Attorney General (AG), Kalekeni Kaphale, Thursday demanded proof of legal instruments in support of the amplified and analysed evidence of the third Malawi Congress Party (MCP) witness, Peter Lackson, in the election case.
Kaphale’s cross-examination of Lackson centred on the analysis made on the use of duplicates, counterfeit forms and alterations among others.
The AG is representing Malawi Electoral Commission (Mec) in the election case.
“You haven’t gone beyond mere identification of forms. You haven’t identified a law that prevents alterations,” Kaphale said.
Lackson told the court that despite questioning the legitimacy of manually altered forms, there is no law that prevents alterations but there are conditions and procedures
In supplementary sworn statement, Kaphale said while Lackson’s claims that Mec used fake forms which affected 84,000 votes, a statement that pushed Kaphale further to demand a law that prescribes the legitimate form as well as rules and procedures identified.
“I was advised that issues of law are not necessary to exhibit,” he said
He agreed that the analysis of their finding was not subjected to verification to check the validity of votes on the forms where alterations were made.
Later, Kaphale accused the MCP’s data entry supervisor of deliberately referring to ballot papers than valid votes when analysing the impact, the use of fake sheets and duplicates altered on the election.
“The number of ballots does not translate into the number of votes. This is why you found it necessary to remove the votes and replace it with a ballot paper,” he said
Lackson dismissed the proposition.
The court adjourned yesterday with Kaphale assigning the witness with data verification that will facilitate today’s continuation of cross -examination
The witness, however, complained of overwhelming assignment to complete overnight which he said will be unrealistic.
Lawyer for Chakwera Mordecai Msisha also corroborated with the witness arguing that the witness is to take to the box to answer what he has provided before the court.
But Kaphale insisted the need for the witness to look into the assignments as they are also vital to their defence.