Saturday, September 7, 2013 (Page 17)
THE conduct of two lawyers purported to be contemptuous has been referred to the Ghana Bar Association (GBA) for disciplinary action.
A letter dated September 4, 2013 and signed by Dr. Charles Wereko-Brobby, on behalf of the Ghana Institute for Public Policy Options is urging the GBA to refer the conduct of Messrs Tsatsu Tsikata, and Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, to the General Legal Council for disciplinary action.
Mr Tsikata, who was the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the just ended presidential election petition publicly accused Justice Anin Yeboah, one of the justices who sat on the election petition of being persistently biased towards the NDC during the hearing.
The Executive Director of the Danquah Institute and a member of the Communication team for the petitioners, Mr Otchere-Darko, described the court’s affirmation of President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana as “corrupt and farcical.”
Not satisfied with the comments of the two lawyers, Dr Wereko-Brobby is accordingly urging the GBA to refer the conduct of the two lawyers, which he deemed contemptuous to the General Legal Council for action.
Mr Tsikata has urged Ghanaians to objectively analyse his comments which were made on TV3 network on August 31, 2013 while Mr Otchere-Darko has lampooned Dr Wereko-Brobby’s letter.
The President of the GBA, Nene Amegacher told the Daily Graphic that he was yet to site the said letter.
According to him, he would be at the GBA Secretariat on Monday, September 9, 2013 and in the event that the GBA could handle the issue, it would do it at its level.
“But, if the matter has to be handed over to the General Legal Council, the GBA would do so,” Nene Amegacher added.
The Letter
The letter said it was the view of the institute that the comments of the two lawyers bordered “on the integrity of the overall judgement of the court, provide sufficient grounds and basis for misconduct and unprofessional behaviour by both lawyers.”
“We also believe that the insistence of both Mr. Tsikata and Mr. Otchere-Darko on the validity and merits of their comments, and their flat refusal to withdraw them or apologise to the Court, do provide additional compelling grounds for the intervention of both the Ghana Bar Association and the General Legal Council to interrogate this matter and take appropriate actions to maintain sanity, decorum and above all the highest standards of professional conduct and upholding the rule of law in Ghana,” the letter pointed out.
The letter which was addressed to the GBA and copied to the General Legal Council said it was the assessment of the institute that the comments made by the two lawyers “fundamentally violates their ethical responsibilities as lawyers and officers of the court and the same ought to be redressed.”
It gave the assurance that the institute was ready “to provide whatever assistance and support the GBA and the General Legal Council might require to “commence and conclude the investigation in the shortest possible time.”
Reaction of Mr Otchere-Darko
Reacting to the institute’s request in an interview with the Daily Graphic, Mr Otchere-Darko, said “My reaction: that's very patriotic of him. Maybe we should nickname him Busy Body Brobbey. I hope he will make himself available for tutorials since he has recent experience when it comes to appearing before a disciplinary committee. I could do with some help.”
“You may add: I thought for a person who set up Radio Eye to promote free speech, he would be the first to protect my right to critique a decision of a court, even if harshly. I do not see anything wrong with what I said and will be prepared to defend it anyday, anywhere.
Maybe the likes of the NGO reporting me to the GLC needs to broaden their lexicon. To say a decision is corrupt is not the same as saying a judge is corrupt. I would be the first to criticise a decision harshly but the last to accuse a judge without any evidence,” he added.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
How the judges ruled in the election petition- Judgements of Justices Adinyira and Yeboah
September 4, 2013 (Page 44)
ALL the nine justices of the Supreme Court who sat on the presidential election petition have written individual opinions to buttress their position on why some votes should or should not be annulled.
They all quoted the 1992 constitution extensively, cited both local and foreign authorities, rules of court and statutes to support their claim for and against the annulment of votes.
Although, the court in an overall decision on August 29, 2013 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected president in December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential elections, the nine justices decided to give their varied interpretations to enrich the country’s laws.
Thus the 588-paged composite judgement of Justices William A. Atuguba, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Victor M. Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo, encompasses all their legal opinions.
Vote patterns
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and different results and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
However, Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismissed the entire claims of the petitioners for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 while Justices Ansah, Owusu and Yeboah felt votes should be annulled and a re-run held because of allegations of over voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification.
The three also declined to declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president.
The Deciders
Messrs Justice Victor M. Dotse and Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, changed their voting patterns. Mr Justice Dotse upheld the petitioners allegation of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers while Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld the petitioners case of voting without biometric verification.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie dismissed the allegations of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets but Mr Justice Dotse dismissed the claims of voting without biometric verification.
