Thursday, January 31, 2013

Akoto Osei, Anane at Court of Appeal

January 31, 2013 (Front page) THE Court of Appeal on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, gave a former Minister of State, Dr Anthony Akoto Osei, 21 days to file written submissions on his appeal challenging the refusal of the Fast Track High Court to refer a matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. A second contestant to the decision of the Fast Track High Court, Dr Richard Anane, however, filed his written submission yesterday morning. His lawyers have since served the submission on the court and the state. Dr Akoto Osei and Dr Anane, together with three others, have been accused of causing financial loss to the state regarding the sale of Ghana Airways and the operations of the defunct Ghana International Airlines (GIA). The accused persons had requested for relevant documents to aid their defence, under Article 19 (2e) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that “a person charged with criminal offence shall be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”. But the state opposed the application on the grounds that sections 163 and 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 (Act 30) do not allow accused persons who are standing trial summarily to have access to such documents before they are tendered in evidence as exhibits. Giving its ruling on July 16, 2010, the Fast Track High Court upheld the state’s submissions and, consequently ordered the accused persons to present themselves for trial. The court had held that the issue raised by the appellants did not border on the Constitution and, therefore, refused to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. Following the court's ruling, lawyers for Dr Anane, a former Minister of Transport, and Dr Osei filed the appeal against the court's decision. The appeal has been adjourned indefinitely.

Deeba advised to enage counsel

January 30, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) THE Osu District Magistrate Court has advised a Ghanaian musician, Akyeampong Deeba, also known as Richard Nimo and Kofi Akyeampong, to solicit the services of a lawyer or risk having a defilement case against him heard, without legal counsel. Deeba appeared before the court without a legal counsel and explained that, his lawyer was not aware the matter was billed to be heard at the Osu District Magistrate Court today. According to Deeba, he was arraigned before the Circuit Court and was expected to reappear on February 7, 2013. The presiding Magistrate, Mr Aboagye Tandoh, made it clear to him that the matter was being adjourned because he (Deeba) did not have a legal counsel, but added that, the court would go on to hear the extradition proceedings if his lawyer does not show up on the next adjourned date. Deeba was remanded by the Accra Circuit Court on January 18, 2013, pending his extradition to the United Kingdom to stand trial for allegedly defiling his stepdaughter. A Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah-Obuobisa, said the accused person had been charged with one count of assault and five counts of raping a minor below 13 years under the laws of the United Kingdom (UK). His plea has not been taken. The facts of the case were that in December 2012, INTERPOL Accra received a request of arrest warrant from its counterpart in London to the effect that between 2004 and 2008, while living in the UK, the accused person had a relationship with a woman who already had two daughters, aged eight and six, from her previous relationship. Subsequently, Deeba and the woman had two children from their union. Initially, they lived separately, but when the woman went on night shift, Deeba took care of the home and cared for the children. That, the prosecution said, continued until September 2008 when Deeba returned to Ghana to pursue his musical career. But two weeks after his departure from the UK, Deeba’s stepdaughter told her mother that her stepfather had had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions whenever her mother went to work in the night. According to the prosecutor, on those occasions, Deeba invited the little girl into the bedroom to watch pornographic films with him, after which he would have both sex with her. The little girl also alleged that the accused person sometimes had anal sex with her and that after each act he would put a sanitary towel in her panties to avoid evidence of bloodstains as well as hid the stained bed sheet in the process. She further alleged that Deeba threatened to beat her if she disclosed the acts to anyone. Deeba, the prosecution said, assaulted the little girl’s sister between June 1 and 4, 2008, when she attempted to satisfy her inquisitiveness about what was happening to her sister resulting in a cut on the back of the girl’s head. A medical examination on the little girl by a forensic physician, Dr. Ainsley Kassie, revealed extensive damage to her hymen as a result of vaginal penetration. Deeba was said to have denied the offence when he was confronted by his fiancee, who later lodged a complaint with the police, following which a warrant was issued by the Northampton-shire Magistrate Court for his arrest. According to the prosecution, Deeba was arrested at the La Palm Royal Beach Hotel in Accra during an undercover operation.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

State fails to produce witness in Woyome trial

January 29, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) THE state yesterday failed to produce a witness in the trial involving a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, who is accused of defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million. A Chief State Attorney, Ms Cynthia Lamptey, told the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that “we should have brought a witness, but circumstances beyond our control made it impossible”. She, therefore, pleaded with the presiding judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, to give the prosecution two weeks to produce a witness to testify on behalf of the state. The trial judge obliged and adjourned the case to February 12, 2013, thereby, making it the second time the prosecution has failed to bring a witness to court five weeks after its fourth witness had testified in the matter. A fourth prosecution witness, Ms Yvonne Quansah, who is stationed at the Financial Sector Division of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), testified on December 19, 2012. Ms Quansah, who has since been discharged for completing her evidence in the trial, informed the court that Vamed Engineering, which was represented by Woyome, was shortlisted together with other companies for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008. Counsel for Woyome, Mr Osafo Buabeng, left the issue on whether or not the court should accept the prosecution’s prayer for adjournment to the discretion of the court. Mr Buabeng had on January 15, 2013, informed the court that he intended to challenge the prosecution of the case without a substantive Attorney-General. He indicated that in accordance with provisions of Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution, the Attorney-General, who is the principal legal advisor to the government and initiates all criminal proceedings, must be present in order to perform those functions but the court held a different view. Woyome is facing two counts of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state. The accused, who has denied any wrongdoing, is alleged to have made fraudulent claims to the government, resulting in the payment of GH¢51.2 million to him. The three other prosecution witnesses who have testified in the matter are a Deputy Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), Mrs Mangowa Ghanney; a former Minister of MoFEP, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and a former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu.

NDC files response to petition of Nana Akufo-Addo

January 29, 2013 (Page 17) The National Democratic Congress has described the petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential elections as an “afterthought and in bad faith.” It is accordingly praying the Supreme Court not to countenance the petition since it was without merit and an attempt to “deny certain Ghanaians of their constitutional right without any justification.” “Petitioners, through the acts of their polling agents at the various polling stations as well as acts of other representatives, clearly acknowledged that the presidential elections were validly conducted and claims to the contrary now by the petitioners are an afterthought, and in bad faith and cannot be countenanced,” the NDC’s response to the petition stated. “The conduct of both the presidential and parliamentary elections involved citizens exercising their right to vote in full view of the public, the media and domestic as well as international election observers,” the NDC pointed out. According to the NDC, the results of the presidential showed that the first respondent defeated the first petitioner in eight out of the ten regions of the country, adding, “petitioners are acting in bad faith and that the petition is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.” The first respondent in the petition is President John Dramani Mahama while Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is the first petitioner in the petition dated December 28, 2012. The other petitioners are petitioners Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the running mate of Nana Akufo-Addo and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey. Also joined to the petition is the Electoral Commission (EC), the body which presided over the elections. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama adding that 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are accordingly requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded but President Mahama and the EC have denied the claims and are currently challenging the petitioners to provide the names and codes of polling stations where the alleged irregularities took place. The NDC applied for a joinder three days after the filing of the petition, and after legal battle between the lawyers for the NDC and the petitioners, the Supreme Court on January 22, 2013 gave the NDC the nod to join the petition. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to allow it to join the petition, the NDC in a response filed at 3:00 p.m. on January 28, 2013, stated that “the categories of alleged irregularities set out by petitioners clearly overlap, and, therefore, adding the votes in these categories as a pattern of obfuscation resorted to by petitioners to create an appearance of a real issue when there is none.”

