MP Angel Slavchev raised serious questions to the Central Election Commission (CEC) and “Information Service“ AD, questioning the transparency and correctness of the processing of election results.
He criticized the way the election process is managed and expressed concerns about the lack of independent control over the activities of the company that processes election data.
Slavchev said that for two years he has been raising the issue of the security of the software used by “Information Service“, which has certified 95 elections, but has never been tested for vulnerabilities or verified. He stressed that despite repeated requests for independent monitoring, such monitoring was not allowed.
The MP expressed concerns about the lack of transparency of “Information Service“, indicating that partial protocols from the Constitutional Court's inspection were published without the permission of the court or the CEC. According to him, this raises questions about the company's procedural discipline and compliance with institutional independence.
Angel Slavchev pointed out that there are serious discrepancies in the communication between the CEC and “Information Service“. On the one hand, the company stated to the CEC that it could not process the data from the Constitutional Court's protocols, since they had been handed over to the prosecutor's office. On the other hand, it later published an official letter claiming that the materials had been returned to the CEC.
“Which of the two is true? If you actually handed over the documents to the prosecutor's office, on what grounds and with what motives did you do so, without informing the CEC? And if you returned them, why did you initially state that you could not perform the calculations?“
He also raised another significant question related to the lack of 780 votes from certain sections, as well as the discrepancies between the data of the various experts from the Constitutional Court. Video recordings from sections show that the ballots were available, but according to official data they were reported as missing.
“Do you intend to explain this obvious problem? Why, in the midst of the critical process of re-entry and verification, did you send a signal to the prosecutor's office, thereby further complicating the work?“
He expressed doubts about the accuracy of the processing of the election results and the objectivity of the “Information Service“ as the main technical operator in the election process. At the end of his speech, he called on the Minister of Electronic Governance to demand the resignation of the executive director of “Information Services“ Mihail Filipov.
“The minister can only do this if it suits him, since until recently Mr. Filipov was his boss.“
Angel Slavchev's speech caused a sharp reaction and gave rise to a tense discussion in the plenary hall. In response, the executive director of “Information Services“ Mihail Filipov stated that the company had not provided the Constitutional Court with any protocols from the prosecutor's office and that all original documents had been submitted to the CEC on March 7.