THE Opposition UNC has made good on its threat of legal action against the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) over the second recount of votes in Arima Northeast, which gave the district to the PNM.

Attorneys for UNC candidate Jairzinho Domingo Gustav Rigsby filed the election petition on Friday. It comes up for hearing on Tuesday before Justice Frank Seepersad at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, Port of Spain.

Rigsby, a part-time lecturer, was the UNC’s candidate for the district in the August 14 local government elections.

On election night, a tally of the votes saw the UNC and the People’s National Movement receiving 623 votes each.

On August 15, the UNC requested a recount, which led to the opposition party receiving one more vote.

The EBC then accepted a request from the PNM for a check of that recount.

It issued a statement on August 24 that the PNM candidate, Kim Magdalene Garcia, was found to have received two additional votes when that check was done.

It said, "This result overturns the outcome of the recount, which was conducted during the period August 16-17, 2023 and saw the UNC candidate Jairzinho Domingo Gustav Rigsby being declared the winner."

The second recount gave the PNM 625 votes and the UNC 624.

It is these two votes that Rigsby is contending came from questionable ballots and should not have been allowed, deemed valid or counted in Garcia’s favour.

In support of his petition, Rigsby said, “I believe that were it not for these blatant irregularities, I would have been the candidate with the highest number of votes cast and hence...declared the successful winner.”

He said the two impugned ballots should be struck out and declared null and void by the court, which he says would have a material effect or change the election result.

He also contends that a fresh election should be held for the district.

In his petition, Rigsby has asked the court to scrutinise and review what he considers the two questionable ballots.

In setting out the complaint, the petition said at the end of the first count on August 14, there was a tie between himself and Garcia, with both receiving 623 votes.

At the end of the recount, he received one additional vote and was declared the winner.

However, the petition said a review of the results to scrutinise the “questionable ballots” – which were marked “Q,” as provided for under election rule 101(7) – two additional ballots, which had previously been rejected, were counted and deemed valid in Garcia’s favour, leading to her being declared the successful candidate.

The petition says the first disputed ballot came from polling division 2015, box number 2024.

This ballot paper contained two “X marks, with one next to Garcia’s name and the other, on the reverse side of the ballot, visibly within the box next to Rigsby’s name.

It was contended that the voter's intention was unclear and the ballot could not be attributed to either candidate.The use of the two X marks, if anything, suggests an intention to spoil the ballot and should