Lead Opinions
The lead opinions of the majority and minority which were written by Justices Atuguba and Ansah respectively, was published in the September 3, 2013 edition of the Daily Graphic.
The following is the dissenting positions of Justices Adinyira and Yeboah.
Mrs Justice Sophia O. A. Adinyira
Absence of signatures by presiding officers
According to her, the issue of some presiding officers not signing pink sheets was “outside the voter’s control, and is caused solely by the error or omission on the part of the presiding officer. Article 49 (3) supra, and Regulation 36 (2) supra requires the presiding officer, the candidate or their representatives to sign a declaration stating that the results are a true and accurate account of the poll at that polling station, the name of the polling station, the total number of votes cast in favour of each candidate and the total number of rejected ballots.”
She held that “It should respectfully be noted that article 49 (3) does not place any premium on the presence of the signature of the agent on the declaration forms unlike that of the presiding officer. That is why it stipulates that “the polling agents (if any)” shall then sign the declaration form after the signing by the presiding officer.”
According to her, the language of Article 49 (3) did not speak or imply that polling agents were required to sign the declaration form as witnesses to the signature of the presiding officers because, “a polling agent who represents the candidate is obliged to sign the declaration together with the presiding officer.”
She said both the presiding officer and the polling agent had the same obligation to certify the regularity of the conduct of the poll in accordance with the laws and regulations adding that, “that is why the polling agent has to pay attention to the sorting and counting of the votes and rejected ballots have to be shown to him and he is entitled to object to the rejection of a ballot paper.”
Mrs Justice Adinyira argued in her 49-page judgement that the role of the polling agent as shown in the constitution paragraphs was “not a mere spectator at the polls. The Presiding officer is obliged to give him space to observe the poll and where a polling agent has any complaint, he can refuse to sign the declaration form and give reasons in the column provided on the declaration form and/or file a complaint which must be resolved at the collation centre. “
“It is noteworthy that in a majority of the pink sheets where there is no presiding officer’s signature the polling agents of the two contesting parties signed the pink sheets, because they are required by the constitutional and statutory regulations to do so,” Mrs Justice Adinyira opined.
She upheld argument raised by counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur who said “it would be misdirecting punishment indeed for entitled voters who stayed in long queues to cast their votes, and whose vote had been counted, entered onto a declaration form and publicly declared to be deprived of the right to have those votes counted as a result of an act of omission by an electoral officer (not wilfully done), over whose conduct the voters have no control.”
Presiding Officer should be held liable
She held that the failure by Presiding Officers to sign declaration forms did not affect the results of the elections at the respective polling stations adding that, “the presiding officers who did not sign the declaration forms are liable to be sanctioned.”
“I am conscious of the role of this Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the Constitution, which is one of its underlying concepts of the Constitution. Ghana has progressed immensely in electoral laws and processes and we are in fact the beacon of light in Africa in the conduct of elections,” Mrs Justice Adinyira held.
Gone were the days
Arguing further to buttress her decision to declare President Mahama as the validly elected President, she said “gone were the days when counting was not done at the polling station but taken to a collation centre that led to abuses like ballot stuffing and in extreme cases dumping opponents’ ballot boxes.”
“With the kind of peaceful election that we experienced on the 2 polling days 7 and 8 December are we setting the clock back by a narrow interpretation of electoral laws? A strict interpretation would curtail and erode the gains we have made so far.
What Ghanaians need to do is to shun and shame the growing violence that has come about as a result of irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic persons, whose unguarded utterances, and machinations at times bordering on treason are causing disunity in this our dear country all in the name of politics,” Mrs Justice Adinyira emphasised.
Voting without biometric verification
Regulation 30 of Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I. 75 sets out procedures that a voter goes through before casting his/her vote in accordance with article 42.
She said it was obvious that the Biometric Verification Device (BVD) was not only for fingerprint identification but also for face or picture verification by wiping of the bar-coded identification card on the machine.
Mrs Justice Adinyira held that the fact that the Form 1C of the affected persons were not sent to the polling centres was also unchallenged and concluded that no one voted without going through biometric verification.
“Furthermore, even though the 1st Petitioner had polling agents at all the 26,002 polling stations there was not a single complaint of non-verification by BVM filed by any of them,” she stated. Nana Akufo-Addo was the first petitioner.
