It is with reluctance that we return to the subject matter of the INF elections for President, which was so catastrophically managed last November. The mis-management was beyond words to describe then and it continues as we head towards the re-run of the Presidential election on July 22nd.
In May, the INF issued an Excerpt from an EC meeting that concluded that both Armand Javier and Greg Sarow, two of the candidates in the re-run election were inadmissible, leaving just one: Sieglinde Ivo. The worrying point is who signed the document; Sieglinde Ivo and Jean Peters. In the last 48-hours the following was issued to all member federations from Gregers Moller, and we don’t need to add anything ourselves.
As member of the Central Committee [CC] of the INF-FNI in the position as non-EU assessor, I ask you to please regard the letter sent to you around six hours ago today, 22 June 2017, as invalid.
Declaring two of the three candidates for the re-opened presidential elections inadmissible is not a decision reached by the Central Committee. The letter refers to an EC meeting but EC meetings are reserved for day-to-day matters and not matters of this magnitude.
Furthermore, one of the EC members is not an elected President, but a caretaker President and also a candidate in the very same election. As CC member I would not have allowed her to be involved in decisions regarding her own candidacy or that of her contestants if we had been asked to discussed this in the Central Committee.
As caretaker president and candidate in the election it violates every democratic principle that I stand for in the CC that she should be able to declare her opposition for invalid and announce herself as the only admissible candidate. The legal council should in my opinion also have advised strongly against allowing this to happen.
I suggest that the federations simply ignore this email. Instead this letter and the previous email should be made a subject for discussion among the Federations at the upcoming meeting in Vienna. The federations should not forget that when they are meeting they constitute the highest authority of the INF-FNI.
Apart from the clear conflict of interest, it also leads us to question the impartiality of the Legal Committee. We ask, if you are a member of a member federation to press your national representative organisation to comply Mr Moller’s advice.
But even in the worst of situations humour can be found: