The campaign of Nagam Abuihmaid, a candidate in the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) presidential election, committed several violations of CUSA’s Electoral Code, according to a CUSA decision.
Abuihmaid and her campaign made defamatory and false statements about other candidates, used verbal voter intimidation tactics and gave rewards to students in exchange for votes, according to the decision released by Connor Plante, CUSA’s chief returning officer, on Feb. 6.
The decision describes the multiple complaints as “a very concerning trend and a pattern of this behaviour” and a “deliberate attempt to influence voters based on the falsely presented stances of other candidates.”
Abuihmaid has not been disqualified from the presidential election. Voting for the CUSA president closed at 5 p.m. on Feb. 6, within hours of when the decision was released.
In a statement to the Charlatan, Abuihmaid said she recognizes the complaints made against her campaign and had told her campaign members not do “be doing anything of that sort” both before the campaign and after she learned of the complaints.
“Much of what you describe, from chocolates to comments that made certain people uncomfortable, were the actions of a specific individual who isn’t on my campaign team,” she said. “This person asked for people to vote for me without my supervision, consent or endorsement.”
“I do not condone any of those actions,” she said. “I know of no rumours spread by my campaign or volunteers.”
Defamation and false statements
Four complainants said Abuihmaid and members of her campaign were telling voters that the other two presidential candidates — Sean Joe-Ezigbo and Chas Nuhn — don’t support the Palestinian cause, according to the decision.
The decision found that the statements made by Abuihmaid and her campaign were false, given both candidates’ public-facing campaign platforms and two posts from the group Carleton University 4 Palestine, in which all three candidates were interviewed and expressed “support for combating anti-Palestinian racism on campus and divestment from corporations complicit in the occupation of Palestine.”
“It was noted that these are public posts that all candidates would be aware of,” the decision reads.
The incidents occurred from Jan. 29 through Feb. 4.
According to the decision, one Muslim student said Abuihmaid and her campaign team “created a very uncomfortable environment amongst the Muslim Student community by spreading false rumours about the other candidates and pressuring people to vote a certain way based on their identity.”
The decision said the complainant also suggested that “many other students felt the same way, but were scared to come forward over fear of being outed in their community.”
The decision added Abuihmaid said she apologized to Joe-Ezigbo and addressed the issue with her campaign team.
She added that an individual making false statements was not part of her campaign team, according to the decision.
Because Abuihmaid was seen at the locations where defamatory and false statements were being made, the decision states the evidence makes it “more likely than not to reasonably conclude the candidate likely had at least some knowledge that this was occurring.”
Voter intimidation
According to the decision, Abuihmaid and members of her campaign team approached students with chocolate, and students who responded that they had or would vote for the candidate were given chocolate.
“However, those that responded by indicating they had or would be voting for one of the other two Presidential candidates were not given a chocolate,” the decision said.
These events took place during the evening of Feb. 4 around 5 p.m., the first day of voting.
Her alleged behaviour would violate section 38(3) of the electoral code, which states that “Presidential candidates and their campaign associates shall be allowed to distribute paper-based campaign materials only.”
According to the decision, Abuihmaid said “she did not know the individual who was handing out the chocolate, that they were not part of her campaign team and that after she was made aware of what had occurred, took steps to ensure it was stopped.”
“While it is recognized that the candidate can not possibly have control over the actions of every third-party actor, in this case there is evidence available that reasonably links the individual to the candidate’s campaign,” the decision reads.
While the initial complaint was related to concerns of bribery — which is cause for immediate disqualification — CUSA’s chief returning officer found Abuihmaid’s conduct was “a minor electoral offence of distributing prohibited campaign materials,” that did not rise to the level of bribery.
Plante, CUSA’s chief returning officer, did not reply to a request for comment and clarification regarding why the actions of Abhuihmaid and her campaign did not constitute disqualifiable offences.
Defence and punishment
Due to the report’s decision, Abuihmaid has been given seven demerit points. If a candidate receives 15 demerit points, they are disqualified from the electoral campaign.
This will reduce Abuihmaid’s campaign expense reimbursements by 30 per cent, according to section 74 of the electoral code.
This decision is conditional on Abuihmaid speaking to her campaign team and taking “steps to stop the behaviour referenced in this decision.” If it is found that she failed to do so, she could face “additional and escalating penalties.”
Featured graphic by Sara Mizannojehdehi.