Affidavit evidence
She said the NDC filed thousands of affidavits from its polling agents and other persons who testified that they participated in the election that was regularly conducted at their various polling stations and all who voted went through biometric verification.
“ Even though Counsel for the Petitioners tried to downplay the evidential value of their affidavits, I am of the view that some weight is to be attached to them as they recounted the procedure that everyone went through at the polling stations,” Justice Adinyira held.
According to her, the petitioners had polling agents at all the 26,002 polling stations and, “yet they did not produce a single affidavit evidence to support their allegation that some voters did not go through finger verification before voting. “
She said they also failed to apply to have any of the witnesses of the NDC to be cross-examined to test their credibility adding that, “having failed to call a single person for cross-examination, the Petitioners cannot turn round to say the evidence was untested.”
Justice Adinyira said the court had taken judicial notice of the fact that voters with valid ID cards whose photo and bio data had been verified by the BVD but could not be verified by fingerprints due to technical defects were turned away.
“The elderly, especially women were the major victims. Breakdown of the BVM resulted in long queues making some people go away without voting. It is a pity that technical difficulties disenfranchised some citizens,” she pointed out.
She found the reasons given by the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan plausible and added that, “elections were postponed to the next day due to failure of the BVD machines attest to the fact that all who voted went through biometric verification.”
Over-voting
She said the Petitioners failed to persuade her that there were votes cast that exceeded the number of voters entitled to vote at these polling stations.
“It seems to me that Dr Afari Gyan and Mr Asiedu Nketia demonstrated that it is misleading for the Petitioners simply to look at the entries on the face of the pink sheets without checking the figures against other available and reliable information contained in the voters register, ballot booklets and even the biometric verification device which recorded the number of people who were verified and thus entitled to vote.; before coming to a conclusion that there was over vote,” she added.
She submitted that the number of registered voters could be easily verified or ascertained from the Voters register of the particular polling stations which every candidate /Party had copies.
Justice Adinyira was of the view that the petitioners failed to provide empirical evidence to show that there was over-voting on the pink sheets through the entry of columns on the pink sheets.
She took judicial notice of the fact that there was immense pressure on the presiding officers, election officials and even the polling and counting agents on the day of the elections, the majority of whom had no previous experience in election procedures.
“The EC officials and presiding officers may have made some clerical errors; but there is no evidence upon which mischief or advantage can or should be attributed thereto. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to Ghana alone,” she argued.
Conclusion
“Overturning an election is a very serious matter. In order to uphold the grounds for annulling votes that the Petitioners are requesting to be annulled for irregularities, malpractices and statutory breach, this court must be satisfied that the petitioners have successfully discharged the onus they bore right from the onset,” which she said they had failed to do.
“The Petitioners relied on pink sheets and no other evidence, and in view of the fact that the Petitioners kept changing categorization, number of exhibits they are relying, admission of mislabelling and double counting, I cannot be confident that these slips did not affect their case,” Mrs Justice Adinyira held.
“Using the yardstick of the principles of Electoral Justice, I am satisfied that the elections were conducted substantially in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution, and all governing law; that there was no breach of law such as to affect the results of the elections; and that the said elections do reflect the will of the Ghanaian people.
I accordingly hold that John Dramani Mahama was validly elected as the President of Ghana. I will also dismiss the petition,” and ended her judgement with the epilogue “Acceptance”-Where the foregoing principles of Electoral Justice have been substantially observed, the electoral processes reflect the will of the people. It is then an overriding principle of Electoral Justice that everyone abides by the outcome; that the outcome be given effect by the institutions of government; and that the legitimacy of the results be acknowledged by the international community.”
Opinion of Justice Anin Yeboah
In his 26-page jugement, Mr Justice Yeboah said, he was “very uncomfortable” with the way and manner the court was left unassisted by the Electoral Commission (EC) being the custodian of pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of president).
“Surprisingly, the second respondent opted for filing no pink sheets leaving this court unassisted and thereby placing reliance only on the pink sheets supplied to the agents of the petitioners at the various polling stations in issue,” adding that “why the second respondent elected to deny a court of law in search of the truth in a monumental case of this nature is beyond my comprehension,” Mr Justice Yeboah emphasised.
Over - voting
He admitted that a look at all the statutes governing elections in this country including even the Constitution was bereft of the definition of over-voting adding, “the Peoples Representative Law PNDCL 284 of 1992, Cl 75 and any other statutes, touching on elections have not defined over-voting.”
