Good afternoon members of the Press.

I wish to report on a number of issues which will affect the conduct and outcome of the bye-election scheduled for February 16th.

The Voters Register
The first of these is the integrity of the Register of Voters.

As a result of comments attributed to the Parliamentary Registrar in a leading daily publication on January 26th 2010, I sent the following letter to the Parliamentary Registrar on the 27th January 2010:

Mr. Errol Bethel
Parliamentary Commissioner

Dear Mr. Parliamentary Commissioner

Integrity of Electoral Register in Elizabeth Constituency

We read with alarm the comments attributed to yourself on the front page of The Bahama Journal of Tuesday 26th January wherein it was reported that "Parliamentary Commissioner Errol Bethel admitted yesterday that he cannot vouch for the integrity of the election register and is relying on political candidates vying in next month’s by-election to help weed out persons ineligible to vote."

Further, you are quoted in the same newspaper story as stating, in part, that:

"We know for sure that a number of people transferred in, but nobody transferred out, so a number of people’s names would be on that register who are not entitled to vote in that election."

"Yes, we can look at that and look at an audit in terms of going on the ground and checking the register and redoing the register.   There are things that can be done."

We refer you to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1992 ("the Act"), which provides at section 12 (5) that:

"It shall be the duty of the Parliamentary Commissioner to keep the register and to carry out the requirements of this Act regarding the registration of voters and holding of elections."

Further, the Act, at section 8 (1), details the qualification for registration of voters in a constituency as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of this Part, a person shall be entitled to be registered as a voter for a constituency if, and shall not be so entitled unless, on the day on which he applied for registration – he is a citizen of The Bahamas of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity; and he is, and has been during the whole of the period of three months immediately preceding that day, ordinarily resident in premises in that constituency."

It is clear from the foregoing provisions of the Act that Parliament imposed a statutory duty on the Parliamentary Commissioner to ensure that only Bahamian citizens of full age and persons ordinarily resident in a constituency shall be allowed to register to vote in a particular constituency.  In fact, the Supreme Court of The Bahamas has held that the Parliamentary Commissioner has a statutory duty to protect the integrity of the parliamentary registration process.  In the case Allyson Maynard Gibson v. Byran Woodside and Herbert Brown, Supreme Court Election Court Case #746 of 2007, at page 3, Madame Senior Justice Anita Allen and Mr. Justice Jon Isaacs held that you, as Parliamentary Commissioner, had breached your statutory duty to ensure the integrity of the registration process in the Pinewood Constituency:

"This case exposed the most egregious failures in the parliamentary registration system. The Parliamentary Commissioner failed, for whatever reason, to ensure the integrity of the registration process in Pinewood.  It was indeed startling to the Court that Counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, were forced to concede that 85 of 183 votes challenged were unlawful votes.

The Honourable Justices recommended that you, as the Parliamentary Commissioner, examine the procedures, which had allowed the massive electoral fraud in Pinewood to occur to prevent its reoccurrence:

"Perhaps the time is appropriate for the Parliamentary Commissioner to comprehensively examine the practices and procedures of the Parliamentary Registration Department with a view to ensuring that what we saw in Pinewood does not re-occur because it threatens to undermine the fundamental basis of our parliamentary democracy."

Since the Pinewood Ruling on the 21st January 2008, there does not appear to have been any perceptible review and revision of the practices and procedures and capacity building of the Parliamentary Registration Department to avoid the massive electoral fraud uncovered in the Pinewood case.

It is in the context of your past failure to protect the integrity of the registration process in the Pinewood Constituency and the aforesaid statements attributed to you by The Bahama Journal that we hereby request your immediate written assurances before nominations in the Elizabeth Constituency that you have fulfilled your statutory duty to ensure the integrity of the election register for the By-election in the Elizabeth Constituency.

We thank you for your urgent response.

My letter was sent out of genuine concern for the integrity of the electoral process and with the intent that the Registrar would take the necessary steps to avoid what had occurred in the last General Election.

I sent a copy of that letter to the Minister with responsibility for Elections, Hon. Tommy Turnquest in the hope that he would share my concern and act to ensure that the parliamentary Registrar had the resources to enable him to produce an authentic and correct register to ensure as far as possible that the Elizabeth bye-election would be free and fair.

Instead his lame and pathetic response was to wrongly accuse the "PLP operatives of registering illegally in Elizabeth", a charge that has been thoroughly disproved.

