No additional markings made by voters themselves were found on three MDP ballot papers that were invalidated: Suood
The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has presented four points of appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that three ballots invalidated in the Veyvah Council election contained printing defects rather than intentional markings by voters. Following a High Court ruling to nullify these votes—which subsequently altered the election outcome—counsel for the MDP emphasized that this decision could undermine the integrity and legal certainty of future elections.
Former Supreme Court Justice Husnu Al Suood. | Raajje MV
Former Supreme Court Justice Husnu Al Suood has stated that the three MDP ballot papers invalidated during the Veyvah Council by-election did not contain any additional markings made by the voters themselves.
The dispute in this case centers on the determination of invalid votes. During the recount, the Elections Commission (EC) provided a clear explanation as to why these specific ballots were deemed valid. The EC clarified that the marks on the ballot papers were not intentional drawings or doodles. Instead, the commission accepted the ballots as valid after determining that the marks were caused by ink bleeding during the printing process. These three disputed ballots were all cast in favor of the MDP candidate.
However, the majority of the High Court bench ruled to invalidate three votes previously counted in favor of the MDP. This decision effectively overturned the MDP candidate's lead, paving the way for the PNC candidate to secure victory. Consequently, the MDP candidate has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
During the hearing held on Thursday regarding this case, four grounds for appeal were submitted to the Supreme Court. These points were presented by former Supreme Court Justice Husnu Al Suood.
Among the grounds for appeal is the contention that the High Court's ruling violates the spirit of Section 56(a)(5) of the General Elections Act. This specific provision outlines the circumstances under which a ballot paper shall be deemed invalid.
The article cited in the appeal point stipulates that, in accordance with Section 51(a) of this Act, any ballot paper containing any mark, writing, or drawing other than a single checkmark placed next to the name of the chosen candidate shall be deemed invalid.
Suood stated that the Elections Commission had clarified that the marks were ink spots resulting from the printing process, a point also confirmed by Novelty, the company responsible for printing the ballots. In a letter, Novelty noted: *"Despite conducting checks at every stage, it is rare to completely eliminate spots within the entire production system, and the possibility of such marks remains."*
Suood stated that the ballot paper contained no additional marks made by the voter themselves. He further noted that the legal criteria for invalidating a vote refer specifically to marks made by the voter, and that the law does not account for printing defects or ink spots that occur during the production of the ballot paper.
Justice Suood stated that there is no plausible way for black dots to appear on a ballot paper through the use of a pen. He further noted that these details could have been more thoroughly verified had the ballots been brought to the High Court for inspection.
The second point of appeal contends that the remedy granted by the High Court was not sought by the petitioner.
Furthermore, a point was submitted noting that, in a broader context, this ruling is believed to have implications for all votes cast on April 4.
If every ballot paper with a printing ink smudge or a stray ink droplet is deemed invalid, I believe it would lead to a significant shift in the overall election results, as it calls the very integrity of the vote into question.Former Supreme Court Justice Husnu Al Suood
Suood stated that ink blots occurring during the printing process have never been identified as a significant issue. He further noted that invalidating those ballots would have repercussions for future elections.
The fourth point concerns the observation that a High Court judge, in delivering the verdict, provided a personal opinion that functioned as expert testimony on a factual matter.
Suood stated that despite experts providing specific findings regarding the ballot papers, the High Court judge had expressed personal opinions as if offering expert testimony.
The case is being presided over by a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Abdulla Hameed, Justice Mohamed Saleem, and Justice Hussain Shaheed.