He said the lack of any statutory definition presented an invidious situation for the court to decide the fate of several polling stations which the petitioners had presented the court “to annul the votes on the simple but cogent grounds that the results had been compromised and that there was clear want of transparency at the affected polling stations.”
Anin Yeboah’s views on over-voting
He limited himself to over-voting occurring when the total number of ballot papers issued to voters at a particular polling station was exceeded by the total number of ballot papers in the ballot box.
“I am of the opinion that no matter the number of votes involved that may constitute over-voting; it is a clear illegality and should not be endorsed by a court of law, more so by the highest court of the land. I will, therefore, proceed to annul all votes which were proved by the petitioners to be so. The figures and the polling stations would be addressed later in this delivery,” he added.
No signature of presiding officer
According to Mr Justice Yeboah, the presiding officer was enjoined to sign the declaration stating the name of the polling station, the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate, and the total number of rejected ballots, before proceeding to announce the results to the public.
He said the signature of the presiding officer was mandatory in the Constitution and the regulations made thereunder which was under consideration.
“I am of the firm view that the framers of the constitution inserted the word shall there for a purpose and should be construed as imposing a mandatory duty on the presiding officers to perform their statutory duty which appears clearly as a condition for the declaration of the results at the polling stations,” he stressed adding that, “when there is clear breach of mandatory provisions of a constitution it must be so declared and no effect is given to the act performed in breach of the provisions in issue.”
He said the arguments that the agents signed and the result publicly declared by the presiding officers would not hold because there was a clear breach of a vital constitutional provision which was a condition precedent to the declaration of the results involved in the affected polling stations.
Voting without biometric verification devices
He indicated that the petitioners discharged the burden of proof as none of the pink sheets supplied in respect of lack of biometric verification attracted any objection on admissibility.
Mr Justice Yeboah indicated that the respondents who on the pleadings and the evidence doubted what was officially recorded on the pink sheets did not satisfy him that the recordings which said persons voted without undergoing biometric were incorrect or suffer from any defects known to admissibility of evidence.
He was also of the opinion that the EC failed to produce documents which required presiding officers not to fill out the section of the pink sheet which required the number of persons who had voted without undergoing biometric verification.
“In my opinion the various affidavit filed against this issue of lack of biometric verification do not in the least rebut the documentary evidence duly prepared by the second respondent's agents, signed by them and duly used for the declaration of the results which is in controversy. I feel that this is not the type of evidence needed to rebut the presumption of regularity raised in favour of the pink sheets covering lack of biometric verification.
Having found that the clear regulation has been flouted by the second respondent, I will uphold the claim of the petitioners on this category and proceed to annul votes cast without the biometric verification as required by law,” Mr Justice Yeboah concluded.
Deferring votes to be annulled
He deferred the computation of the voters whose votes were to be annulled under the three categories because he said figures kept changing on several occasions.
In conclusion, Mr Justice Yeboah found that there were statutory violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices in the presidential election and also held the view that they were enough to affect the outcome of the polls.
“I would have readily proceeded to grant the reliefs sought in its entirety but the ONLY problem is that from the available evidence, the widespread violations, omissions and malpractices appeared to be of such proportions that it would not be proper for me to declare the first petitioner as winner of the elections in controversy in terms of the reliefs sought.
I find the malpractices, omissions and violations enormous which rock the very foundation of free and fair elections as enshrined in our constitution which was itself breached through over-voting, lack of presiding officer's signature and lack of biometric verification which takes its validity from Article 5l of the very constitution,” he added.
He accordingly refused to declare Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the December 2012 elections and proceeded to annul votes affected by non-signing of pink sheets, no biometric verification and over-voting.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
ALL the nine justices of the Supreme Court who sat on the presidential election petition have written individual opinions to buttress their position on why some votes should or should not be annulled.
They all quoted the 1992 constitution extensively, cited both local and foreign authorities, rules of court and statutes to support their claim for and against the annulment of votes.
Although, the court in an overall decision on August 29, 2013 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected president in December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential elections, the nine justices decided to give their varied interpretations to enrich the country’s laws.
Thus the 588-paged composite judgement of Justices William A. Atuguba, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Victor M. Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo, encompasses all their legal opinions.
Vote patterns
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and different results and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
However, Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismissed the entire claims of the petitioners for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 while Justices Ansah, Owusu and Yeboah felt votes should be annulled and a re-run held because of allegations of over voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification.
The three also declined to declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president.
