RESPONSE FROM THE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY TO THE
PRESS CONFERENCE BY INNOLINK PRINTING PRESS ON THE SECURITY BREACH IN THE
BALLOT PRINTING.
We have taken note of a press conference organized by
the Innolink Printing House on the incident of an alleged security breach which
occurred on Monday 21st November 2016, in which a senior staff of the Innolink
Printing house handed over a production plate to an unknown man.It still
remains a fact that Mr. Martin Anderson (Production Manager of Innolink) handed
over the said plate to someone and this has not been denied by the Printing
house. We believe the manner in which this was done amounts to a security
breach.
The explanation is that the plate was prepared by Innolink for
Aerovote, another security printing firm which is in charge of printing the
Statement of Poll and Results Declaration Forms, otherwise known as the Pink
Sheets.
This is most worrying because Aerovote is supposed to be an A1
security printing house, awarded the contract to print arguably the most
sensitive document in the entire election process, the Pink Sheets. If such a
firm does not have the capacity to make or fix its own printing plates but to
rely on another firm then we consider this as a fundamental breach which
compromises the integrity of the entire work that it is doing. It is this same
Aerovote that, through a subcontract in 2012, was given the very odd task to
print duplicated serial numbers on duplicate pink sheets for the 2012
presidential elections. This ended up at the Supreme Court with evidence that
Pink Sheets were replaced with new results before collation took
place.
We, therefore, do not take this matter lightly at all and believe
should be one of grave concern to the Electoral Commission requiring an IPAC
meeting.
Below is our report on the matter:
1. When Political Party
agents reported at that printing press on the 3rd of November 2016 to begin the
Printing, the rule spelt out to them was that there was to be no other printing
or activity during the period apart from the printing of Parliamentary and
Presidential ballot papers.
2. At no point were the agents present at the
Printing House made aware of a printing plate leaving Innolink. It was all being
done on the blindside of the agents. It took the extra vigilance of our agents
to detect that a plate had been handed out to an unknown person. Were the BNI
agents and Police representatives aware of this?
3. For the avoidance of
doubt, our agents are there to observe and report to us anything necessary,
especially so when they feel suspicious of a particular activity. They certainly
could not have glossed over seeing a security printing plate being taken out of
the printing house during the period of printing ballot papers. In fact this was
after all the ballots had been printed but yet to be totally distributed and
accounted for before the plates used could be destroyed and in the presence of
all party agents.
4. When the matter was brought to the party’s
attention, the NPP Director of Elections inquired from the production manager of
Innolink exactly what had been given out by him. He was unable to tell exactly
what he had handed out to the man until after about ten minutes. According to
the owner of Innolink he was only informed about the claim that Innolink was
working on a plate for Aerovote only after our agents raised the alarm. In fact
Mr Andersson, (the production manager) had to end the phone call with our
Director of Elections abruptly and without being able to explain what the plate
was and had to call back later with an answer to what it really was. Is it at
this point that he realized that what he gave out was a plate from Aerovote?
Luckily, both phone conversations were recorded and we are happy to release this
for the general public to make up their own minds.
5. We find point seven
(7) of the Innolink stated facts inconsistent with paragraph five (5) of their
statement. Whereas in the fifth paragraph Innolink alludes to the Director of
Election’s allegation of one of their officers handing over what looks like the
plate of a Presidential Ballot paper to an unknown man, the company has turned
around to claim the representatives of the NPP in a meeting denied ever telling
the Director of Elections that the plate sent out was Presidential Ballot Plate.
At least nobody has stated categorically so and hence the request for the matter
to be investigated and the full facts established. We will happily hand over the
recordings we have.
6. You, Innolink, have again claimed within media
circles that the NPP through its agents apologized over this issue. Again this
is false. Our agents completely deny this. In any case how could agents
apologize on behalf of the party for a matter that has been taken up on the
national level?
AEROVOTE
As a security printing company, the
situation demands that you have everything under your care and control. It is
very worrying to learn that the printing plate of a document as sensitive as the
Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results could be sent over the internet
with all the associated risks of compromise. Are there any other possible
destinations?
We are even not too sure the claim that the plate given out
was not a ballot plate is true because we have not been shown anything
otherwise. The Police is yet to tell us anything they have done.
We
maintain that this incident has compromised the printing of either one or two of
the most sensitive materials for the elections, ballot papers and Pink Sheets.
We demand a full and early investigation into this matter . We will not sit
unconcerned for the kind of irregularities that took place in 2012 to be
repeated. The peace and credibility of our democracy are very important to
us.
…Signed…
Martin Adjei- Mensah Korsah
( Director of
Elections) |