The increase in the number of registered voters in the Elizabeth constituency is unprecedented. A review of the increase between elections held in the Elizabeth constituency every five years shows a rise between 1997 and 2002 of 9.53% and between 2002 and 2007 of 2.66%. Yet, the increase between 2007 and 2010, a period of 2 years and 9 months of 16.64%.

It is our belief that such an increase is highly unlikely and that there are on the Elizabeth register, many persons who do not have the right to be there. Some have moved out; some may have died; some may have registered without being eligible.

In his response to my letter, the Parliamentary Commissioner sought to assure me that he understood his obligations under the Law and that he is working diligently to fulfill those obligations. Nevertheless, having seen the certified register, I have reason to believe that the register does include on it persons who are ineligible in law to vote in Elizabeth.

Further, it has been reported to me that there are persons who purport to have been working for the Parliamentary registrar’s department who have been visiting homes in Elizabeth or making phone calls to voters in Elizabeth and making erroneous observations and in some cases erroneously altering information on voters’ cards. Examples of this have been discussed with the Registrar by members of my election team.

Examples of what has been reported include the alteration of the polling division on a voter’s card from the correct one to an incorrect one, as has happened to family members in polling divisions 5 and 11.

Another example is the placing of a phone call to a voter at her home in polling division10, where she answered the phone and was told that she was not entitled to vote in the bye-election because, according to the caller, who identified herself as calling from the department, she did not live where she lived! When the woman insisted that she did live there, a senior member of staff was called to the phone to continue the ridiculous erroneous harassment. Another voter was told that if she did not come in to the department, her name would be struck off the voters’ list and she would not be able to vote, despite the fact that she was legally entitled to do so!

Our review of the register compared with the 2007 register also shows some differences from the information given by the Parliamentary Registrar’s office.

For example, we have found more "new voters" than they have listed on their new voters register. We have similar findings among the transfer voters. We are double checking the present and 2007 registers before we make a formal complaint.

It is clear that such random and ad hoc relocation of voters would complicate the voter identification process, create mass confusion and frustration, and discourage the voter from exercising his or her democratic right. This is bad for democracy.

The PLP calls on the minister responsible, the Minister of National Security, to immediately investigate these claims and provide a full and clear explanation as to why these transfers were done and what corrective actions are being taken to remedy this unfortunate situation.

The PLP encourages the voters of Elizabeth to remain calm and to resist frustration even though on the surface of it, it appears that their democratic rights are being frustrated.

Given the revelations from the election court challenges following the 2007 general election about the integrity of the register, the PLP is disappointed that the leadership in government have either resorted to distancing themselves from the voter register of Elizabeth or blaming the PLP.

The PLP expresses shock and dismay that the government, with its vast resources and control of the machinery of government, would seek to cast blame and distance itself from problems they have a responsibility to fix.

On the 5th February, it was reported that the Prime Minister said that "whatever is wrong with the register, Mr. Christie is responsible." The expectation from the government leadership is that they mobilize resources to ensure the integrity of the register. Whether the register was sound in 1997 and 2002 as the Prime Minister claims is neither here or there because its integrity was not tested on those two occasions, but when it was tested in an election court challenge in 2007, it was discovered that the integrity of the voter register was compromised. Even though Prime Minister Ingraham is quick to point out that former Prime Minister Christie was at fault he has not taken any concrete steps within the Parliamentary Commissioner’s office as it relates to the structure and function of the commission to correct this situation. I wish to point out for the record that the rulings of the election court in the Pinewood challenge was that the Parliamentary Commissioner, for whatever reason, failed to ensure the integrity of the register.

When the PM isn’t casting blame, he is busy threatening and intimidating voters. At a street meeting in the Elizabeth Constituency on Thursday, 4th February 2010, the Prime Minister was again issuing veiled threats at the voters in Elizabeth by drawing a direct relationship between their political support for the Free National Movement and the delivery of public goods and services. The PLP again points out the people of Elizabeth, like all citizens, are entitled to public services such as jobs in the public sector, paved roads, street lights, traffic lights etc. These are the primary responsibilities of the government. He further said that Ryan Pinder will only be warming the seat in Parliament (if he is successful) as he could not do anything for them as an opposition Member of Parliament. These unseemly comments do, in our opinion, represent an act of intimidation, abuse of power, and inappropriate behavior for any political leader, much less a Prime Minister.

