Page 83 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

above; Article 163 which, among other things, provides that: “In their absence, Board
members shall be replaced by their alternates (i.e., Dormoi by Fernández); and lastly,
Article 131, which provides that officials appointed by the Electoral Tribunal to serve
in electoral bodies must be fair and impartial, for Tejeira did not stand for a “guarantee
of impartiality”.

A senior partner in a law firm well known for its support of the regime from
its inception, Tejeira was also a known member of the Independent Democratic
Movement (MIDE), a pseudo political organization established on January 8, 1984,
that immediately came out strongly in support of Barletta’s candidacy. MIDE’s support
for Barletta was made public on February 19. Tejeira had also been the chief private
prosecutor for former President Royo, his former law office partner, in the lawsuit for
slander Royo filed against La Prensa in 1981.

It is obvious, therefore, that Tejeira was not only an open supporter of Barletta
but also an open supporter of the government Panama has known over the past 16 years.
Despite opposition protests, this was the man the Electoral Tribunal appointed to
illegally replace Dormoi.

The National Returns Board held six days of proceedings. It was convened on
Sunday, May 6, at two o’clock in the afternoon, and it abruptly adjourned its session
Friday at three o’clock p.m. without much to show for its work. During these six days,
it only studied five of the 39 circuit returns tally sheets that were brought before it. The
circuit tally sheet for the San Miguelito district, one of the forty circuits in which the
country is divided for electoral purposes, was submitted blank because the vote of the
entire circuit had been challenged. It is important to emphasize that the National
Returns Board only studied five circuit tally sheets. Nonetheless, pro-government
media, offices of the National Returns Board itself, and the Board’s own final
resolution irresponsibly refer to “39 tally sheets that were studied”.
The letter written by Fernández and Gadeloff, mentioned above, includes a
summary of the most important events that took place at this body. Below is a literal
transcript of this version, given not by two ADO members but by two officials of the
Electoral Tribunal at the National Returns Board, the only officials, in addition to
Dormoi, who were really fair and impartial:

“3. It was the consensus of party representatives, after Tuesday,

May 8, to continue reading [circuit] tally sheets as they arrived in
the premises, so that, after reading them, the results shown
therein might be reviewed and checked, following the auditors’
calculations.

4. The figures that for so many days appeared on the bulletin

board referred only to five circuit tally sheets that were
studied, the first five to be received at the National Returns
Board. They were studied because there were no tally sheets
waiting to be read.