Questions remain regarding the loss of her parliamentary seat by Anastasia Anthousi, former Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and DISY parliamentary candidate, despite the fact that she decided to withdraw her petition before the Electoral Court to open the ballot box in Nikitari and recount the votes.
SEE ALSO: Anastasia Anthousi Withdrew Her Appeal to the Electoral Court
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
In a written statement, she emphasizes that “More than three months after I filed my appeal with the Electoral Court over an ‘error’ of five votes that triggered a chain reaction of changes in the allocation of four seats across four provinces, I am forced to withdraw it.”
Read the rest of the statement:
“However, I must explain why I made this decision, given that I received absolutely no convincing explanation for the ‘error.’ My appeal sought a recount of a specific ballot box. This is the only reliable way to answer the question of whether a a “mistake,” which, curiously, was identified only after the election representatives—who had confirmed the initial result in writing—had already left the polling station in question.
I would like to remind you that, nearly two hours after the unofficial announcement of 100% of the results, five votes were transferred from ELAM to EDEK in the Nicosia district. This inexplicable shift triggered a chain reaction of seat realignments across four districts, affecting candidates from different parties.
The official explanation was that this was a “correction of an error” at the Nikitari polling station. That is why I asked for the obvious: that the 307 ballots be recounted in the presence of witnesses. The ballot box exists. The ballots exist. The answers are there. But instead of striving for complete transparency, the state chose to oppose the request for a recount. And this, to me, is precisely where the most serious institutional issue lies.
Who identified the alleged error? When was it identified, and how? Who gave instructions to correct it? Who was present when the recount took place? Why was the change made at 10:58 p.m., even though the initial result had been recorded at 7:07 p.m. and the election representatives who had signed it had since left?
And furthermore: how can it be explained that, precisely during this specific procedure, the digital application—through which the corrected result was supposed to be sent—experienced a technical problem, while the fax that was allegedly sent afterward “went missing”? I’m not claiming to know the answers. Logically, the state has the answers. Why, then, must a citizen turn to the Electoral Court, shoulder personal, legal, and financial costs, and, ultimately, be called upon to prove what happened themselves, in order to receive answers regarding events related to a process conducted and supervised by the state itself? That is why I am withdrawing my appeal. However, I am not withdrawing a single one of the questions. Safeguarding the election results cannot be a personal battle for those who seek transparency. It should first and foremost be the responsibility of the institutions in charge of the elections. Transparency does not undermine institutions. It strengthens them. What undermines them are the coincidences, the gaps, and the legitimate questions that remain unanswered.”