So there are two apparent strategies of the government in this Bye-Election: Firstly, shirk from their responsibility by distancing the government from the state of the voter register, blame the state of the register on the PLP, and secondly intimidate, threaten, and induce voters. These are not the ways to fix the ills of our democratic institutions, but mere smoke screens to perpetuate the ailment because there is some accrued benefit from this dysfunctional system.

The PLP stresses that the onus to correct the problems ailing the electoral system cannot rest on any political party because of at least three reasons. Political parties are not the government; the constitution does not recognize political parties; and each party has a self interest. The onus must be on the Parliamentary Commission, which is an independent body mandated to protect the public and national interests.

The Broadcast Rules
On February 4ththe Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas, BCB, permitted the broadcast of an address by the Prime minister, which, in our opinion was ultra vires the Interim Code of Practice for Political Broadcasts published by the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA). The Leader of the PLP, in a letter earlier last month had already written to URCA protesting the implementation of the Interim Code. Nevertheless, we were also of the opinion that the Prime Minister’s broadcast was in violation of the Code.

I therefore wrote to the BCB seeking equal time to respond to the PM’s broadcast on Monday February 8th.

Dear Mr. Lightbourne:

Re: The Interim Code of Practice for Political Broadcasts ("ICP")

This letter serves as a formal request for a fifteen-minute air time on radio and television for a political broadcast by the Official Opposition.

We are fully aware that the Corporation is intending to allow the Prime Minister to air a fifteen-minute broadcast. It is our view that the decision is in breach of Clause 7 of the Interim Code. It is equally unfair and a breach of the Code for the Corporation to refuse to allow the Official Opposition equivalent time to make a political broadcast.

Please note that this letter serves as a formal request for fifteen-minute air time on radio and television. We propose that the same be aired on Monday February 8th 2010.

I have taken the liberty to copy this letter to URCA to ensure that there is fairness and equal treatment by the Corporation.

I shall await your urgent confirmation that the time has been made available to the Official Opposition to air the broadcast on the date noted herein.

In addition, we wrote to URCA, lodging a complaint against the actions of the BCB, as follows:

Dear Mr. Symonette:
Re: The Interim Code of Practice for Political Broadcasts ("ICP")

Please note that the Progressive Liberal Party maintains its objections as set out in our letter of the 26th January, 2010.

This letter serves as a formal protest to URCA in respect of the implementation and interpretation of the captioned Code by the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas ("BCB").

It has come to our attention that the Prime Minister intends to make a national address this evening on ZNS TV 13. As you are aware, Clause 7 of the Code prohibits such a broadcast during an election period. Such a prohibition equally applies during a bye-election and must certainly apply in the present circumstances.

Notwithstanding the decision by the BCB to allow such a broadcast, in flagrant violation of the Code, the BCB has similarly refused to allow the Official Opposition equal time to make a similar broadcast or a rebuttal. This, in our view, is a clear violation of the terms and spirit of the Code and amounts to a policy that seeks to favour one political party to the disadvantage of the other in respect of broadcast time.

As you are fully aware, URCA has the statutory responsibility to ensure that there is a level-playing field in the broadcast of political messages during an election; and therefore we urge URCA to act in a manner that protects and guarantees equal broadcast rights and privileges to the Official Opposition.

For your ease of reference, I have attached hereto a copy of the letter forwarded to the General Manager of BCB and I therefore anticipate that you will act in such a manner to ensure that my Party receives equal time as was allotted to the governing party.

I shall await your urgent reply and confirmation in this regard.

In response, the BCB claimed to be acting under of provision of the Interim Code, which we think is inappropriate. URCA on the other hand asked that we make our complaint, which we had already done and in the absence of a satisfactory resolution within 48 hours of the complaint, we may take the complaint to URCA who will conduct an investigation and issue relevant instructions as it sees fit.

Accordingly, I have written a further letter to URCA and the BCB as follows:

BCB

Dear Mr. Lightbourne:
Re: The Interim Code of Practice for Political Broadcasts ("ICP")

Your letter of even date is acknowledged with thanks.

We respectfully disagree with the Corporation’s interpretation of the Code and reiterate our request for fifteen-minute air time on radio and television to respond to the national address of the Prime Minister.

