U.D.P. Says P.U.P. Witnesses Did Themselves No Favors
Estevan Perrera
Representing the United Democratic Party seven, Estevan Perrera believes the case is going better for their side than for the P.U.P.’s and that the other side has not done enough to convince the court in his view. He told reporters this evening that the minor miscalculations in the official tally would not be enough to set aside the election.
Reporter
“The attorney for the P.U.P. seven has said that they believe that this case is going very well for them, that certain important admissions and clarifications came out in testimony today that actually helps them in their case. Do you agree or disagree?”
Estevan Perrera, Attorney for United Democratic Party
“I actually disagree with that statement; you were in the court as well. This morning we found that the witnesses for the petitioners actually had more admissions in support of our position, and that the case is actually sided in our benefit at this point in time.”
Reporter
“Do you think that this particular petition is frivolous?”
Estevan Perrera
“Yes, I do believe it’s frivolous, and I believe that anybody who looks at the actual petition and the numbers contained therein will recognize that there is an obvious error, an oversight in terms of minor miscalculations that were later remedied, and that it’s not sufficient enough for a court to set aside an entire election based on the facts or the position presented in that petition by the petitioners.”
Reporter
“How do you view the returning officer’s position that she did not verify, ballot by ballot, to reconcile, and that she simply calculated based on what her presiding officers were noting on the forms and the documents they were working with?”
Estevan Perrera
“That statement you just said, in terms of a question – that actually speaks for itself. Because that’s exactly our position. We’re saying that the purported errors are so minor, that by simply looking at the form one can actually make those corrections and recognize where the little errors were made on the actual forms, and there was no need to go back to the actual ballots.”
Reporter
“Sir, in the case of Sandra Carranza, the P.U.P. scrutineer, it was pointed out that these were not official numbers; they the P.U.P. scrutineers used their own numbers. Talk to us about that aspect of the case and why, as Nigel Hawke pointed out, her testimony was basically useless.”
Estevan Perrera
“I don’t wish to speak for Mr. Hawke, but the position in relation to her, was that both parties, when they do those calculations, they have their own forms and put their numbers in and fill it out as they go along. And what they were saying was that whatever number she wrote for herself is not an official number, and as such it can’t be used in court against the returning officers.”
