Councillor Timo Zandvliet lodged a formal objection about the above. He wrote that at least seven witnesses have confirmed that Liberi party leader, Nawin Ramcharan, had offered the chocolates to students in exchange for their votes. EM has seen the WhatsApp chat with one of the witnesses.
'No-one was bribed'
Ramcharan has denied the allegations. His response: “I did not bribe anyone. I gave students chocolate to thank them for voting. Voting for me was never a condition and they didn’t know they were going to be given anything either.” Ramcharan was taking part in the elections for the third time. He has consistently secured about 300 votes before and did the same this year. He says this proves that the Kinder Buenos didn’t gain him any extra votes. He comments as follows about the seven witnesses: “Who’s to say they’re not some of the many supporters of OUR Erasmus – Zandvliet’s party?” Ramcharan was not heard during the objection proceedings and was not aware of the objection or of the Executive Board’s ruling until he was called by EM.
Zandvliet worked out how many votes would have been needed to influence the election results. If Ramcharan’s party had exchanged a minimum of 156 bars of chocolates for 156 votes, Liberi Erasmi might have won an extra seat. Zandvliet calculated that this would have required seven packets of Kinder Bueno Minis. In his mind, this would not have been impossible, which is why he demanded new student elections.
'No evidence of any significant impact'
The Executive Board said that Liberi’s activities were “improper” but does not want to organise new elections, mainly for practical reasons. This would not be possible until October at the earliest, which means students on the University Council would not be “adequately equipped” to do their duties until January 2025, the Executive Board writes. This would make it more difficult for the University Council to function at a time when important dossiers are being discussed. The Executive Board sees “no evidence of any significant impact” on the election results either. According to the Central Election Office, which organises the elections, the result would only have been different if 285 of all the ‘bought’ voters had voted differently for one other party. It is unclear to Zandvliet why the Central Election Office’s figures are not the same as his.
Zandvliet is very disappointed with the Executive Board’s argument that it is too late to organise new elections now. For two reasons: he believes new elections could actually be organised faster and, in his opinion, the delay is largely due to the slow handling of his objection. “When first notified of the vote-buying situation, the Central Election Office did not take the situation seriously. This was responsible for the current time pressure, which is being used as an argument for not organising new elections”, he wrote to the Executive Board in response.
The Council of State
Zandvliet hopes that measures will still be taken. This could include invalidating the votes cast for Liberi up to the date on which the bribery was established. “Any measures taken might not change the final outcome of the elections, but it would send a strong message that bribery will not be tolerated and discourage anyone from doing the same thing again.” He is considering taking his case to the Council of State in a bid to have sanctions enforced against Liberi.