You will note that Clause 7 of the Code prevents the governing party from making such a broadcast during an election period. It remains our view that to refuse the Official Opposition equal time, is a breach of the spirit of the Code.

We reject your view in respect of Clause 16 of the Code.

It is our view that last evening’s address by the Prime Minster does not fall within Clause 16. There was no legislation before Parliament that required an explanation and similarly there was no action that was to be taken by the Government that demanded such a broadcast. It is also our view that the broadcast does not meet the test of "an appeal on a matter of national importance".

We do recognize that Clause 16 may beg a subjective interpretation by licensees. However, licensees (and URCA) must seek to apply an objective standard and thereby arrive at an interpretation that affords fairness and balance in political broadcasts. In so doing, the content of the broadcast must be evaluated and this seems to follow from the nature of the conditions set out in Clause 16.

Applying the premise set out above, it is our contention that the substance of the Prime Minister’s address failed to satisfy the conditions establish in Clause 16 of the Code. The simple fact that historically a prime minister may elect to address the nation at the beginning of the year does not automatically allow such a broadcast to fall within the regime set out in Clause 16. Simply, it is our view that an annual address to the nation does not fall within Clause 16 as the language employed therein require the occurrence of a specific set of circumstances, of which were not met by the broadcast.

Certainly, if the address had occurred outside of the "election period" there can be no objection as the right to make such a broadcast is allowed by virtue of Clause 7.

We have reviewed the content of the address by the Prime Minister and it is our view that even on a purely subjective determination the same could not satisfy the test set out in Clause 16. Therefore, the aforesaid broadcast must have been allowed under Clause 7 of the Code and amounts to a violation of the same. The only manner in which such a violation can be cured is by allowing equal time to the Official Opposition to make a similar broadcast. In this regard we reiterate our demand for equal broadcast time on ZNS radio and television.

We have copied this letter to URCA as required under Clause 17 in light of the complaint made by my previous letter. I trust that you appreciate that time is of the essence in this matter.

We await your urgent reply.
 

URCA

Dear Mr. Symonette:
Re: The Interim Code of Practice for Political Broadcasts ("ICP")

 Thank you for your letter of today in respect of the captioned matter and the specific issue raised in my letter of the 4th instant.

 Please note that we are fully aware of Clause 17 of the Interim Code and the mechanism that it sets for the determination of complaints. My letter to the BCB of the 4th instant was copied to URCA to formally notify you of the complaint and so that preparatory steps could be taken, if deemed necessary, to address the substance of the complaint.

 Given the nature of the present campaign and the limited time remaining, it must be accepted by URCA that the 48 hours regime that is set out in Clause 17 may cause undue prejudice and therefore there may be circumstances which require URCA’s immediate intervention. We deem this as such an event.

 We note that you have been copied on the response from the BCB to the complaint and therefore for completeness we wish to formally notify URCA that we are dissatisfied with the response from the BCB. This notification should be sufficient to trigger URCA’s jurisdiction under the Code.

 A copy of our letter to BCB in response to their letter of even date is attached hereto for your records and information.

 As you no doubt appreciate, by participating in this process we do not waive our earlier objections to the ICP.

 We shall await URCA’s urgent determination of the complaint.

It is our view that the Broadcast Rules are not being implemented fairly in this case.

Abuse of Government Privileges
We wish to bring to your attention and that of the public that there is going on a violation of privileges by persons employed by the government as well as government ministers.

There are senior persons employed in government, who are using government vehicles for the purpose of campaigning, including the collection and distribution of election campaign paraphernalia.

Government ministers have been seen with car loads of red shirted campaigners ferrying them during their house to house campaigns.

We have evidence that since the month of December, many persons who live in the Elizabeth constituency have been hired and are simply required to turn up. It is reported that in some cases they have nothing to do!

Application forms for government jobs are being distributed from FNM campaign headquarters.

While we are happy for any and all Bahamians, including Elizabeth constituents, the abuse by the government of the public purse in this way is intolerable in a democracy.

Destructive Behaviour
We have evidence that supporters of the government are going around ripping down our posters from lamp posts and trees in the constituency. We do not apologise for beating the governing party to the punch in erecting our posters and billboards. But we are saddened that they should resort to this kind of behaviour. We ask them to cease and desist. There are plenty enough spaces for us all. We ask them to recognize this and instruct their workers, who we have photographed destroying our posters to stop immediately.