Amid the sad news of floods, closed schools, dry taps and the resulting wrath of the population which have been jostling for the headlines recently, a short piece of news about the electoral commissioner and the electoral petitions should not be allowed to slip through the cracks. It is too important.

The electoral commissioner, it would seem, has decided to oppose the judgement of the Supreme Court to provide “personal answers” in court about the electoral petition in Constituency no: 15, La Caverne/ Phoenix, where Cader Sayed Hossen is challenging the election of PPS Gilbert Bablee. The commissioner therefore decides to ask for leave to appeal to the Judicial Commission of the Privy Council against this judgement.

Of course, Mr Irfan Rahman, like every citizen of this country, has every right to oppose the interlocutory judgement of the Supreme Court and appeal to the Privy Council if he so wishes. It is not my intention to deny him that constitutional right. But we are not talking about the person and the citizen here. We are talking about Mr Rahman in his capacity as electoral commissioner and the context of his appeal. That is what we should not lose sight of.

By asking Mr Rahman to provide “personal answers”, Judges Benjamin Joseph and Seetohul Toolsee, who are hearing the petition, are essentially asking him to shed light on some facts that he may have knowledge of and which may clarify the rest of the proceedings about the election in no: 15. It is NOT a cross-examination. He is not a suspect. All the judges are saying is: “We need you to tell us what you know about what happened on counting day so we can have more clarity and decide on the electoral petition.”

By refusing to answer that call, Mr Rahman is indirectly refusing to shed light on a very serious issue such as a free and fair election and a whole system he has been paid to manage, safeguard and protect. It is difficult to understand why anyone would do that.

Mr Sayed Hossen’s legal team alleges that there are irregularities on the counted ballot form and allude to the use of the computer room. Mr Rahman’s team says there are no irregularities, that the check carried out last year revealed no errors and they asked the court to throw out the petition. Mr Rahman insists up until today on the use of the computer room for the coming elections. Well, surely, the least we can expect as taxpayers and voters is for him to come and rule out any doubt that may still linger in our minds about this whole issue. Now, just as he is handed a great opportunity by court to do that, he decides to go through the painful and terribly expensive process of the Privy Council to spit on that very opportunity. Why?

In these Weekly pages today, former Supreme Court Judge Vinod Boolell puts the question bluntly: “What is there to conceal if everything on counting day was done according to existing rules and procedures? Is the move for an appeal yet another delaying tactic?”

Unless he decides to take the stand and say what he knows, the delaying tactic and other accusations will dog Mr Rahman for a long time, particularly that Judge Joseph is retiring soon and with that, a whole new process will have to be started anew before another judge; the truth about what might have happened on counting day will as a result be buried forever with the passage of time.

Mr Rahman has had a stellar clear record throughout his career. He has been known as a person of unimpeachable integrity and righteousness – a monument of rectitude. It would pain me tremendously if he had to end his career in doubt and suspicion. A price too high for his silence.