Monday, January 28, 2013

Parties to election petition appear in court tomorrow

January 28, 2013 (Front page) THE battle for legal supremacy continues at the Supreme Court tomorrow as parties in the petition challenging the results of the 2012 presidential polls, move their motions for and against the demand for additional particulars. Lawyers for President John Dramani Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC), who are the first and second respondents in the petition, are expected to move the motions for “further and better particulars” at the court’s sitting on Tuesday, January 29, 2013. The legal representatives of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 7, 2012 polls, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman ofthe NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are expected to oppose the motion for further and better particulars. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, had noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President Mahama. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are accordingly requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded. But President Mahama and EC responded to the petition, denied the claims and filed a motion under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), which says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. In the motion for “further and better particulars,” the EC and President Mahama, are praying the court to order the petitioners to provide them with the names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place. However, an affidavit in opposition to the EC’s motion for further and particulars, deposed to by Nana Akufo-Addo stated that the EC “ought not to be permitted to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel the petitioners to disclose the nature of evidence petitioners intend to lead during the trial.” According to Akufo-Addo, the EC already had in its possession originals of the declaration forms, and for that reason, it was needless for the EC to request for further particulars from the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, are requesting the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of persons who were registered overseas and the mode and manner those persons were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms for all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and political parties between 2010 and 2012 as well as special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. The tone of correspondence between lawyers for the petitioners and the EC, clearly indicates that, it is only the Supreme Court that can resolve the matter. Copied in the correspondence between the EC and the petitioners, is the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The court, on January 22, 2013, allowed the National Democratic Congress (NDC), on whose ticket, President Mahama stood for the elections, to join as the third respondent. It is expected to file its response to the petition on or before the close of work on January 29, 3013. As per the rules, the Supreme Court is expected to fix a date for hearing of the substantive matter after all preliminary legal issues are resolved.

Election petition - Parties make more demands

January 25, 2013 (Front page) Apart from the fierce courtroom battle which ensued in the past week, parties in the petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential election are making a number of demands from one another. The Electoral Commission (EC), which presided over the election and is the second respondent in the petition; President John Dramani Mahama, who has been dragged into the petition as the first respondent and the petitioners themselves are all demanding additional documents to enable them to put up solid cases. While the President and the EC have requested the petitioners to provide them with names and codes of the 4,709 polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged electoral irregularities took place, the petitioners, on the other hand, have requested the EC to provide them with details of the names and addresses of people who were registered overseas and the mode and manner in which those people were registered. The petitioners are also asking for declaration forms for all polling stations in the 2012 presidential election, minutes of all meetings held between the EC and the political parties between 2010 and 2012, as well as the special voters list used in the 2012 presidential election. In any case, correspondence between lawyers for the petitioners and the EC clearly indicates that it is only the Supreme Court that can resolve the matter. For instance, a letter dated January 11, 2013 and signed by Lynes Quashie-Idun and Co and addressed to solicitors for Nana Akufo-Addo is asking the petitioners to furnish the EC with additional particulars on how the petitioners arrived at the conclusion that 1,342,845 votes had been rendered invalid by reason of irregularities recorded during the elections. The EC’s solicitors stated, “In view of the allegation of fraudulent intention or other condition of mind contained in Paragraph 26 of the petition, we also request particulars of the deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting first respondent to win the December 2012 election.” Paragraph 26 of the petition states, “The petitioners say that all of the irregularities and electoral malpractices captured above were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting the first respondent (President) to win the 2012 December presidential election.” However, solicitors for the petitioners, in a reply dated January 15, 2013, said, “In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to await the second respondent’s formal application for the order of the court and better particulars.” The Registrar of the Supreme Court has been copied with the correspondence between the EC and the petitioners. To buttress the decision of the petitioners not to release any further particulars until directed to do so by the court, Nana Akufo-Addo, in an affidavit in opposition to the EC’s request for further and better particulars, stated that the EC “ought not to be permitted to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel the petitioners to disclose the nature of evidence petitioners intend to lead during the trial”. The NDC, which was allowed to join the petition as the third respondent, has since been served with the amended petition to reflect it (NDC) as the third respondent in the petition, which has the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as the contestants of the election results. Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in order to prepare adequately for a case. The arbiter in the case, which happens to be the Supreme Court, is expected to hear the motion for further and better particulars from lawyers for the EC and the President on January 29, 2013. It will then decide whether or not to grant the motion from the two sides. The petitioners, on the other hand, can also apply to the Supreme Court to direct the EC to furnish them with the needed documents if the EC does not meet their demands. The highest court of the land will fix a date for hearing of the substantive matter after all preliminary legal issues are resolved. Hearing is expected to be held on a daily basis, including weekends and holidays. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) provides in part as follows: "The Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays," for a speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution gives the court the mandate to review its own decisions. A former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, is leading the 10-member legal team for the petitioners, while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC, respectively. The EC is being represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun. Security will continue to be tight until the final determination of the case, which is being witnessed by only accredited persons.

Prez Mahama requests further particulars - On 4,709 polling stations

January 24, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama is praying the Supreme Court to order the petitioners challenging his declaration as the winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential polls to provide “further and better” particulars on the 4,709 polling stations where election irregularities allegedly took place. He is pleading with the court to order the petitioners to state “the name and code of each of the four thousand seven hundred and nine (4,709) polling stations where it is alleged that there were gross and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices; the constituency and the region within which each of these polling stations falls and the exact nature of the alleged irregularity and/or malpractice at each of the said polling stations”. President Mahama said the court ought to order the petitioners to supply him with particulars of the alleged irregularities “in the interest of promoting a fair, open and efficient trial” and accordingly prayed the court to strike out “all allegations and paragraphs of which the petitioners fail to give particulars”. Premising his motion on notice for further and better particulars under Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74), the President is making additional request for the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, were unlawfully reduced. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, which had Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners, stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President John Dramani Mahama. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. They are, accordingly, requesting the court to annul results declared in the polling stations where the alleged irregularities were recorded. But the Electoral Commission (EC), which organised the elections, has denied the claims and insisted the results declared were accurate and credible. But President Mahama is urging the court to order the petitioners to provide the name and code of each polling station where it was alleged that different results were “strangely recorded on the declaration forms (otherwise known as ‘pink sheet’ or ‘blue sheet’) in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes”. The motion, which was filed on the President’s behalf on January 22, 2013, is further urging the court to order the petitioners to state the number of votes cast in favour of Nana Akufo-Addo in the said polling station and/or constituency, as well as the total number of polling stations and/or constituencies where votes cast in favour of President Mahama were alleged to have been “illegally padded”. He is seeking an order directed at the petitioners to furnish the court with “the identities, offices and, if applicable, political affiliation or other connection to any of the parties herein of the persons who it is alleged illegally padded the results” in his favour. “The identities, offices and, if applicable, political affiliation or other connection to any of the parties herein of the persons who it is alleged “unlawfully reduced” the results of the 1st Petitioner” is also being requested by the President. President Mahama, who insists he won the elections freely and fairly in the presence of the media, domestic and international election observers, is asking the court to order the petitioners to cite “the name and code of each polling station, constituency and region where it is alleged that voting took place without biometric verification”, as well as the number of voters in each polling station who voted without biometric verification. The applicant is further urging the highest court of the land to state the name and code of each polling station, constituency and region where voters allegedly voted without undergoing biometric registration, among others. Touching on allegations that Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) allegedly tampered with election results, the President is asking the petitioners to “state in what manner it is alleged that the election results were tampered with through the involvement of STL in respect of which polling stations and constituencies and how many votes are alleged to have been so tampered with in relation to each”. Included in the President’s request are the name and code of each polling station where it was alleged that there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the declaration forms, as well as mention the names of polling stations where it was alleged that there was over voting. An additional information being requested by the President is “how the allocation of votes to be annulled as between candidates was determined and how many such votes are attributed to each affected polling station”. An affidavit in support of the motion deposed on President Mahama’s behalf by his Campaign Co-ordinator, Mr Elvis Afriyie-Ankrah, said he had the consent and authority of the President to swear to the affidavit. The affidavit in support said under the applicable rules of procedure, the court had the power to order a party to supply particulars of facts material to its claim and to the reliefs it sought to an opposing party in the interest of promoting a fair, transparent and efficient trial. “I am advised by counsel and verily believe that whenever a party’s pleadings allege matters such as irregularity and malpractice, the facts supporting these must be stated with particularity,” the affidavit in support pointed out. It argued that how the petitioners arrived at the number of votes they seek to have nullified, added to or subtracted from those declared for President Mahama were all material in determining whether or not there was a basis for the reliefs sought by the petitioners. The affidavit in support pointed out that “no vote can be nullified more than once even if multiple irregularities were established in respect of that particular vote and that it is necessary for the petitioners to clarify, by providing particulars, whether or not the multiple permutations of irregularities/malpractices they allege involve a claim to have any votes nullified more than once”. It argued that where allegations or imputations of fraud or misconduct were attributed to “a party or to persons alleged to be acting on his or its behalf, that party ought to be provided with precise particulars of the acts alleged and the basis on which they are attributed to him or it and that given the allegations that the petitioners make, they ought to be ordered to supply the particulars sought with respect to these allegations” in order to prevent an ambush litigation. The motion will be moved on January 29, 2013, the same day the EC is also expected to move its application for further and better particulars. In another development, the petitioners have amended the title of their petition to include the NDC as the third respondent and has since served it on lawyers for the President.

