FLP voices strong objections to NADRA
The Fiji Labour Party is extremely concerned that the Fiji Elections Office has procured the services of Pakistan’s NADRA to develop its Election Management System.
Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem says that NADRA beat five other companies that had applied for the tender because “NADRA Technologies Limited offered the most competitive pricing." (FT 20/6)
“Surely the most important criteria here should be the security of our data and not necessarily the most competitive offer,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.
“We are definitely disturbed that a company with a serious question mark over its credibility has been contracted by the Elections Office to handle sensitive electoral data,” he said.
There are reports of NADRA officials being arrested and charged by Pakistani authorities for accepting bribes to issue fake IDs and passports. A report by Pakistan’s ISI in 2015 found NADRA officials including some of its top brass involved in helping terrorists get Pakistani IDs.
Mr Saneem brushed aside this critical disclosure by Pakistan’s top intel authority ISI as a “matter that had been poorly researched and blown out of proportion by some”.
FLP is extremely worried that our secured data would be in the hands of such a company.
How can Fiji entrust its election management system to a company with this kind of dubious reputation? The credibility of our election is at stake here.
Secondly our concern should also be the privacy of secured personal information in the hands of a company with such a questionable reputation.”
• NADRA #didnotmeet all the #requirements for the tender as advertised by the Elections Office. The advertisement had required overseas companies to have a local partner at the time of bidding for the tender. NADRA did not have a local partner at the time of bidding. Its tender should have been rejected at the outset. The partnership with GEM (Fiji) Ltd was formed after it won the tender, we are told.
• NADRA has #no #expertise with elections management system. Its expertise is with national identification cards (IDs) and passports. How did it get the contract when it has no expertise or proven record on EMS?
• Did the Elections Office carry out #due #diligence on the company before hiring it?”
• There has been a total #lack of #transparency in the handling of the contract for EMS by the Elections Office.
Why did it not disclose publicly that NADRA had won the tender at the time the decision was made?
People in Fiji only came to know about NADRA’s contract because of a letter by the Supervisor of Elections to the Immigration Department requesting visas for its officials to visit Fiji released on a blog.
• SoE must now disclose publicly who the other bidders were so that we can ascertain why NADRA was awarded the contract
• Why were local companies or even Australian, New Zealand and Indian companies not considered for the contract when they are the ones who have been funding our electoral process?
https://tribune.com.pk/…/revealed-nadra-men-helped-terrori…/
The Fiji Labour Party is extremely concerned that the Fiji Elections Office has procured the services of Pakistan’s NADRA to develop its Election Management System.
Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem says that NADRA beat five other companies that had applied for the tender because “NADRA Technologies Limited offered the most competitive pricing." (FT 20/6)
“Surely the most important criteria here should be the security of our data and not necessarily the most competitive offer,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.
“We are definitely disturbed that a company with a serious question mark over its credibility has been contracted by the Elections Office to handle sensitive electoral data,” he said.
There are reports of NADRA officials being arrested and charged by Pakistani authorities for accepting bribes to issue fake IDs and passports. A report by Pakistan’s ISI in 2015 found NADRA officials including some of its top brass involved in helping terrorists get Pakistani IDs.
Mr Saneem brushed aside this critical disclosure by Pakistan’s top intel authority ISI as a “matter that had been poorly researched and blown out of proportion by some”.
FLP is extremely worried that our secured data would be in the hands of such a company.
How can Fiji entrust its election management system to a company with this kind of dubious reputation? The credibility of our election is at stake here.
Secondly our concern should also be the privacy of secured personal information in the hands of a company with such a questionable reputation.”
• NADRA #didnotmeet all the #requirements for the tender as advertised by the Elections Office. The advertisement had required overseas companies to have a local partner at the time of bidding for the tender. NADRA did not have a local partner at the time of bidding. Its tender should have been rejected at the outset. The partnership with GEM (Fiji) Ltd was formed after it won the tender, we are told.
• NADRA has #no #expertise with elections management system. Its expertise is with national identification cards (IDs) and passports. How did it get the contract when it has no expertise or proven record on EMS?
• Did the Elections Office carry out #due #diligence on the company before hiring it?”
• There has been a total #lack of #transparency in the handling of the contract for EMS by the Elections Office.