The Deciders
Messrs Justice Victor M. Dotse and Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, changed their voting patterns. Mr Justice Dotse upheld the petitioners allegation of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers while Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld the petitioners case of voting without biometric verification.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie dismissed the allegations of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets but Mr Justice Dotse dismissed the claims of voting without biometric verification.
Lead Opinions
The lead opinions of the majority and minority which were written by Justices Atuguba and Ansah respectively, was published in the September 3, 2013 edition of the Daily Graphic.
The following is the dissenting positions of Justices Adinyira and Yeboah.
Mrs Justice Sophia O. A. Adinyira
Absence of signatures by presiding officers
According to her, the issue of some presiding officers not signing pink sheets was “outside the voter’s control, and is caused solely by the error or omission on the part of the presiding officer. Article 49 (3) supra, and Regulation 36 (2) supra requires the presiding officer, the candidate or their representatives to sign a declaration stating that the results are a true and accurate account of the poll at that polling station, the name of the polling station, the total number of votes cast in favour of each candidate and the total number of rejected ballots.”
She held that “It should respectfully be noted that article 49 (3) does not place any premium on the presence of the signature of the agent on the declaration forms unlike that of the presiding officer. That is why it stipulates that “the polling agents (if any)” shall then sign the declaration form after the signing by the presiding officer.”
According to her, the language of Article 49 (3) did not speak or imply that polling agents were required to sign the declaration form as witnesses to the signature of the presiding officers because, “a polling agent who represents the candidate is obliged to sign the declaration together with the presiding officer.”
She said both the presiding officer and the polling agent had the same obligation to certify the regularity of the conduct of the poll in accordance with the laws and regulations adding that, “that is why the polling agent has to pay attention to the sorting and counting of the votes and rejected ballots have to be shown to him and he is entitled to object to the rejection of a ballot paper.”
Mrs Justice Adinyira argued in her 49-page judgement that the role of the polling agent as shown in the constitution paragraphs was “not a mere spectator at the polls. The Presiding officer is obliged to give him space to observe the poll and where a polling agent has any complaint, he can refuse to sign the declaration form and give reasons in the column provided on the declaration form and/or file a complaint which must be resolved at the collation centre. “
“It is noteworthy that in a majority of the pink sheets where there is no presiding officer’s signature the polling agents of the two contesting parties signed the pink sheets, because they are required by the constitutional and statutory regulations to do so,” Mrs Justice Adinyira opined.
She upheld argument raised by counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur who said “it would be misdirecting punishment indeed for entitled voters who stayed in long queues to cast their votes, and whose vote had been counted, entered onto a declaration form and publicly declared to be deprived of the right to have those votes counted as a result of an act of omission by an electoral officer (not wilfully done), over whose conduct the voters have no control.”
Presiding Officer should be held liable
She held that the failure by Presiding Officers to sign declaration forms did not affect the results of the elections at the respective polling stations adding that, “the presiding officers who did not sign the declaration forms are liable to be sanctioned.”
“I am conscious of the role of this Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the Constitution, which is one of its underlying concepts of the Constitution. Ghana has progressed immensely in electoral laws and processes and we are in fact the beacon of light in Africa in the conduct of elections,” Mrs Justice Adinyira held.
Gone were the days
Arguing further to buttress her decision to declare President Mahama as the validly elected President, she said “gone were the days when counting was not done at the polling station but taken to a collation centre that led to abuses like ballot stuffing and in extreme cases dumping opponents’ ballot boxes.”
“With the kind of peaceful election that we experienced on the 2 polling days 7 and 8 December are we setting the clock back by a narrow interpretation of electoral laws? A strict interpretation would curtail and erode the gains we have made so far.
What Ghanaians need to do is to shun and shame the growing violence that has come about as a result of irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic persons, whose unguarded utterances, and machinations at times bordering on treason are causing disunity in this our dear country all in the name of politics,” Mrs Justice Adinyira emphasised.
Voting without biometric verification
Regulation 30 of Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I. 75 sets out procedures that a voter goes through before casting his/her vote in accordance with article 42.
She said it was obvious that the Biometric Verification Device (BVD) was not only for fingerprint identification but also for face or picture verification by wiping of the bar-coded identification card on the machine.
Mrs Justice Adinyira held that the fact that the Form 1C of the affected persons were not sent to the polling centres was also unchallenged and concluded that no one voted without going through biometric verification.