Challenge of sale of govt bungalow - Jake wins review case

January 24, 2013 (Front page) THE Supreme Court on January 23, 2013 unanimously affirmed its ruling that the Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, acquired a state bungalow legally. Delivering its ruling in a review application, the 11-member panel held that the applicants “failed to show there was an exceptional error” in the court’s May 22, 2012 decision which declared Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s purchase of the bungalow as lawful. “We would, accordingly, dismiss the application as unmeritorious,” Professor Justice S.K. Date-Bah said on behalf of his colleagues. But the President of the panel, Mr Justice William Atuguba, who had, in the earlier ruling, declared the acquisition illegal and a breach of trust, stated, “I reluctantly agree that the review be dismissed.” However, counsel for the applicants, Mr Kwabla Senanu, told journalists after the court ruling that he would pursue the matter further. “l will not let the matter go,” he said, adding, “I am going to the African Commission on Human Rights to seek justice for the people of Ghana because I have exhausted the legal system in Ghana.” On May 22, 2012, the Supreme Court, by a majority 6-3 decision, refused to pronounce as illegal Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s acquisition of a state property he once occupied as a minister of state. Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the applicants, who are the caretaker Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa, and the Minister-designate of Communications, Dr Edward Omane-Boamah, applied for a review of the court’s decision on the grounds that its earlier ruling amounted to a miscarriage of justice. But the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Prof Justice Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu and Mr Justice Dotse, held otherwise. The other members of the panel were Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe, Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo and Mr Justice J. B. Akamba. According to the court, the applicants had a “major technical hurdle” to surmount in proving that there was an error on the part of the court in its May 22, 2012 ruling, adding, “The applicants could not convince the court to depart from its earlier decision.” It said the applicants could not establish the essential elements to prove that there had been a miscarriage of justice, adding that the applicants had failed to impress upon the court to depart from its earlier decision. According to the court, under Rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, the applicants had the task to indicate the exceptional circumstance under which there had been a miscarriage of justice. They could not also indicate whether they had discovered new and material evidence which was not available before the conclusion of the trial and after due diligence. The court contended that it had “held time and again” that an application for review was not an appeal and must, therefore, not be treated as such in reference to the re-arguing of the case by the lawyer for the applicants, Mr Senanu. Counsel for Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, Mr R. O. Solomon, prayed the court to award costs against the applicants but it declined and reminded him that it was a constitutional matter. He also urged the court to give “consequential orders” to direct the state to register the land title in the name of Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, but the court directed him to follow laid down legal procedure. Accompanied by his wife, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey left the courtroom looking cheerful. The applicants, in 2008, sued the Attorney-General and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey over the allocation of the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge Residential Area in Accra to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, which he occupied at the time. They contended that Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s action contravened articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution, an action which they claimed smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer. They thus questioned the legitimacy of the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public property to Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, but the Supreme Court eventually held a different view.

Akufo-Addo opposes EC's request

January 23, 2013 (Page 3) THE presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 general election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has opposed the request by the Electoral Commission (EC) for further documents in the petition contesting the results of the presidential poll. He said the EC “ought not be permitted to employ an application for further and better particulars to compel the petitioners to disclose the nature of evidence petitioners intend to lead during the trial”. The EC filed a motion on January 15, 2013 praying the Supreme Court to direct the petitioners to furnish it with “further and better” particulars of polling stations the alleged irregularities took place. But Nana Akufo-Addo, who is one of the petitioners challenging the declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls, in an affidavit in opposition dated January 21, 2013, prayed the court to dismiss the EC’s request. Hearing of the EC’s motion for further particulars has been set for January 29, 2013. The petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, filed by Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama. According to the affidavit in opposition, the EC already had in its possession originals of the declaration forms and for that reason it was needless for it to request for further particulars from the petitioners. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election, but the EC has denied the claims, describing the election results as credible and accurate. Joined to the petition is the winner of the presidential polls, President Mahama, who has also denied the petitioners’ claims and insisted he won the election freely, fairly and in the full glare of the media, domestic and international observers. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority decision, yesterday allowed the NDC to join the petition as a third respondent. The court was of the view that “it will be in the interest of justice” to allow the NDC to join the petition, since the outcome of the case will have a direct bearing on the party. According to the court, the fortunes of the NDC and those of the President were “tied together” and it was, therefore, important for the NDC to be allowed to join the petition to assist the court to get to the bottom of the matter.

