…. complainant to appeal to the high court
The full commission of the ECB upheld the Central Election Dispute Settlement Body’s (CEDSB) decision to not penalise Namgay Tenzin, a cousin of Toebisa gewog’s National Council candidate Dophu Drukpa, for alleged violation of election rules.
The CEDSB on March 29 overturned the decision of the Dzongkhag Dispute Settlement Body of Punakha.
Dechen Thaiye Dorji one of the aspiring NC candidate from the Toebisa gewog lodged a written complaint to the Dzongkhag Dispute Settlement Body against Namgay Tenzin of distributing green nets and lobby votes for Dophu Drukpa on March 9 during the dhamngoi zomdu held on March 7.
The cousin was asked to pay a fine equivalent to 120 days of the national wage rate. The decision was communicated to both the parties on March 16.
Dechen Thaiye Dorji then appealed to the CEDSB which revoked the decision of the dzongkhag.
As per the decision of CEDSB on March 22, Namgay Tenzin was no longer required to pay the fine that was imposed by the Dzongkhag Dispute Settlement Body where he was asked to pay a fine equivalent to 120 days of the national wage for violating the Election Act, rules and regulations and guidelines.
During the dhamngoi zomdu held in Toptokha on March 7, Dophu Drukpa with 379 votes won against Dechen Thaiye Dorji who secured 317 votes.
The decision of the ECB’s full commission states that if the parties are not satisfied with the commission’s judgment, they can appeal to the high court in 10 days after the declaration of the election result.
If parties do not appeal, the commission’s secretary shall enforce its judgment keeping in line with the commission dispute settlement rules and procedure.
Dechen Thaiye Dorji said that the ruling does not satisfy him and that he will file an appeal with the high court.
He has sent copies of the decisions announced by the Dzongkhag Dispute Settlement Committee and CEDSB to the ACC, but today he will also submit a copy of the full commission’s decision.
He said, “I have a lot of faith in the high court.”
