence to the Elections Commission’s Compliance Bureau, the bureau reportedly responded by stating that no evidence had been provided, without properly reviewing the submitted materials. Given the narrow margin between candidates, the petitioner argues that a recount of invalid votes could potentially alter the outcome. Consequently, an election complaint has been filed seeking a court order to compel the Elections Commission to open the special security envelopes and conduct a formal recount of the ballots from that specific box.

The High Court Registrar’s ruling stated that the case submitted by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) cannot be accepted as an election-related dispute. The decision noted that the petition failed to demonstrate how the Elections Commission’s prior resolution of the matter violated the law. Consequently, citing Article 64 of Law No. 11/2008 (the General Elections Act), the court informed the party that the case does not meet the requirements for admission.

If the MDP is dissatisfied with the High Court Registrar's decision, the party has the opportunity to submit a request for review to the High Court Council of Judges within seven days.