COURT GIVES NDC NOD - To join NPP petition against presidential results

January 23, 2013 (Lead story) THE Supreme Court on January 22, 2013 gave the National Democratic Congress (NDC) the green light to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential poll. By a 6-3 majority decision, the court was of the view that “it will be in the interest of justice” to allow the NDC to join the petition, since it would be directly affected by the outcome of the case. According to the court, the fortunes of the NDC and those of the President were “tied together” and it was, therefore, important for the NDC to be allowed to join the petition to assist the court to effectively and completely determine the matter. “It will not be proper to say a party cannot be called to join when its candidate is being challenged. The NDC played a pivotal role in the nomination and election of President Mahama and it will certainly be in the interest of justice that the NDC be allowed to join the petition,” Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo stated in the court’s lead opinion. “The purpose of a joinder is to allow all matters to be handled once and for all,” she said, and accordingly described as “without basis” the attack on the rule under which the NDC applied for the joinder by the lead counsel for the petitioners. The six justices of the highest court of the land who gave the NDC the nod to join the petition as a third respondent were Mr Justice William Atuguba, the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Those who did not find it “necessary and convincing” for the NDC to join the petition were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah and Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie. After a two-hour ruling, the court also ordered that the title of the petition be amended to include the NDC as the third respondent in the case. The parties in the case have seven days within which to serve the necessary papers on each other, as well as file the necessary documents, before the court convenes on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 to hear a motion from the Electoral Commission (EC) which is praying the court to order the petitioners to furnish it (EC) with “further and better particulars” to enable it to respond to allegations of manipulating the election results in favour of President Mahama. A petition filed on December 28, 2012 by the 2012 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, is claiming that irregularities recorded in 4,709 polling stations inured to the benefit of President Mahama. President Mahama is the first respondent in the case, while the EC, the body that organised the elections and subsequently declared the results, has been joined as the second respondent. Following the filing of the petition, the NDC filed a motion three days later praying the court to allow it to join the case, with the argument that President Mahama stood on its ticket and it would, therefore, serve the interest of justice if it was allowed to join the petition. But Nana Akufo-Addo opposed the application and said the application for joinder would delay the hearing of the petition. The lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, on January 16, 2013, moved the application for joinder on behalf of the NDC arguing that it would serve the interest of justice to allow the NDC to join the petition but lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, opposed on the grounds that the joinder would delay the matter. Delivering its ruling at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the court cited the 1992 Constitution and numerous legal authorities to reinforce its decision that it was imperative for the NDC to be allowed to join fully and not as a “spectator”. It said the 1992 Constitution and the Political Parties Act recognised the pivotal role of political parties such as the NDC and it would, therefore, “amount to injustice” if the doors of the court were shut on the NDC. Mr Justice Atuguba, who supported the lead opinion, said the applicant had rightly brought the application considering provisions in Rules 4(6),45(4) and 82 of the Supreme Court Rules (CI) 16 which should be read in conjunction with provisions in articles 63 and 64 of the Constitution. He said that it was a political party which sponsored candidates who contested presidential elections or public offices other than to the district assembles and that public officers envisaged under the Constitution included the President who occupied the highest public office in the land. Political parties, he said, had a constitutional right to organise political programmes in consonance with the Constitution and that the presentation of the President to the electorate by the NDC was in accordance with its programmes and objects. Justice Atuguba said considering provisions in Rule 45(4) of CI 16, the applicant had a very real interest to be joined to the petition, adding that it was better equipped with the facts in the matter than the President and was in a position to assist the court to unravel the issue in dispute. He said the court could not be intimidated by the number of witnesses to be called by the President. Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, who read the lead dissenting opinion, held that having read the lead opinion, he was still not convinced that the applicant was a necessary party that ought to be joined to the petition. He described the application as unmeritorious and proceeded to dismiss same, arguing that the principles for joinder were littered in several cases and the common thread in the authorities was the nature of relief as it affected the person to be joined and the avoidance of multiplicity of suits. He said the other denominator was whether the party was a necessary party, such that the joinder would effectively and completely enable the court to adjudicate on all matters in controversy. ‘’The applicant is an interested party and no more,’’ Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie held, and indicated that there was nothing that the applicant was a necessary party and wondered what it was that the applicant was taking to the table that the President did not know. He said there were absolutely no reliefs that were being sought directly or inferentially against the applicant, adding that having looked at all the laws, he could still not see how the applicant could be made a necessary party. Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said the action in the court was a straight fight between human beings and not political parties, for which the law was clear, and, therefore, allowing the applicant would be discriminatory, which the court should not entertain. The applicant, he said, had only demonstrated that it had an interest in the petition without any explanation demonstrating that it was a necessary party. He said the law was clear that no political party could challenge the declaration of presidential results as in a petition and that it was only human beings who could do that. According to him, a person who joined a suit acquired the rights and obligations of a defendant and could also counterclaim. He said if one did not have the capacity to sue, that person could as well not join a suit. Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said in the whole of Chapter Eight of the 1992 Constitution, nowhere is it indicated that a political party could challenge the removal of the President and, unlike Members of Parliament who, when they resigned from a political party had to resign from Parliament, the President could still maintain his position when he resigned from the party on whose ticket he won power. Mr Justice Anin Yeboah associated himself with the dissenting view and held that a joinder could be brought by either party to a suit or the court on its own motion but the test for a joinder was different from that of an intervener, as was the case of the applicant. He said the majority decision did not envisage that the applicant was a necessary party and whether its presence was essential for the effective determination of the suit. The applicant, he said, did not demonstrate that without it the court could not effectively and completely determine the case, while the rule on joinder did not provide for any joinder by intervener. He said the applicant also failed to satisfy the requirements of joinder by intervener and, therefore, its presence was unnecessary because without it the case could be dealt with by the court. Mr Justice Ansah also associated himself with the dissenting view and held that the application should fail because without the applicant the action would be contested without the presence of the applicant. Lawyers from both sides declined to comment on the court’s ruling, but the lead counsel for the petitioners, Ms Gloria Akufo, informed journalists that her team would work feverishly to serve the necessary papers on the parties in the case. The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, expressed joy at the court’s ruling. The atmosphere in the courtroom was generally cordial as parties from both sides interacted with each other. A member of the NDC legal and communication team, Nana Ato Dadzie, and Mr Nketiah walked up to Nana Akufo-Addo for a brief but hearty chat while the court was not in session.

Agya Koo granted bail

January 22, 2013 (Front page) POPULAR actor in the local movie industry, Kofi Adu, popularly known as Agya Koo, said to have defrauded a number of people was yesterday granted a GH¢20,000 bail with two sureties by the Accra Circuit Court. His case was adjourned to today to enable the prosecution to correct defects on the charge sheet. Noted for his humorous comments, Agya Koo, who is alleged to have defrauded a number of people under the pretext of securing them visas to travel abroad, looked far from excited when an investigator escorted him into the courtroom. Clad in a black T-shirt over a pair of jeans, Agya Koo fumed and said in Twi, “Seize the camera. Does he think there are kids here?” when he saw a Daily Graphic photographer made an attempt to take his picture. While in the dock, Agya Koo appeared pensive and looked fixedly at Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms Mary Agbozo, when she informed the court that the prosecution could not proceed with the case yesterday because there were anomalies on the charge sheet. She, therefore, prayed the court to adjourn the case to enable the prosecution to correct the said defects. Ms Agbozo said the prosecution was not asking the court to remand the accused, but intimated, “As I speak, there is a warrant in force for his arrest.” Counsel for Agya Koo, Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Darteh (retd), informed the court that the accused person reported himself to the police and for that reason he should be granted bail. “The accused person is a famous actor in Ghana. He has nowhere to hide and cannot hide,” Capt Effah-Darteh stressed. He also reminded the court that the offence his client was alleged to have committed was not rape, murder, robbery, defilement or any related first degree felony charge and, therefore, it was important for the court to grant him bail. Counsel explained that his client could not report himself as ordered by the court because he was on a government-sponsored trip to Abu Dhabi and received a call while boarding an aircraft that he was needed by the police. Under the circumstance, counsel explained, his client had no choice but embark on the trip and report himself to the police later. Agya Koo was placed in police custody last Friday until yesterday, January 21, 2013. After a publication of the bench warrant for his arrest in the Friday, January 18, 2013 edition of the Daily Graphic, 13 more people reported to the police that each of them had been defrauded of $1,850 by the comedian under the pretext of securing United States of America (USA) visas for them. writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Joinder application: Court rules today

January 22, 2013 (Front page) THE first hurdle to the legal challenge of the results of the December 2012 presidential election will be cleared by a nine-member panel of the Supreme Court in Accra today. Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court will decide whether or not to allow the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the election. Other members of the panel are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. After the court’s ruling, the registrar of the Supreme Court is expected to fix a date for the hearing of the substantive petition and communicate it to parties in the case. The election petition, which has the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as the petitioners, is expected to be heard on a daily basis per the new Supreme Court rules. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) provides in part as follows: "The court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" for the speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in CI 74, the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision. Unlike in other cases where the Supreme Court is open to the public, attendance to the court proceedings is strictly by invitation and under very heavy security. On January 16, 2013, lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, moved the motion for joinder and prayed the court to allow his client to join the petition as a respondent because the name and the symbol of the NDC were displayed against President Mahama’s photograph, adding that it would “advance the interest of justice” if the NDC was made to join the petition as respondents. He denied assertions that the NDC’s application for joinder was intended to delay the petition and argued that the party filed its motion three days after the filing of the petition. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, associated himself with the NDC’s application for joinder and, accordingly, prayed the court to grant it. The EC, for its part, declined to react to the application and left the matter to the discretion of the court. Opposing the motion, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, said the motion for joinder would delay the trial and, therefore, draw back the purpose of the new Supreme Court rules aimed at expediting the hearing of petitions challenging results of presidential elections. The petitioners, on December 28, 2012, filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the election results on the grounds that the EC deliberately manipulated the results to favour President Mahama. But the NDC filed a motion for joinder on December 31, 2013, arguing that it was an interested party because the President stood for the elections on its ticket. The EC has debunked claims by the petitioners on the grounds that the election results were credible. President Mahama has also filed his defence and accused the petitioners of attempting to subvert the will of the people by calling on the Supreme Court to annul the election results. He also intends to call a record number of 4,800 witnesses. Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh.graphic.com.gh

