How could the COI’s Report be classified as ‘useless and substandard’?

Damming the COI Report and its damming findings, it was labelled ‘useless and substandard’ (SN April 30). Among the many reasons gleaned from reading the Report and proffered for this classification, point 4 is somewhat baffling to this layperson, which stated “The COI ignored opinions expressed in society, surveyed and otherwise, of important elements of the elections’.

By this layperson’s reasoning and point of view, the Commissioners, and by extension, the COI, could not reasonably tolerate or allow to be tolerated and accepted or countenance, evidence in the public domain, which was not formally, properly, and according to protocol, presented to it, to be considered in the course of and during the inquiry. This would be tantamount to hearsay, would it not, and would be of no legal standing? Of course the COI was not a court, but its conduct did have certain legalities, did it not? After all, eminent legal persons were in charge of its conduct and proceedings.

Calls were made for witnesses to give evidence, with some being summoned. Those who chose to decline or invoked their right to remain silent had their chance. From the onset the opposition made known its position and what it thought of the COI. The position and labelling are therefore not surprising. The intention of the COI was not to malign anyone but rather to uncover what was generally known. It confirmed there was a ‘shockingly brazen’ attempt to deter the will of the people. How is that ‘useless and substandard’?