A sample of one of the signatures on the voters' list which also appeared in the UPP petition. Left photo: The Edwards signature as it appeared on the UPP petition and at right as it appeared on Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ) documents. Right photo: At left Hollingworth as appeared on the UPP petition and at right as it appeared on EOJ documents.- NORMAN GRINDLEY/Staff Photographer

The following are excerpts of a statement issued by the United People's Party (UPP).

THE UNITED People's Party (UPP) has, over a period of 11 months, collected 51,132 signatures in its bid to seek recognition from the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) for the purposes of appointing scrutineers. These signatures were collected on forms that read, "We support the United People's Party in its bid to have EOJ support to contest the next general elections". This form was rejected, out of hand, by the EAC, saying that it was not in the form of a petition and as such, they would not consider our application. At no time did the EAC provide a specific wording to the United People's Party for this petition.

Upon the rejection of this petition, the UPP prepared a document which read, "Whereas it was explained to every signatory of the documents attached that one of the purposes for signing the document headed, 'I agree that the UPP should have the support of the EOJ in their bid to contest the next general elections' was to enable the UPP to have the right to appoint scrutineers for the voter registration process as well as the right to access the 25 motor vehicles promised by the Cabinet of the Government of Jamaica.

The EAC called a meeting with the UPP and reiterated that they required a new petition as the signatories to the old document could not have meant to support us getting scrutineers as required by law.

We think that this argument is disingenuous, as the only support available from the EAC to political parties is for the training of scrutineers as well as their involvement in the process of the registration of voters.

However, the UPP wishes to bring to the attention of the public that in a letter dated August 21, 2002, we were told that the only outstanding issue for the recognition of the UPP was the petition that they were dissatisfied with. We were, therefore, amazed that on the agenda of the meeting of September 17, 2002, there appeared issues that we were told in the letter of the August 21, 2002, were settled. Items (iv) and (v) on the agenda were about clarification of the UPP constitution and clarification re: the UPP's annual election of officers.

This speaks to a continued attempt to thwart the party's bid for recognition. In the meeting of the September 17, 2002, the selected members of the EAC as well as the Director of Elections, raised concerns about 201 of the 1,050 forms presented and indicated to us that they had called in a handwriting expert. To date, the EOJ uses language such as fraud and, despite the allegations, have in a most unprofessional way, failed to produce any evidence, either in the form of bringing to our attention the documents complained of or telling us the name and credentials of the handwriting expert or his/her methodology or, indeed, presented to us a report indicating that what they are saying is supported by some evidential base.

Short of accepting their position as unquestionable and sacred, we would have thought that they would know that making allegations such as these would require some proof or some attempt at proof. They know as well as all who are aware of handwriting analysis that this is not a science and that the credentials of the expert would be of crucial importance, as well as the need to give us an opportunity if we so wish, to have a handwriting expert of our own to take a look at the documents of which they are complaining.

We think it is outrageous, unfair and unconstitutional to make allegations and to produce no prima facie evidence that their contentions have any basis and therefore, providing us no opportunity to defend ourselves.