Alfandika’s sweats profusely in witness stand:  Malawi poll case cross examination hits a nerve

The tell-tale  physical signs when someone is dishonest  includes fidgeting, sweating, or breathing unevenly  and Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) chief elections officer Sam Alfandika had  a sweaty cross-examination in the on going  presidential elections nullification petition hearing at the Constitutional Court in Lilongwe .

During the guerilling cross examination by lawyer Bright Theu, representing first petitioner and UTM Party president Dr Saulos Chilima,  in the witness stand Alfandika was conspicuously sweating profusely.

Theu had to note that Alfnadika, as the first witness of MEC,   needed a cool down.

“Mr Alfandika I want to be fair with you. I see that you are sweating. Are you feeling hot?” asked Theu to  Alfandika who he described as MEC’s corporate secretary..

In response the Alfandika said: “ My lady, my lords, I don’t have a handkerchief. We can carry in until the break time.”

But Judge Mike Tembo  from the five-judge panel also noted that the court room was hot and that the air conditionioner was not helping matters despite tempereatures in Lilongwe being mild.

As the public gallery laughed at Alfandika sweating, judge Tembo said it was not a laughing matter as the court was hot.

“If you are feeling uncomfortable let us know,” the  judge told Alfnadika.

The tpanle of judges which include Hearley Potani, Ivy Kamanga, Dingiswayo Madise and Redson Kapindu adjourned for 15 minutes to allow A;fandika  get “freshened up”.

Theu had taken over cross examination from another Chilima’s lawyer Marshal Chilenga.

Alfandika, is the highest-level official from MEC to testify. After him there will be no one higher, neither the commissioner nor the chairperson of the commission will be called to testify.

He was supposed to be MEC’s star-witness, armed with all the finer details that fringe witnesses, such as Ben Phiri and Bob Chimkango for first respondent President Peter Mutharika, lacked.

From the onset, lawyer Chilenga -in his natural booming voice- seemed inclined to use short-leash questions to good effect.

Here is the first exchange:

Chilenga: Mr Alfandika, can you confirm that you are a mere secretary to the Commission?

Alfandika: That’s correct.

Chilenga: Your task is to do what the Commissioners direct you?

Alfandika: That’s correct.

Chilenga: You are not the one who makes the decisions, is that correct?

Alfandika: That’s correct.

Chilenga: And you’re here to explain the decisions of which you were not part?

Alfandika: That’s correct.

Chilenga: There will be no one higher than you to testify in this court?

Alfandika: That’s correct.

Chilenga: And all the Commissioners are still alive?

Alfandika: That is correct.

Step-by-step Chilenga went on to pick Alfandika’s sworn statement apart. Many of the passages, he proved, were mere opinions rather than fact.

Despite overstating the role of monitors, results were altered in their absence. On this, Alfandika was firm that monitors were present at all stages of the process.

 Here was an interesting exchange:

Chilenga: Are you aware that some presiding officers altered results in the absence of monitors?

Alfandika: I’m not aware. No results could have been changed in the absence of monitors.

Chilenga: Are you aware that statements filed to this court, from your own presiding officers, state that they (presiding officers) altered results in the absence of monitors?

Alfandika: I’m not aware.

Chilenga: Did you read all the statements from presiding officers?

Alfandika: I did not read all the 700 statements.

And although part of  Alfandika’s sworn statement firmly declared that the election was executed in accordance with the law, Chilenga pinned chief elections officer on MEC’s failure to undertake the election in accordance with Section 95, 96 and 98 of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Act.

MEC’s lawyers Tamanda Chokhoto and Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale  rose to object to such line of question, contending that the cross-examination had strayed from what was stated in the witness’s sworn statement. Chilenga countered that all matters of the law were game, since the witness had declared that the elections were conducted in accordance with the law. After a brief deliberation, the court decided to let the line of questioning continue.

Here is another brief exchange on matters of law:

Chilenga: Did you gazette the results as required by law?

Alfandika: My lady, my lords, we published in two newspapers…

Chilenga: Mr. Alfandika, the question is: did you gazette the results?

Alfandika: No.

Chilenga went on to bring up the matter of the audit report, and made the witness read various passages, one of which clearly indicated that the results announced by MEC were not verified by the auditors, and that MEC wrote the auditors to validate them in retrospect.

The MEC ‘corporate secretary’ tried to state, unconvincingly, that the results were audited, despite the audit report itself clearly indicating that they were not.

Alfandika began sweating in court after lawyer Theu pinned him down on a number of issues concerning log books.– Additional reporting by Stanely Kenani

Sharing is caring!