close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Confusion over verification of 93,852 votes, thumb impressions

ISLAMABAD: Though politicians are still misguiding their young followers that Nadra couldn’t verify 93,852 votes in NA-122 and so these were bogus votes, the fact is that Nadra has not only verified all these 93,852 voters, it also declared that they possessed genuine CNICs which were registered in this constituency

By Ahmad Noorani
May 12, 2015
ISLAMABAD: Though politicians are still misguiding their young followers that Nadra couldn’t verify 93,852 votes in NA-122 and so these were bogus votes, the fact is that Nadra has not only verified all these 93,852 voters, it also declared that they possessed genuine CNICs which were registered in this constituency and also that they visited the correct polling station on May 11, 2013.
The exact words in Nadra report in response to TOR#9 of NA-125 Tribunal are; “TOR#9: There were 93,852 used counterfoils which Nadra could not process through AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) because of poor quality of fingerprints of the voters affixed on them. HOWEVER, CNIC NUMBERS MENTIONED ON SUCH COUNTERFOILS HAVING POOR QUALITY THUMB IMPRESSIONS WERE VALID CNICs.”
A wrong narrative is being made to achieve certain objectives by some forces but it has nothing to do with facts. It is important to mention that all these 93,852 CNIC numbers were correctly handwritten and were of corresponding polling stations of this constituency, NA-122. All cases of invalid, incorrectly written or illegible CNIC numbers on counterfoils were discussed in TOR#1, all cases of counterfoils without CNIC were discussed in TOR#2 and those which do not belong to this constituency were separately discussed in TOR#10. Not only this, all of these 93,852 counterfoils bear thumb impressions (but these were not readable by Nadra machines as it is not possible in every case to compare/verify manually captured thumb impression on paper from digitally captured thumb impressions saved in database). Cases of all counterfoils without thumb impressions were discussed in TOR#6. None of these 93,852 CNIC holders committed any illegal practice or cast double votes as all such cases of double votes were discussed in TOR#5.
So all of these 93,852 voters were not only genuine but were also verified by Nadra as voters of this constituency with correct CNICs. It is obvious that Nadra does not verify CNIC holders only through manually captured thumb impressions and CNIC itself is the biggest identity. After this verification by Nadra, any such campaign could only be considered as humiliation of the voters of the area.
Some may consider it a joke but on a very serious note, if after verification of CNICs and CNIC numbers in 93,852 cases, allegation of bogus votes is considered true, only following four scenarios are possible and there exists no other possibility whatsoever;
1- 93,852 CNICs of 93,852 persons were stolen from NA-122 area of Lahore on the morning of May 11, 2013 or before.
2- Exactly 93,852 persons (men as well as women) having similar faces to those whose cards were stolen, in each and every case, appeared in relevant and corresponding polling stations and cast the bogus votes. Their faces were so similar to the original person whose cards were stolen that not even in a single case any presiding officer could recognise them. Not only this, not even a single polling agent of any political party could recognise them on any of the 284 polling stations on May 11, 2013 that they are fake voters and are only carrying original but stolen CNICs.
3- No FIR of stealing of these CNICs was registered.
4- After casting their votes these 93,852 persons quietly placed the stolen CNICs back and thus the process of casting fake votes concluded successfully.
Only those who are making allegations can tell which any other possibility could be there.
Another point being misunderstood is: In TOR#1, total number of used counterfoils having “invalid CNIC” was 6123. TOR#1 further adds that there were mistakes in writing CNIC numbers in case of 2862 and CNIC number was illegible in 3440 cases.
Again the confusion being spread on this count is uncalled for. There are computerized voting lists (CVLs) for every polling station bearing name, father’s name, address, CNIC number and even picture. When a voter enters a polling station, assistant presiding officer announces his name loudly and crosses his name in the CVL after checking his CNIC number and taking his thumb impression. If his CNIC number is wrong and does not match with the one given in CVL, he cannot vote. After this the voter proceeds to the next table where another assistant presiding officer notes down his CNIC number on counterfoil of ballot paper (of national assembly) manually (write down in small boxes with his hands) and also takes his thumb impression. The voter proceed to next counter for provincial assembly.
Now, if a voter is not registered in CVL, which are not only available with the polling staff but also with the polling agents of all political parties, or if polling agents doubt his identity because of their knowledge or difference of appearance from the given picture in CVL, he could not proceed further. Yes, when the next assistant presiding officer notes down his CNIC number manually there are chances of mistakes, as hundreds of thousands of CNIC numbers are to be written in one constituency. There can be following cases:
Invalid CNIC: Assistant presiding officer while noting down CNIC could write one or two digits wrong, which make up a new number, which was not even issued by Nadra and thus was declared invalid CNIC.
Missing Digit(s) in CNIC Number: Polling officer could note down incomplete number and miss one or two digits.
Illegible CNIC number: Polling officer could not write one or multiple digits of CNIC well or visible and whole CNIC number could not be read correctly.
Incorrect entry but from Correct CNIC: It is a possibility but not necessarily true in every case. When a polling officer is noting down a 13-digit CNIC number on counterfoil, he may enter one or more than one digits incorrectly, which is legible, but makes a correct CNIC number which is registered in some other constituency. Some cases described in TOR#10 may fall in this category and not necessarily are outsider voters.
All these scenarios constitute instances that are consequences of human error, which is possible in a few cases anywhere in the world no matter how much care is taken. But one basic fact should not be ignored that only validly registered voters reflected in CVL (which bear pictures) are allowed to move towards second desk where ballot papers are issued after noting down CNIC on counterfoils only after there is no objection from polling agents who also have CVLs. So negligence of inserting invalid CNIC, incomplete CNIC or illegible CNIC do not constitute that there was a fake or bogus vote was cast. It can also be understood from the example of ballot papers, which must be signed and stamped. When in NA-122, a political party demanded that such ballot papers (without signatures and stamps) should be excluded from voting, the votes of the same party decreased by a few numbers. So such small-scale irregularities have no impact but no doubt all efforts should be made to minimise such negligence, though these could never be completely eradicated.
It was also stated by representative of a political party on Monday that if some polling bags were opened, it was a serious issue. However, the whole country cannot be put in a state of turmoil by only entering in some revenue office and disturbing some polling bags. There must be some evidence of rigging or mal-practices in the polling, which can be verified from polling record or bags. But if there was not even a complaint of any irregularity from the polling day, disorder cannot be created merely by stating bad condition of polling bags despite the fact that whole polling material is recovered in 99% cases.
There was only one solid allegation, which if proved, could have established rigging instances. This was regarding printing and use of fake ballot papers during polling process and which were printed in Urdu Bazaar of Lahore. But, Nadra report has established in its forensic report that in 100% cases, not a single ballot paper or counterfoil was found fake or which was not issued by Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).