The Editor, Sir:

In two editions of your newspaper dated, Wednesday October 10, and Friday, October 12, there is significant inaccuracy in the reporting of the status of the magisterial recount for Eastern Hanover.

The report stated: 'The RM (Resident Magistrate) had rejected the ballots because the signature of the presiding officer was absent.'

That is inaccurate.

The fact is the Resident Magistrate had ruled that certain ballots that did not have the printed marks required by law be rejected. The printed marks required by law are: Constituency Name; Polling Division number; Space for the Presiding Officer's signature.

In the absence of these marks there is nothing on the ballot to indicate that it was supplied by the Presiding Officer, or that it came from the specific polling division in the particular constituency.

I am, etc.,

Dr. D.K. DUNCAN