Gbagbo ally faces more charges

January 18, 2013 (Page 3 Lead) TEN additional charges of robbery have been preferred against the former Spokesperson of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, Justin Katinan Kone, who had initially faced 10 counts of robbery. However, the Presiding Judge at the Osu District Magistrate Court, Mr Aboagye Tandoh, yesterday advised the prosecution to relate the charges to Ivorian laws, since the alleged crimes were committed in Cote d'Ivoire. The state is currently praying the court to extradite Kone to Cote d'Ivoire to face criminal charges. At the court's sitting in Accra yesterday, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Matthew Amponsah, indicated that his outfit had prepared the charge sheet and the facts of the case but conceded that the defence team had not been served. He then served a copy of the documents on counsel for Kone, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor. The judge then observed that although the facts of the case related to Ivorian laws, the charge sheet only quoted Ghanaian laws. He, therefore, suggested that the state should relate the charges to Ivorian laws. He also urged the state to furnish the defence team with relevant documents. Mr Tandoh stressed that the state had a duty to establish a prima facie case against Kone to warrant his extradition. He also tasked the state to find out whether or not Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana had an extradition agreement, since Mr Sogbodjor had argued that there was no such legal arrangement between the two countries. Hearing continues on January 29, 2013. An Ivorian court had, on August 16, 2012, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of Kone, who had been living in Ghana as an asylum seeker since April 13, 2011. The Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) District Magistrate Court, on October 24, 2012, discharged Kone on murder charges on the grounds that the police had failed to justify why he should continuously be held for murder under Ghanaian laws when the alleged murder was committed in Cote d'Ivoire. Kone was first put before the Osu District Magistrate Court on September 3, 2012 but was later arraigned before the AMA District Court on October 1, 2012 for allegedly murdering two Ivorians in March 2011. The accused person was picked up by the International Police Organisation (INTERPOL) Section of the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the Ghana Police Service on Friday, September 28, 2012, three days after he had been granted bail by the Osu District Magistrate Court. Kone is, nonetheless, enjoying the bail granted him by the Osu District Magistrate Court following his discharge on October 24, 2012. He was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, 2012 by operatives of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) following a warrant for his arrest issued by an Ivorian court to face robbery charges. Kone, who fled to Ghana after the collapse of Gbagbo’s regime, is alleged to have committed economic crimes when he was a Budget Minister during the three months of crisis and conflict that followed Gbagbo's refusal to cede power to his rival and current President, Mr Alassane Ouattara, in December 2010.

I'm not a member of NPP - Dotse

January 17, 2013 (Front page) A Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, has denied media reports that he is a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP). “I have never contested for any election on the ticket of the NPP, let alone polling station, constituency or regional offices of the NPP, while I was a lawyer,” he said. He was reacting to media reports attributed to a lawyer, Mr Abraham Amaliba, a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) legal team, who had alleged that Mr Justice Dotse was a card-holding member of the NPP. Mr Justice Dotse said Mr Amaliba should have investigated the issue before putting it in the public domain. Citing Deuteronomy 20:3-4, Mr Justice Dotse accused Mr Amaliba of failing to adhere to the tenets of the law profession and said if those allegations were meant to “poison the mind of the public” against him, “I leave the rest to the Almighty God.” Deuteronomy 20:3-4 states: “He shall say: Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them, For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.” (New International Version) Speaking to a packed courtroom in the presence of his colleague judges, Mr Justice Dotse said he was prepared to recuse himself if the NDC had a “genuine and legal concern” against him. He said the said media reports were an “occupational hazard”, could breed “distrust” and “breach and destabilise the dignity of the independence of the Judiciary”. He urged Mr Amaliba and all persons peddling falsehood about his person to stop, since it was injurious to his reputation and that of his family, adding that it was crucial for him to “correct the misinformation”. The courtroom was quiet when Mr Justice Dotse stated his concerns. Other members of the panel which heard the NDC’s application for joinder were Mr Justice William Atuguba, President, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members. Mr Justice Atuguba also clarified comments he had made on January 10, 2013 which took a swipe at persons he perceived to be casting doubt on the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. According to him, he only sought to emphasise the independence and integrity of the Judiciary and assured the public that the Judiciary would perform its role independently and creditably. The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 polls; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, were present in court. One of the lawyers representing the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, had described President John Dramani Mahama's intention to call 4,800 witnesses as "intimidating and threatening". Counsel argued that under the rules of court, the President was not required to state the number of witnesses he intended to call. But the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, justified the number of witnesses to be called. According to him, since the petitioners had alleged that irregularities had occurred in 4,709 polling stations, it was only fair for the President to call persons who were present at the said polling stations to testify. The petitioners are claiming that irregularities recorded in the December 2012 presidential election inured to the benefit of President Mahama.

NDC joinder to election petition - COURT RULES TUESDAY

January 17, 2013 (Lead Story) THE Supreme Court, has fixed January 22, 2013 to decide whether or not to allow the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama winner of the December 2012 presidential election. The court arrived at the date after four hours 25 minutes of legal submissions. It took an hour for the lead counsel for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, to justify why the NDC must be made to join the petition and an additional hour for the lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, to oppose the NDC’s application to join the case, which promises to be a landmark in Ghana’s legal history. An additional 40 minutes was expended on whether or not there was the need for lawyers for the petitioners to officially and openly withdraw their objection to the composition of the nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members. Prior to the hearing of the motion, Mr Addison had refused to openly withdraw the objection of the petitioners, namely, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, on the grounds that he had not raised the objection in open court. Mr Addison insisted that his team did not make its objection to the composition of the panel in open court during the court’s sitting on January 10, 2013 and read out a letter dated January 11, 2013 which said the petitioners had withdrawn their objection to the composition of the panel. He argued that it was rather some members of the NDC legal team who publicly mentioned the name of the judge the petitioners were opposed to. After back and forth arguments between Mr Addison and Mr Tsikata, with occasional interventions from the judges, Mr Addison eventually stated, “I completely withdraw.” The remaining two hours 25 minutes was used on a 27-minute break, brief comments from some members of the panel, a series of legal arguments from lawyers in the case, objections, counter-objections, brief rulings from the bench, as well as legal interaction between the judges and the lawyers. The petitioners, on December 28, 2012, filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the election results on the grounds that the Electoral Commission (EC) deliberately manipulated the election results to favour President Mahama, but the NDC filed a motion for joinder on December 31, 2013, arguing that it was an interested party because the President stood for the elections on its ticket. Moving the motion, Mr Tsikata prayed the court to allow his client to join the petition as a respondent, on the grounds that the name and the symbol of the NDC were displayed against President Mahama’s photograph. “We seek to join the matter in the interest of justice because President Mahama was selected and agreed to stand on the platform after the death of Professor John Evans Atta Mills,” he said. He said it would “advance the interest of justice” if the NDC was made to join the petition as respondents. Responding to the petitioners’ affidavit in opposition, Mr Tsikata denied assertions that the NDC’s application for joinder was intended to delay the petition and argued that the party filed its motion three days after the filing of the petition. “All evidence point to our acting promptly,” he said, and further argued that President Mahama did not contest the election as an individual but on the ticket of the NDC. He further submitted that Dr Bawumia and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey did not partake in the election as candidates, but had filed a petition and for that reason it was only fair that the NDC was made to join. Opposing the motion, Mr Addison said the application was completely unmeritorious and further argued that the NDC did not file its application under the proper rules of court. According to him, the motion for joinder would delay the trial and, therefore, delay the purpose of the new Supreme Court rules aimed at expediting the hearing of petitions challenging results of presidential elections. He further argued that the President was an Executive President and not there as the President for the NDC, arguing that such was the reason individuals could stand elections as independent candidates. Counsel maintained that nowhere had the NDC stated how it would be directly affected by the court’s decision on the petition and, accordingly, prayed the court to dismiss the motion. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur, associated himself with the NDC’s application and accordingly, prayed the court to grant it. The EC, for its part, declined to react to the application and left the matter to the discretion of the court.

