The Nationalist Party is facing a far more serious problem than co-opting the new leader in Parliament. Whatever the party’s internal electoral commission thinks, the information that has just emerged raises serious doubts on the leadership election.
It takes a lot more than a mere line in a two-page confidential report by the electoral commission to put everyone’s mind at rest that “what has happened does not cast any doubt on the integrity of the voting process itself once it is only the person with the right to vote who can in fact vote…”
The party’s (outgoing) administration and, more importantly, the new leader must urgently take all action possible to put the record straight and this in the most transparent of manners.
The issue was sparked off by a card-carrying PN member who reported that when he tried to collect his vote he was informed it had been taken by assistant general secretary Jean Pierre Debono after producing a proxy. The member insisted he had authorised nobody to collect his vote and declared the signature featured on the proxy was not his.
Falsifying a signature is a criminal offence. At this stage, there is no hard evidence who committed the offence, which is punishable by up to four years in prison. Thus, while preserving all the evidence, the PN, which, we must assume, was immediately informed by the electoral commission about what happened, should have lost no time in asking the police to investigate.
Mr Debono yesterday strongly denied having falsified any signatures.
The party should also have suspended Mr Debono forthwith.
The leaked confidential report indicated there were other proxies issued on behalf of Mr Debono. Thus, if there was abuse this went beyond a single case. Surely, the PN cannot be happy with such a situation.
The electoral commission used harsh words vis-à-vis Mr Debono for the serious shortcomings he committed, including facilitating the possibility of having false signatures on the proxies.
But perhaps the strongest comment is when the commission noted that at no point did Mr Debono inform it he had adopted the proxy procedure. It pointed out that “had it not been for this incident, this ruse by a party official would have remained completely unknown to the electoral commission, the candidates contesting the election and all eligible voters”.
The same could be said for the electoral commission. Had its report – based on a meeting that took place two days prior to the election – not been leaked by the independent media nobody would have been aware of this gross case of misconduct, if not outright crime. It should have immediately insisted with the party to put the election on hold until the whole matter was cleared.
In a general election, what happened would amount to corrupt practices, which usually vitiate an election.
It is in the interest of both contenders – Adrian Delia and Chris Said – to ensure the election they contested is free from any doubts whatsoever. Hence, they ought to demand a wide-ranging independent inquiry and, more importantly, insist the leadership contest returns to the point it was on September 15 until the inquiry board concludes its work and makes its recommendations.
A leader elected through a process shrouded in doubt is a very weak leader from the outset.