ONE of two candidates competing to succeed Afghan leader Hamid Karzai has threatened to pull out of a UN-supervised audit of a disputed presidential election, undermining a process meant to defuse a standoff between the contenders.
The audit is part of a US-brokered deal between presidential candidates Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, both of whom claim to have won the election designed to mark Afghanistan's first democratic transfer of power.
But Mr Abdullah's chief auditor Fazel Ahmad Manawi said: "The invalidation process is just a joke and there is no intention of throwing out fraudulent votes. If our demands are not accepted by tomorrow morning, we will not continue with this process, and any outcome will have no value to us."
Mr Abdullah led after a first-round vote in April but failed to secure an outright majority.
He trailed behind Mr Ghani in a June run-off, according to preliminary figures, and has since rejected the outcome, claiming widespread vote rigging.
As part of a plan to end the dispute, the Independent Election Commission is meant to throw out ballots deemed fraudulent in an audit of all eight million votes cast.
Tension over the outcome of the vote has raised the spectre of another civil war in Afghanistan after the country was torn apart by years of fighting in the 1990s, which eventually led to the rise to power of the Taliban.
"Whatever consequences are going to follow, we will not be responsible," Mr Manawi said, adding the UN was aware of their complaints but had failed to address them properly.
Afghanistan's Western allies are hoping a new leader will be in place before September 4, when a Nato summit is due to be held in south Wales.
Countries at the summit will weigh how much aid Afghanistan will get after most foreign troops pull out at the end of this year.
A peaceful transfer of power would allow the US and Afghanistan's other Western allies to trumpet a degree of success.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article