EC files motion for more information on petition

January 16, 2013 (Page 22) THE Electoral Commission (EC) has filed a motion at the Supreme Court requesting petitioners challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 elections to furnish it with “further and better” particulars of polling stations alleged irregularities took place. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, which had the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President John Dramani Mahama. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. Joined to the petition is the winner of the 2012 presidential polls, President Mahama, while the EC, which conducted the elections, was sued as an entity. The EC had in a defence dated January 7, 2013 denied claims that Nana Addo Akufo- Addo, won the elections and also denied any irregularities and electoral malpractice, as well as working deliberately to unlawfully assist President Mahama, to win the presidential poll. It subsequently prayed the court to "order the petitioners to give particulars of the polling stations in which the violations, irregularities and malpractice are alleged to have occurred". As a follow up to its defence, the EC filed a motion today, January 15, 2013, demanding additional particulars on the polling stations, constituencies and regions the alleged irregularities took place. In his defence, the President denied the petitioners allegations and accused them of attempting to “subvert” the will of the people adding he won the elections freely and fairly in the full glare of the media, domestic and international election observers. He has also indicated his intention to call 4,800 witnesses to affirm his position that he won the elections on a clean note. The much awaited hearing of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) motion to join a petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential results, will commence at the Supreme Court in Accra today (Wednesday, January 16, 2013). The motion, which was originally billed to be moved by the NDC’s legal team on Thursday, January 10, 2013, had to be adjourned indefinitely because lawyers for the petitioners had objected to the composition of the panel. But the objection was withdrawn barely 24 hours after it had been raised in camera by one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison. Following the withdrawal of the objection, the registrar of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, January 14, 2013 served hearing notices on lawyers for the parties in the case. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo is leading the legal team for the petitioners while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC respectively. The EC will be represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun and other lawyers. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members are expected to hear the motion on whether or not the NDC should be allowed to join the petition.

Supreme Court hears joinder petition today

January 16, 2013 (Front page) BARRING any last-minute hitch, the much-awaited hearing of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) motion to join a petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential election will commence at the Supreme Court in Accra today, January 16, 2013. The motion, which had originally been billed to be moved by the NDC’s legal team on Thursday, January 10, 2013, had to be adjourned sine die because lawyers for the petitioners had objected to the composition of the panel. But the objection was withdrawn barely 24 hours after it had been raised in camera by one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison. Following the withdrawal of the objection, the registrar of the Supreme Court, on Monday, January 14, 2013, served hearing notices on lawyers for the parties in the case. A date for the hearing of the substantive petition will be fixed after the court has heard and determined whether or not to allow the NDC to join in its capacity as a political party. Unlike in the past when the Supreme Court was opened to the public, attendance at today’s proceedings will be strictly by invitation and under very heavy security. There will be a large number of security personnel to maintain law and order right from the streets through to the Supreme Court compound and the inner perimeter of the court building. Scanners will be placed at the lower and upper floors of the Supreme Court. People will be thoroughly searched, while cellular phones and other electronic gadgets will not be allowed to be used inside the courtroom. Only accredited journalists, lawyers, party functionaries and members of the public will be allowed entry into the courtroom. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, is leading the legal team for the petitioners, while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC, respectively. The EC will be represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun, its lead counsel. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, as panel members, is expected to hear the motion on whether or not the NDC should be allowed to join the petition. The petitioners — the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey — are arguing that the election results were doctored in favour of President Mahama. President Mahama and the EC are the respondents of the petition, which promises to be a landmark in the legal history of Ghana, as the President has indicated his preparedness to call 4,800 witnesses to affirm that he was elected on a clean sheet. The President is accusing the petitioners of making attempts to “subvert the will” of the people and argues that he was elected freely, fairly and in the full glare of the media, domestic and international election observers. The EC, for its part, has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that the results it declared were credible and accurate. Before a date could be set for the hearing of the substantive petition, the NDC filed a motion for joinder and argued that the President stood on its ticket to win the elections and, it was, therefore, imperative for the utmost court of the land to allow it to join the petition. However, Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the motion for joinder on the grounds that it is a ploy by the NDC to delay hearing of the petition. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) provides in part as follows: "The court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" for a speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74), the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution gives the court the mandate to review its own decisions. Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides: “The validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the results of the election in respect of which the petition is presented,” while Article 64(2) says: “A declaration by the Supreme Court that the election of the President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything done by the President before the declaration.’’ Part VIII of the Supreme Court Rules — Challenge Of Election of President, Rule 68 — provides: “A petition presented pursuant to Clause (I) of Article 64 of the Constitution shall state (a) the full name and address of the petitioner and of his counsel, if any, which shall be an address for service; (b) the grounds for challenging the validity of the election; (c) a statement of the facts relied on to be verified by affidavit, and of the law in support of the petition; (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any; and by (e) such other matters as the court may determine.” Rule 69 also says: “The Attorney-General and any other person upon whom a petition is served may file with the registrar, within two days of the service, an answer to the petition which shall state (a) the grounds of opposition to the petition; (b) the facts relied upon, verified by affidavit; (c) the law in support of the answer in opposition to the petition; and (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any.” Rule 71 says: “The court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of the petition, deliver its judgement and the registrar shall, within seven days of the delivery of the judgement, forward a copy of the judgement to the Electoral Commission.’’

NDC joinder application - SUPREME COURT SITS TOMORROW

January 15, 2013 (Lead Story) THE Supreme Court has fixed Wednesday, January 16, 2013, to hear the application by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to join a petition contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential poll. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the court indefinitely adjourned the hearing of the application after lawyers for the petitioners objected to the composition of the nine-member panel presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba. Other members of the panel were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. However, lawyers for the petitioners withdrew their opposition to the panel on Friday, January 11, 2013, barely 24-hours after they had raised the objection. Following the withdrawal, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr James Amoah, had since served hearing notices on lawyers for parties in the case. The hearing notice was dated January 14, 2013. One of the lawyers for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, confirmed the serving of the hearing notice on him to appear on behalf of the President. A member of the legal team for the petitioners, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, also confirmed that his side had received a copy of the notice. The presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are contesting the declaration of President Mahama as winner of the 2012 presidential poll. Also joined to the petition is the Electoral Commission (EC), which presided over the poll. The petitioners are accusing the EC of doctoring the results in favour of President Mahama, but the EC has denied the claims and described the election results as credible and accurate. Following the filing of the petition on December 28, 2012, the NDC filed a motion for joinder on the grounds that it was an interested party in the case because the President stood for the election on its ticket. But Nana Akufo-Addo has opposed the application, with the argument that the NDC’s move was a ploy to delay the trial. President Mahama, for his part, has filed his response, arguing that the petitioners were “seeking to subvert the Constitution and undermine the sovereign will of the people of Ghana by demanding from the court an order to annul the results of the exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution”. He said “the petitioners’ allegations are brazen attempts to find excuses for losing the 2012 presidential election” and, accordingly, demanded the petitioners to prove how the EC allegedly manipulated polling station results, which were declared in the full glare of the public, the media and both international and domestic election observers. He also indicated his intention to call a record 4,800 witnesses to affirm his position that he won the election on a clean sheet.

