Page 85 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

The obvious deduction is that the National Returns Board was partial towards
Barletta. Fernández and Gadeloff leave no room for doubt: only five tally sheets were
reviewed; opposition representatives were precluded from speaking freely while pro-
government representatives were able to speak at length; the final resolution refers to
39 tally sheets reviewed, etc. It was all a huge farce; the law and the Electoral Code
were inoperative; the people’s will be a romantic and irrelevant concept. The orders
were to make Barletta president; the rest did not matter.

And Barletta would later say that he won fair and square!

Finally, the National Returns Board pronounced itself incapable of continuing
its work and forwarded to the Electoral Tribunal the results of the five circuit tally
sheets that had in fact been reviewed and of 34 others that had only been read. Yet, the
resolution forwarding these documents to the Tribunal duplicitously refers to all 39
tally sheets as if they had been studied. No wonder ADO representatives refused to sign
this regrettable document!

What were the results shown in those 39 circuits tally sheets forwarded to the
Electoral Tribunal?

Arnulfo Arias Madrid 265,895

Nicolás Ardito Barletta 275,426 (a 9,531 vote lead)

It was a foregone conclusion that these figures would favor Barletta. It should
be recalled that the reason for the pro-government strategy of massive and arbitrary
challenges was precisely that circuit tally sheets would be received at the National
Returns Board minus thousands of votes cast for ADO parties. The strategy was paying
off. Pro-government media, UNADE leaders and anyone else interested in distorting
reality had only to quote the doctored results submitted by the National Returns Board
as if they were accurate. This helped manipulate national and world public opinion and
create the image of a non-existent victory. Even the Electoral Tribunal presiding judge,
Quintero, condemned the practice in an interview published by La Estrella de Panamá
on May 10, page A16. “Referring to media headlines showing unofficial returns, Dr.
Quintero called this practice ‘wholly reprehensible’. He said those were alarmist
headlines seeking to inflame passions. ‘It is not only a counterproductive practice, but
also deeply harmful”, Quintero concluded.

Let us return now to what happened at the National Returns Board.