“Furthermore, even though the 1st Petitioner had polling agents at all the 26,002 polling stations there was not a single complaint of non-verification by BVM filed by any of them,” she stated. Nana Akufo-Addo was the first petitioner.
Affidavit evidence
She said the NDC filed thousands of affidavits from its polling agents and other persons who testified that they participated in the election that was regularly conducted at their various polling stations and all who voted went through biometric verification.
“ Even though Counsel for the Petitioners tried to downplay the evidential value of their affidavits, I am of the view that some weight is to be attached to them as they recounted the procedure that everyone went through at the polling stations,” Justice Adinyira held.
According to her, the petitioners had polling agents at all the 26,002 polling stations and, “yet they did not produce a single affidavit evidence to support their allegation that some voters did not go through finger verification before voting. “
She said they also failed to apply to have any of the witnesses of the NDC to be cross-examined to test their credibility adding that, “having failed to call a single person for cross-examination, the Petitioners cannot turn round to say the evidence was untested.”
Justice Adinyira said the court had taken judicial notice of the fact that voters with valid ID cards whose photo and bio data had been verified by the BVD but could not be verified by fingerprints due to technical defects were turned away.
“The elderly, especially women were the major victims. Breakdown of the BVM resulted in long queues making some people go away without voting. It is a pity that technical difficulties disenfranchised some citizens,” she pointed out.
She found the reasons given by the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan plausible and added that, “elections were postponed to the next day due to failure of the BVD machines attest to the fact that all who voted went through biometric verification.”
Over-voting
She said the Petitioners failed to persuade her that there were votes cast that exceeded the number of voters entitled to vote at these polling stations.
“It seems to me that Dr Afari Gyan and Mr Asiedu Nketia demonstrated that it is misleading for the Petitioners simply to look at the entries on the face of the pink sheets without checking the figures against other available and reliable information contained in the voters register, ballot booklets and even the biometric verification device which recorded the number of people who were verified and thus entitled to vote.; before coming to a conclusion that there was over vote,” she added.
She submitted that the number of registered voters could be easily verified or ascertained from the Voters register of the particular polling stations which every candidate /Party had copies.
Justice Adinyira was of the view that the petitioners failed to provide empirical evidence to show that there was over-voting on the pink sheets through the entry of columns on the pink sheets.
She took judicial notice of the fact that there was immense pressure on the presiding officers, election officials and even the polling and counting agents on the day of the elections, the majority of whom had no previous experience in election procedures.
“The EC officials and presiding officers may have made some clerical errors; but there is no evidence upon which mischief or advantage can or should be attributed thereto. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to Ghana alone,” she argued.
Conclusion
“Overturning an election is a very serious matter. In order to uphold the grounds for annulling votes that the Petitioners are requesting to be annulled for irregularities, malpractices and statutory breach, this court must be satisfied that the petitioners have successfully discharged the onus they bore right from the onset,” which she said they had failed to do.
“The Petitioners relied on pink sheets and no other evidence, and in view of the fact that the Petitioners kept changing categorization, number of exhibits they are relying, admission of mislabelling and double counting, I cannot be confident that these slips did not affect their case,” Mrs Justice Adinyira held.
“Using the yardstick of the principles of Electoral Justice, I am satisfied that the elections were conducted substantially in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution, and all governing law; that there was no breach of law such as to affect the results of the elections; and that the said elections do reflect the will of the Ghanaian people.
I accordingly hold that John Dramani Mahama was validly elected as the President of Ghana. I will also dismiss the petition,” and ended her judgement with the epilogue “Acceptance”-Where the foregoing principles of Electoral Justice have been substantially observed, the electoral processes reflect the will of the people. It is then an overriding principle of Electoral Justice that everyone abides by the outcome; that the outcome be given effect by the institutions of government; and that the legitimacy of the results be acknowledged by the international community.”
Opinion of Justice Anin Yeboah
In his 26-page jugement, Mr Justice Yeboah said, he was “very uncomfortable” with the way and manner the court was left unassisted by the Electoral Commission (EC) being the custodian of pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of president).
“Surprisingly, the second respondent opted for filing no pink sheets leaving this court unassisted and thereby placing reliance only on the pink sheets supplied to the agents of the petitioners at the various polling stations in issue,” adding that “why the second respondent elected to deny a court of law in search of the truth in a monumental case of this nature is beyond my comprehension,” Mr Justice Yeboah emphasised.