Election Petition - PRESIDENT MAHAMA FILES RESPONSE. Intends calling 4,800 witnesses

Monday, January 14, 2013 (Lead Story) PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama has filed his response to a petition by three personalities of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) challenging his election as President in the December 7, 2012 presidential election and indicated his intention to call 4,800 witnesses to state his case. In a 15-page response, President Mahama has accused the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, who are contesting his election of “seeking to subvert the Constitution and undermine the sovereign will of the people of Ghana by demanding from the Honourable Court an order annulling the results of the exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution”. The President, in a response filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court at 3 p.m. on Saturday, January 12, 2013, said he “shall require from the petitioners particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions where pink sheets from different polling stations allegedly had the same serial numbers and the votes allegedly affected in each case”. “The petitioners’ allegations are brazen attempts to find excuses for losing the 2012 presidential election,” he said. The response filed on behalf of the President by his lawyer, Mr Tony Lithur, said, “The whole petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.” An affidavit in verification deposed to on behalf of the President by Mr Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, the Campaign Co-ordinator of the President’s 2012 campaign team, said the President “demands from the petitioners particulars of names of persons who allegedly illegally padded and/or unlawfully reduced the votes, the polling stations, constituencies and regions where the alleged acts occurred and the votes affected in each such polling station, constituency and region”. The affidavit further demanded from the petitioners particulars of the alleged over-voting, the names of polling stations, constituencies and regions in which the alleged over-voting occurred, as well as the “amount of alleged over-voting in each case”. According to the response, it was acknowledged by all observers, domestic as well as international, that the conduct of the elections had been generally free and fair, as well as transparent. It further stated that the argument that “there were some veiled reasons” for the difference between 13,917,366 and the final number of registered voters smacked of utmost “bad faith”. Responding to claims by the petitioners that the EC delayed in furnishing the NPP with the final voters register, it said “the NDC received both registers at the same time as the NPP and all other political parties”. “Therefore, whatever disadvantages may have been attendant upon the alleged late delivery of the electoral register affected all the other political parties equally,” it said. In reply to claims by the petitioners that the results declared for the presidential election exceeded those declared for the parliamentary elections by 127,210 votes, the President said to the best of his knowledge and belief, “a common register was used for both the presidential and parliamentary elections” and, accordingly described the petitioners’ allegations as “clearly false and disingenuous”. On allegations of voters being allowed to vote without verification, the President demanded from the petitioners “names of the polling stations involved in the alleged practice of voting without biometric fingerprint verification and the number of persons who allegedly voted in each such polling station without biometric fingerprint verification, as well as the constituencies and regions under which such polling stations fall”. In any case, the President stated that “quite apart from fingerprint verification, there are other methods of verification permissible under the law. Failure (if at all) by eligible voters to undergo fingerprint verification, through no fault of theirs, can, therefore, not form the basis for depriving such voters their fundamental rights under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution”. The President denied allegations that some persons who had not undergone biometric registration were allowed to vote. Rather, he argued that to the best of his knowledge and information, only voters who had undergone biometric registration voted during the elections. He further demanded from the petitioners “particulars, among others, of the polling stations at which persons who had not undergone biometric registration allegedly voted and the number of voters involved in each polling station, constituency and region”. The affidavit in support said Nana Akufo-Addo ought to have had polling and/or counting agents at the various polling stations who were part of the prescribed voter identification processes prior to voting. “The said polling and/or counting agents, having participated in that process and having, after public and transparent counting and/or collation, certified the results of the polling stations and/or constituencies by signing without protest the polling returns, had thereby represented to the whole world that the declared results accurately reflected the outcome of the election in the respective polling stations and/or constituencies,” he said. He expected the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions in which “different results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes”, as well as the number of votes allegedly affected at each polling station. Making further requests, the President said he expected the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions in which the allegations of the absence of signatures of EC officers occurred, together with the recorded votes at each polling station, constituency and region. Responding to the petitioners call for the annulment of votes from 4,709 polling stations, the President said such demand “constitutes an attempt to undermine the fundamental rights of Ghanaians under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution and should be rejected by the Honourable Court as completely lacking any basis in law and/or fact”. He further urged the petitioners to provide particulars of the exact nature of the alleged irregularities and/or malpractices, the names of the 4,709 polling stations in which they occurred, as well as the number of affected voters in each polling station. According to the President, the results of the election were publicly declared at the various polling stations and constituencies and were matters of public knowledge, adding that “the results were the product of painstaking, public and transparent sorting and counting and/or collation (and sometimes re-counting) at the various polling stations and collation centres, with the full participation of petitioners’ accredited polling and/or counting agents and those of other contesting political parties who certified such results by appending signatures to the declaration forms”. On allegations that all irregularities and electoral malpractice were a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy to unlawfully assist the President to win the elections, the President denied that assertion and stated that he demanded from the petitioners “particulars of the alleged ploy or contrivance, the manner in which they were executed and the names of persons involved therein”. He said the attack on Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) for allegedly harbouring him and intercepting faxed results of the elections was “one of the many instances of wanton violence and destruction by NPP supporters which characterised the election and the period after the declaration of the results” and further challenged them to prove the allegations. “Respondent is also unaware of the manner in which results properly certified by the duly accredited representatives of all the contesting candidates at their respective collation centres were tampered with and shall demand from the petitioners particulars of how such a result could be achieved,” the affidavit pointed out. It, however, stated that those “allegations are, anyhow, not relevant to the outcome of the present petition and first respondent intends to apply for the said paragraphs to be struck out as scandalous and an attempt to prejudice a fair trial and an abuse of the court’s process”. The President further intends to cite reported cases, including Tehn Addy v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 589; Apaloo v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 253; Election of the First President, In Re: Appiah v Attorney-General [1969] 2G&G 530; Tuffuor v Attorney-General (1980) GLR 637; Fenuku v John Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 and Re Agyepong (Decd): Poku v Abosi and Another [1982-83] 2GLR 475 to maintain his innocence. The President also plans to rely on the 1992 Constitution and other statutes, including: The Presidential Elections Act, 1992, PNDCL 285; The Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012, (CI 72); The Public Elections Regulations, 2012, CI 75; The Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) and The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and seven reported legal cases to affirm his position that he was the truly elected candidate in the December 7, 2012 presidential election.

NPP withdraws opposition to panel membership

January 12, 2013 (Front page) LAWYERS for petitioners challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 elections have withdrawn their objection to the composition of a Supreme Court panel billed to hear the National Democratic Congress (NDC’s) application for joinder to the petition. A letter dated January 11, 2013 and bearing the signature of a lawyer from Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and co. and addressed to the Registrar of the Supreme Court said the petitioners did not intend to pursue their motion objecting to the composition of the panel in order for the case to be expeditiously tried. The letter accordingly urged the Registrar of the Supreme Court to fix a date for the motion for joinder to be heard “at the earliest date”. The petitioners namely, Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey filed a petition contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 polls but the NDC filed a motion to join on grounds that the President stood for the elections on its ticket. However, when the matter for joinder was called on Thursday, one of the lawyers of the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison indicated that the intention of the petitioners to raise an objection in camera but the lawyers for the NDC and President Mahama, Messrs Tsatsu Tsikata and Tony Lithur objected and insisted the issue be raised in open court. The nine-member panel presided over by Mr Justice Atuguba, with Mr Justice Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members finally heard the issue in chambers in the presence of all parties in the case including the Electoral Commission (EC) which has also been sued. The court then adjourned the case indefinitely to enable the petitioners to file a formal motion. Lawyers for the NPP did not disclose the name of the panel member they objected to but a member of the NDC legal team, Nana Ato Dadzie, revealed the identity of the Supreme Court judge the petitioners were opposed to. According to Nana Dadzie, lawyers for the petitioners challenging the 2012 Presidential elections were of the view that Mr Justice Atuguba should be exempted because he was a cousin to Dr Raymond Atuguba, the newly appointed Executive Secretary to President John Dramani Mahama. In the substantive matter, the petitioners are claiming irregularities recorded during the elections, favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, the EC, has denied any wrongdoing arguing that the results it declared were credible and accurate.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Hearing of electoral petition - NPP OBJECTS TO PANEL

