Ex-Union Treasurer Krishna Omkar has had his membership of the Society suspended for three terms following an election tribunal that took place on Saturday and Sunday last week.
The tribunal was called after Omkar accused eight Union members, including an ex-President, the incoming President and the President Elect, of having violated Rule 33 of the Society’s rulebook which states that candidates must run independently and without systematic solicitation of votes.
“President Elect and ex-President accused”
The first charge was brought against ex-Librarian Leo Marcus Wan, Librarian Tom Hartley, Treasurer-Elect Nouri Verghese and Secretary Anna Williams who were accused of forming a slate in the Michaelmas Term elections.
Omkar also accused President Elect Corey Dixon and ex-Standing Committee member Stuart Cullen and stated that ex-President Luke Tryl had helped them by soliciting votes.
Union President Charlie Holt was also accused of ‘lining’ for candidates running on Friday of seventh week.
All of the above defendants were found innocent of the charges. The panel concluded that Omkar’s allegations against Tryl had been brought forward on “unfounded and malicious” grounds.
However, the candidate for Secretary’s Committee, Balliol PPEist Kanishka Narayan, was disqualified after being found guilty of electronic campaigning.
The Secretary’s Committee election will now be recounted.
“Evidence might have been obtained illegally”
Omkar had obtained evidence of an email conversation between Anna Williams and Nouri Verghase where the elections were discussed, but it was rejected by the tribunal on the grounds that it might have been obtained illegally.
The tribunal made no suggestion that it was Omkar himself who had illegally obtained the evidence.
Returning Officer Oliver Linch stated that the panel felt it to be an issue of “natural justice”, that it would “set a bad precedent” and might have a negative impact on future Union elections.
However, Omkar has attacked the panel for refusing to acknowledge “substantial and crucial evidence of a flagrant and open breach of the rules.”
He added, “this tribunal’s proceedings unfortunately only served to re-establish my belief that this is a Society which maintains one set of rules for certain individuals and another set of rules for others.”
He argued that he was found guilty of electoral malpractice following the elections of Michaelmas 2007, in which he was elected president, on the basis of “an email from an unidentified source”.
“Cullen claims to have been drunk”
It was thought that Cullen would be found guilty because Omkar had record of a facebook exchange between the two where they discussed the Michaelmas elections.
However, Cullen was able to successfully cast doubt as to whether the exchange accurately reflected the situation, claiming to have been drunk when the conversation took place.
One ex-Standing Committee member has said that the verdict of the tribunal was “against expectations”, whilst defendant Leo Marcus Wan suggested that Omkar had been “perfectly reasonable” in bringing the charges.
“He thought what had happened to him was unfair, and that everyone should be held to the same standard, which is perfectly reasonable”.
However, Tryl stated that Omkar “deserved to have his membership suspended”, adding “I don’t think that tribunals should be used as a political tool”.
“Assaulted by Union members”
Omkar has also made allegations that he was accosted outside the Union buildings on his way to make his complaint. He claimed to have been verbally assaulted by Holt, Williams, Verghese and Tryl.
He said, “Mr Holt pushed me out onto the street, I was surrounded by and verbally abused by the others, Mr Tryl calling me a ‘stupid bastard’, and threatening to call the police (eventually summoning the Union security guard on duty to threaten me further) if I attempted to submit my complaint.”
Holt has denied this claim, stating that “It is categorically untrue; it is also a reverse of the fact” adding that Omkar is banned from the Union buildings.
“Security escorted him out, we didn’t verbally abuse him, in fact quite the opposite; he got quite aggressive.”
Krishna Omkar now has 48 hours to appeal against the verdict of the tribunal. However Leo Marcus Wan has said, “I don’t think he would have a chance of being successful”.
It has been suggested that Omkar’s case may have been affected by the fact that he did not return to the tribunal after it broke for lunch.
Members present at the tribunal have suggested that he neglected to go back because he felt the tribunal would not go his way.