Why did it not disclose publicly that NADRA had won the tender at the time the decision was made?
People in Fiji only came to know about NADRA’s contract because of a letter by the Supervisor of Elections to the Immigration Department requesting visas for its officials to visit Fiji released on a blog.
• SoE must now disclose publicly who the other bidders were so that we can ascertain why NADRA was awarded the contract
• Why were local companies or even Australian, New Zealand and Indian companies not considered for the contract when they are the ones who have been funding our electoral process?
https://tribune.com.pk/…/revealed-nadra-men-helped-terrori…/
From the Archives:
Fiji Labour Party: The 2006 general elections were rigged
18th May 2006
The Fiji Labour Party is extremely concerned with the manner in which the 2006 general elections were conducted.
There was clear evidence of electoral rigging of the polls, and before that, to disenfranchise voters through the registration process.
A number of candidates have indicated they will mount legal challenges to the results of several Open seats in the Central Division.
Missing names from registration rolls
Major flaws in voter registration dictated against the conduct of free and fair elections by disenfranchising hundreds of voters who would have voted for the Fiji Labour Party.
The issue of missing names become even more crucial in closely contested seats where Labour lost by as few as 9 votes. Scores of voters at polling stations for these constituencies were turned away when their names could not be found on the rolls even though they carried registration slips.
This is not something we are bringing up now that Labour has lost. We have consistently, right from the time when registration began in September 2005, highlighted serious flaws in the registration process and in the compilation of the electoral rolls.
FLP believes these omissions were deliberate to thwart and frustrate FLP voters.
Irregularities in ballot boxes
The FLP is particularly concerned with the sudden inclusion of 12 unidentified boxes at the verification process of ballot papers for the Naitasiri/Nausori Open constituency. This matter will be taken to court.
Record number of Invalid Votes
“How to Vote” ads put out by the Elections Office in Hindi telling voters that they could tick above the line or below the line, has contributed substantially to the high number of invalid votes.
This was clearly wrong and a deliberate attempt by the Elections Office to mislead the Indian voter. The result of this misinformation is reflected in the record number of invalid votes – put at close to 30,000 for this election.
These TV ads were not withdrawn despite our protests until the very eve of the general election.
The Elections office also put out ads misinforming the Indian voter that they could register until July 2006.
All this make the Elections Office a part of conspiracy to misinform and disenfranchise the Indian voter.
Fiji Labour Party: The 2006 general elections were rigged
18th May 2006
The Fiji Labour Party is extremely concerned with the manner in which the 2006 general elections were conducted.
There was clear evidence of electoral rigging of the polls, and before that, to disenfranchise voters through the registration process.
A number of candidates have indicated they will mount legal challenges to the results of several Open seats in the Central Division.
Missing names from registration rolls
Major flaws in voter registration dictated against the conduct of free and fair elections by disenfranchising hundreds of voters who would have voted for the Fiji Labour Party.
The issue of missing names become even more crucial in closely contested seats where Labour lost by as few as 9 votes. Scores of voters at polling stations for these constituencies were turned away when their names could not be found on the rolls even though they carried registration slips.
This is not something we are bringing up now that Labour has lost. We have consistently, right from the time when registration began in September 2005, highlighted serious flaws in the registration process and in the compilation of the electoral rolls.
FLP believes these omissions were deliberate to thwart and frustrate FLP voters.
Irregularities in ballot boxes
The FLP is particularly concerned with the sudden inclusion of 12 unidentified boxes at the verification process of ballot papers for the Naitasiri/Nausori Open constituency. This matter will be taken to court.
Record number of Invalid Votes
“How to Vote” ads put out by the Elections Office in Hindi telling voters that they could tick above the line or below the line, has contributed substantially to the high number of invalid votes.
This was clearly wrong and a deliberate attempt by the Elections Office to mislead the Indian voter. The result of this misinformation is reflected in the record number of invalid votes – put at close to 30,000 for this election.
These TV ads were not withdrawn despite our protests until the very eve of the general election.
The Elections office also put out ads misinforming the Indian voter that they could register until July 2006.
All this make the Elections Office a part of conspiracy to misinform and disenfranchise the Indian voter.