Over - voting
He admitted that a look at all the statutes governing elections in this country including even the Constitution was bereft of the definition of over-voting adding, “the Peoples Representative Law PNDCL 284 of 1992, Cl 75 and any other statutes, touching on elections have not defined over-voting.”
He said the lack of any statutory definition presented an invidious situation for the court to decide the fate of several polling stations which the petitioners had presented the court “to annul the votes on the simple but cogent grounds that the results had been compromised and that there was clear want of transparency at the affected polling stations.”
Anin Yeboah’s views on over-voting
He limited himself to over-voting occurring when the total number of ballot papers issued to voters at a particular polling station was exceeded by the total number of ballot papers in the ballot box.
“I am of the opinion that no matter the number of votes involved that may constitute over-voting; it is a clear illegality and should not be endorsed by a court of law, more so by the highest court of the land. I will, therefore, proceed to annul all votes which were proved by the petitioners to be so. The figures and the polling stations would be addressed later in this delivery,” he added.
No signature of presiding officer
According to Mr Justice Yeboah, the presiding officer was enjoined to sign the declaration stating the name of the polling station, the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate, and the total number of rejected ballots, before proceeding to announce the results to the public.
He said the signature of the presiding officer was mandatory in the Constitution and the regulations made thereunder which was under consideration.
“I am of the firm view that the framers of the constitution inserted the word shall there for a purpose and should be construed as imposing a mandatory duty on the presiding officers to perform their statutory duty which appears clearly as a condition for the declaration of the results at the polling stations,” he stressed adding that, “when there is clear breach of mandatory provisions of a constitution it must be so declared and no effect is given to the act performed in breach of the provisions in issue.”
He said the arguments that the agents signed and the result publicly declared by the presiding officers would not hold because there was a clear breach of a vital constitutional provision which was a condition precedent to the declaration of the results involved in the affected polling stations.
Voting without biometric verification devices
He indicated that the petitioners discharged the burden of proof as none of the pink sheets supplied in respect of lack of biometric verification attracted any objection on admissibility.
Mr Justice Yeboah indicated that the respondents who on the pleadings and the evidence doubted what was officially recorded on the pink sheets did not satisfy him that the recordings which said persons voted without undergoing biometric were incorrect or suffer from any defects known to admissibility of evidence.
He was also of the opinion that the EC failed to produce documents which required presiding officers not to fill out the section of the pink sheet which required the number of persons who had voted without undergoing biometric verification.
“In my opinion the various affidavit filed against this issue of lack of biometric verification do not in the least rebut the documentary evidence duly prepared by the second respondent's agents, signed by them and duly used for the declaration of the results which is in controversy. I feel that this is not the type of evidence needed to rebut the presumption of regularity raised in favour of the pink sheets covering lack of biometric verification.
Having found that the clear regulation has been flouted by the second respondent, I will uphold the claim of the petitioners on this category and proceed to annul votes cast without the biometric verification as required by law,” Mr Justice Yeboah concluded.
Deferring votes to be annulled
He deferred the computation of the voters whose votes were to be annulled under the three categories because he said figures kept changing on several occasions.
In conclusion, Mr Justice Yeboah found that there were statutory violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices in the presidential election and also held the view that they were enough to affect the outcome of the polls.
“I would have readily proceeded to grant the reliefs sought in its entirety but the ONLY problem is that from the available evidence, the widespread violations, omissions and malpractices appeared to be of such proportions that it would not be proper for me to declare the first petitioner as winner of the elections in controversy in terms of the reliefs sought.
I find the malpractices, omissions and violations enormous which rock the very foundation of free and fair elections as enshrined in our constitution which was itself breached through over-voting, lack of presiding officer's signature and lack of biometric verification which takes its validity from Article 5l of the very constitution,” he added.
He accordingly refused to declare Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the December 2012 elections and proceeded to annul votes affected by non-signing of pink sheets, no biometric verification and over-voting.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Gbagbo ally commends Ghana for upholding rule of law
September 5, 2013 (Page 17)
A former Minister of Budget in Cote d’Ivoire, Dr Justin Konin Katinan, has commended Ghana for the peaceful manner in which it has resolved its election dispute.
He advised Ghanaians to accept the Supreme Court’s judgement and move on with the development of the country.
“I am pleading with Ghanaians to respect the Constitution and institutions and co-exist with one another,” Dr Katinan, who is also the Spokesperson of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, stated in an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra.