January 11, 2013 (Lead story) HEARING of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) application to join a suit challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 Presidential polls was yesterday adjourned indefinetly. Legal brains of both parties had met to ‘knock legal horns’ for and against NDC’s application to join the case but that could not come on as counsel for the petitioners had an issue with the composition of the panel. The matter was adjourned to enable lawyers for the petitioners to file a formal application stating why they objected to the composition of the nine-member panel. The petitioners in the case are the Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, Aside from President John Dramani Mahama, who is the first respondent in the matter, the Electoral Commission (EC), has also been drawn in as the second respondent. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. But the EC says the results were accurate and fair. Following the filing of the petition, the NDC applied through its General Secretary, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, to be made party to the petition because it was indisputable that as the party which sponsored President Mahama to stand on its platform and on whose platform he stood, “the applicant herein has a vital interest in this petition and deserves to be joined as respondent and be heard in this petition.” At exactly 10 a.m, the nine-member panel entered the packed courtroom which was filled by a large number of legal practitioners, party functionaries of both the NDC and the NPP as well as independent members of the public. Soon after lawyers representing the interested parties in the case had announced themselves, Mr Phillip Addison, a member of the NPP legal team prayed the court to allow the legal representation from all the sides to approach the Bench to enable his side raise a preliminary issue in camera as a sign of respect. However, the lead lawyer for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, objected to Mr Addison’s call and explained that the petition had been made public and it was only fair that all issues raised in court were done publicly. Leaning on Rule 69 C of the new Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 74) to buttress his point, Mr Tsikata said the rule clearly stated that matters of such nature shall take place in open court. That, according to counsel, would not give room to peddling of rumours and speculations, adding that the petitioners had made several statements on the case in public and it was, therefore, inappropriate for them to seek to raise an issue in camera. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur held that the issue was “too serious to be held behind closed doors.” A large number of legal brains and party functionaries were present in court. Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr Bawumia sat alongside Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, the President was absent. Ms Gloria Akuffo, former Deputy Attorney-General led a nine-member NPP legal team while Mr Tsikata led a three-member NDC team with Mr Quashie-Idun leading a three-member legal team for the EC. The nine-member court was made up of Mr Justice William Atuguba (Presing), Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Meanwhile, the NDC has filed a supplementary affidavit to its motion to join the petition. The affidavit which was filed today (January 9, 203) at 9:45 said “a denial of the applicant the opportunity to be joined so as to be heard in respect of this election petition would be a denial of the constitutional rights of the applicant.” But Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the NDC’s application for joinder on grounds that the move was aimed at delaying the trial.

It's Atuguba, NDC reveals

January 11, 2013 (Front Page) One of the lawyers for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Nana Ato Dadzie, has revealed the identity of the Supreme Court judge who is opposed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP ) to sit on the Supreme Court hearing the motion for joinder to the petition challenging the results of the December 7 presidential poll. According to Nana Dadzie, lawyers for the petitioners challenging the 2012 presidential election were of the view that Mr Justice William Atuguba should be exempted because he was a cousin of Dr Raymond Atuguba, the newly appointed Executive Secretary to President John Dramani Mahama. The leadership and lawyers for the NPP were tight-lipped on naming the judge they were opposed to, but in a press briefing immediately after the court sitting, Nana Dadzie told journalists that the NPP legal team had indicated during a meeting with the judges, in the presence of other lawyers in the case, that they expected Mr Justice Atuguba to recuse himself because of the likelihood of bias. Flanked by Dr Dominic Ayine and Mr Victor K. Adawudu, both members of the NDC legal team, Nana Dadzie told reporters that some members of the NPP had, prior to the hearing of the motion for joinder, gone on a private radio station to state the name of the judge they were opposed to. He said the matter was of grave interest to the public and it was, therefore, unfortunate for the NPP to treat the case in such a manner. However, the lead counsel for the NPP, Ms Gloria Akuffo, denied the notion that the NPP was out there to harm the stability of the country. She argued that it was because the party believed in the rule of law that its leadership was pursuing the matter in court. She was, however, tight-lipped when asked to give the name of the judge her clients were opposed to. The petitioners — Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the NPP’s presidential candidate in the December 2012 elections; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey — claim irregularities recorded during the election favoured the President Mahama, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, the EC, which has also been joined to the petition, has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the results it declared were credible and accurate. Meanwhile, the court has adjourned hearing on the NDC’s application for joinder sine die to enable lawyers for the petitioners to put their objection in writing. Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the application for joinder on grounds that it was calculated to delay the case.

Atuguba laments

January 11, 2013 (Front page) A Supreme Court judge, Justice William Atuguba, has taken a swipe at persons he perceived to be casting doubt about the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. “This country is solid but is breaking down because principles are being chopped down,” he said, adding, “This is not good.” “We have a strong and solid independent Judiciary in this country which must be preserved,” Justice Atuguba said, in apparent response to a challenge to his being a member of the panel constituted by the Chief Justice, Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, to hear the NDC’s motion for joinder to the petition challenging the declaration of President John Mahama as winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential election. “If we perceive the Judiciary not to be independent, we will be gambling with the destiny of this country,” the president of the nine-member panel stated after he and his colleagues had emerged from their chambers following a meeting with lawyers representing the parties in the case. Looking visibly unhappy, Justice Atuguba said he did not want to be part of a group that gambled with the destiny of the country and turned to his colleagues, indicating, “I do not think my colleagues want to be part of it.” The other panel members did not flinch, while lawyers and other observers listened quietly as Justice Atuguba spoke while making gestures with both hands. But in a quick rebuttal, the lead counsel for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Ms Gloria Akuffo, told newsmen that the NPP was interested in the stability of the country and that accounted for its decision to contest the election results in court and not through crude methods. “We came to court to strengthen Ghana’s democracy and stability,” she explained, adding that “the NPP is committed to protecting the security of the country and will, therefore, not do anything to compromise the country’s interest.” Ms Akuffo, who is a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, maintained the NPP’s belief in the Judiciary and the rule of the law in the country. The parties in the case are the Electoral Commission (EC), the National Democratic Congress (NDC), President Mahama, and the leadership of the NPP which is challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential election. The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the Chairman of the NPP, argue that the election results were doctored in favour of President Mahama. The other members of the panel were Justice Julius Ansah, Justice Sophia Adinyira, Justice Rose Owusu, Justice Jones Dotse, Justice AnninYeboah, Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Many had anticipated that the hearing of the first leg of the application challenging the election results at the Supreme Court would be chaotic but that was not so. Heavy security was mounted at the outer perimeter of the court, within the Supreme Court building and some yards to the courtroom. Scanners were placed at the lower and upper floors of the court, while supporters of both the NPP and the NDC were visibly absent. Only accredited journalists, lawyers, party functionaries and members of the public were allowed entry into the courtroom.

NDC files supplementary affidavit

January 10, 2013 (Front Page) The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has filed a supplementary affidavit to its motion to join a petition by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, his running mate, and Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the National Chairman of the NPP, challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the December 2012 presidential election. The supplementary affidavit, which was filed at 9:45 a.m. yesterday and deposed to on behalf of the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, said, "A denial of the applicant the opportunity to be joined so as to be heard in respect of this election would be a denial of the constitutional rights of the applicant." According to the supplementary affidavit, the NDC had represented its interest, that of its presidential candidate and parliamentary candidates "in the deliberations of the Electoral Commission (EC) with all political parties and candidates in connection with the elections" and, for that reason, the party had the right to be joined to the petition. President Mahama has been hinged to a petition challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential election, which petition has Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Bawumia and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey as petitioners. Also attached to the petition is the EC. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, domestic election observers and international observers have described the elections as generally free and fair. The supplementary affidavit further pointed out that President Mahama was selected as a presidential candidate on the ticket of the NDC after the death of Professor John Evans Atta Mills and subsequently stood on the ticket of the party in the December 2012 elections. It said the NDC "deployed throughout all the polling stations agents to represent the interests of its candidates in both presidential and parliamentary elections". It stated that it was indisputable that as the party which selected President Mahama to stand on its platform and on whose platform he stood, "the applicant herein has a vital interest in this petition and deserves to be joined as respondent and be heard in this petition". An affidavit in support of the substantive motion for joinder deposed on behalf of the NDC said the NDC as a party on whose ticket the President contested the elections "has a direct interest and a stake in the matter and will be affected by any decision of this honourable court". "As a party which will be directly affected by the decision, the NDC is entitled to be joined as a party and be heard in respect of the petition and seek to be joined by the motion herein," it pointed out. It said the NDC was a political party registered under the laws of Ghana and had, since the inception of the Fourth Republic, nominated and sponsored candidates for both parliamentary and presidential elections. But Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed the NDC's application for joinder on the grounds that the move was aimed at delaying the trial. Hearing of the motion for joinder been fixed for today. The Chairman of the EC Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President Mahama winner of the polls with 50.70 while his closest contender Akufo-Addo, placed second with 47.74 per cent. The petitioners are disputing the results of the election but the EC maintains that the results it declared were credible and accurate.