DUCSU election: Controversy over ballot papers printed in Nilkhet, candidates demand clarity

Since the results of the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union (DUCSU) elections were announced, some candidates have been alleging that the ballot papers were printed without security at Nilkhet.

In response, the university administration stated that the way the ballots were printed could not have been possible at any shop in Nilkhet. However, this statement from the administration has not quelled the controversy, which is being widely discussed on social media for several days.

In this situation, a group of students, many affiliated with the politics of the Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, staged a protest in front of the vice-chancellor’s residence on campus Thursday night, alleging rigging in the DUCSU election.

Earlier on 22 September, candidates from the Chhatra Dal panel contesting the DUCSU elections held a press conference at Madhur Canteen, raising 11 allegations, including the discovery of a large number of unsecured ballot papers at a Nilkhet printing press.

They claimed that the printing press at Gausul Azam Market in Nilkhet, where the ballots were printed, operated without any supervision from the Dhaka University administration.

A report by the private television channel News24 on Thursday stated that 96,000 ballots for the DUCSU election were printed at Jalal Printing Press in Gausul Azam Market of Nilkhet. Another shop in the same market, Makka Paper Cutting House, cut 88,000 ballots to the specified size. The report also noted a discrepancy of 8,000 ballots.

The report included a video interview with the owner of Jalal Printing Press, Md Jalal, who claimed he received the job of printing the ballots from a person named Ferdous Wahid and printed around 96,000 ballots over three days.

The Dhaka University correspondent of Prothom Alo visited Jalal Printing Press in Gausul Azam Market yesterday, Friday around 11:00 am, but the press was closed. When revisiting in the evening, owner Md Jalal was found but he was unwilling to provide further details about the ballot printing, saying only, “Ask the university about these matters, not me.”

The DUCSU and hall union elections were held on 9 September, with 39,874 voters. In the DUCSU election, the ‘Oikyoboddho Shikkharthi Jote’ panel, backed by Islami Chhatra Shibir, won 23 out of 28 posts.

The entire election process, from campaigning to voting and announcing results, was peaceful. However, after voting concluded, several candidates raised allegations of irregularities. The issue of unsecured ballot printing came to light after the elected DUCSU members assumed office.

Regarding this Abdul Kader, vice-president (VP) candidate from the ‘Boishommobirodhi Shikkharthi Sangsad’ panel, told Prothom Alo Friday, “The administration denies that ballot papers were printed at Gausul Azam Market. But now we are hearing that the ballots were printed there. We expect a prompt response from the university administration on this matter.”

Two days after the DUCSU election, on 11 September, nine polling agents submitted a written complaint to the chief returning officer. Their allegations included the presence of pre-marked ballot papers and fake voters at polling centres, as well as obstruction of polling agents in carrying out their duties.

In addition, ‘Swatantra Shikkharthi Oikyo’ panel’s VP candidate Umama Fatema on 15 September applied for the DUCSU ballots to be recounted manually.

Umama Fatema told Prothom Alo that raising questions about sensitive processes such as ballot printing and counting inevitably creates doubts about the professionalism of the administration in managing the overall election. She said the doubts surrounding the election should be resolved.

Meanwhile, Chhatra Dal backed VP candidate Abidul Islam Khan said that if questions linger about the transparency of the election, it would set a bad precedent in history. He further raised the question of what proof exists that the ballots printed at Gausul Azam Super Market were not handed over to a particular panel.

On 16 September, Arafat Chowdhury, who contested as an independent candidate for the post of general secretary (GS), first raised the allegation on Facebook that the ballots of DUCSU election had been printed completely unsecured at Gausul Azam Super Market in Nilkhet and that these ballots carried no serial numbers.

He also submitted a written complaint to the chief returning officer on the matter. Arafat had received 4,044 votes in the GS race.

After Arafat, Khairul Ahsan (Marjan), GS candidate from the Islami Chhatra Andolan-backed Sachetan Shikkharthi Sangsad, also spoke out about the unsecured ballot printing in Nilkhet.

As questions were raised over the unsecured printing of ballots and controversy grew, Dhaka University authorities issued a statement on 24 September saying, “The OMR machine used to scan and print the ballots cannot be operated at any shop in Nilkhet. Therefore, the printing process, carried out with full confidentiality, left no scope for the ballots to be unsecured.”

“Moreover, before, during, or after the election, or during ballot counting, none of the polling agents, observers, or journalists raised such complaints. The university authorities therefore do not believe there is any basis to the allegations made about ballot printing two weeks after the election,” the statement added.

However, as the debate continued, another statement was issued by the DUCSU chief returning officer, Mohammad Jasim Uddin on 25 September saying that the allegations regarding the ballots were being reviewed and investigated with utmost seriousness by the election commission. He added that a detailed response would soon be provided at a press conference.

Before the ballot controversy emerged, the newly elected DUCSU leaders had taken office on 14 September and have already begun their work.

Commenting on the Nilkhet ballot controversy, DUCSU general secretary SM Farhad told Prothom Alo Friday, “Questions should be specific about whether there were any flaws in the different electoral processes. During voting and counting, agents form every panel, journalists, and teachers were all present. Teachers from the White Panel (BNP-leaning teachers’ group) and members of the Teachers’ Network were also there as observers.”

“If there were flaws, they could have spoken out. If there are genuine questions, the administration should address them. But if, instead of raising direct questions, attempts are made to undermine students’ opinions in various ways, we will regard this as a deliberate conspiracy,” he added.