Expressing gratitude to Ghana’s justice system for upholding the rule of law when it refused to extradite him to his home country to face trial, an elated Dr Katinan urged Ghanaians to continue to respect the Constitution because “Cote d’Ivoire would not be where it is now if Ivorians had taken a cue from Ghana’s democracy”.
He was particularly happy that the Osu District Magistrate Court had ruled that he (Dr Katinan) had proved that he would face political persecution in Cote d’Ivoire when he was extradited to that country.
That, to him, was a clear indication that former President Gbagbo and more than 750 of his allies were languishing in jail because of political persecution.
He was full of praise for his lawyer, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor, whose argument that Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire had no extradition agreement was upheld by the court.
Not pleasant to live as a refugee
He said it was not pleasant to live in another country as a refugee, adding, “My prayer is that Ghana should never experience what happened in Cote d’Ivoire.”
Dr Katinan congratulated the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) on challenging and defending the outcome of the December 2012 presidential election through the court system.
“Ghana has gone through an election and the results were challenged without any violence. If this wisdom had prevailed in Cote d’Ivoire, we would not be here as refugees,” he stressed, and thanked the government for providing refuge for Ivorian refugees in the country.
Special thanks to former President J. J. Rawlings
Dr Katinan expressed gratitude to former President Jerry John Rawlings for visiting him when he was in custody, adding, “I appreciate that very much.”
Will he go back?
Asked if he would go back to his home country one day, Dr Katinan sighed and said that was his wish, noting, however, that under the circumstances, it was impossible.
“There is an arrest warrant on most of us. Our bank accounts have been frozen; our homes have either been taken over or destroyed,” Dr Katinan disclosed.
Message to Presidents Ouatarra and Mahama
Dr Katinan pleaded with current Ivorian President Alassane Ouatarra to do all he could to unite Ivorians in order to promote peace, as well as book a place in the history books.
He urged President John Dramani Mahama to promote the re-integration of the sub-region and stressed that there could not be stability without the integration of countries in the sub-region.
Brief Profile
Dr Katinan was born on November 14, 1965 and entered active politics at age 21. He rose through the ranks in his party and was eventually appointed Minister of Budget in December 2010.
But the government in which he served was toppled in April 2011.
He fled to Ghana on April 13, 2011 and has since been living under a refugee status.
Court “trotting”
Dr Katinan was picked up by the International Police Organisation ( INTERPOL) Section of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service on September 28, 2012, three days after he had been granted bail by the Osu District Magistrate Court.
He was first arrested by operatives of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, 2012 following a warrant issued for his arrest by an Ivorian court for him to face robbery charges.
Katinan was picked up by security forces following a request from the Ivorian government for him to be extradited to face prosecution for alleged economic crimes he committed during the recent post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire.
After being trundled among the Human Rights Court, the AMA District Court and the Osu District Court, Dr Katinan finally breathed the air of freedom on August 30, 2013.
He was the second top official in Gbagbo's government to be arrested while living in exile.
The first case was the extradition of Moise Lida Kouassi, a former Defence Minister, who was picked up in Togo on June 6, 2012 and extradited the same day.
Katinan, 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 Ouatarra, in December 2010.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
A former Minister of Budget in Cote d’Ivoire, Dr Justin Konin Katinan, has commended Ghana for the peaceful manner in which it has resolved its election dispute.
He advised Ghanaians to accept the Supreme Court’s judgement and move on with the development of the country.
“I am pleading with Ghanaians to respect the Constitution and institutions and co-exist with one another,” Dr Katinan, who is also the Spokesperson of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, stated in an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra.
Expressing gratitude to Ghana’s justice system for upholding the rule of law when it refused to extradite him to his home country to face trial, an elated Dr Katinan urged Ghanaians to continue to respect the Constitution because “Cote d’Ivoire would not be where it is now if Ivorians had taken a cue from Ghana’s democracy”.
He was particularly happy that the Osu District Magistrate Court had ruled that he (Dr Katinan) had proved that he would face political persecution in Cote d’Ivoire when he was extradited to that country.
That, to him, was a clear indication that former President Gbagbo and more than 750 of his allies were languishing in jail because of political persecution.
He was full of praise for his lawyer, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor, whose argument that Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire had no extradition agreement was upheld by the court.
Not pleasant to live as a refugee
He said it was not pleasant to live in another country as a refugee, adding, “My prayer is that Ghana should never experience what happened in Cote d’Ivoire.”
Dr Katinan congratulated the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) on challenging and defending the outcome of the December 2012 presidential election through the court system.
“Ghana has gone through an election and the results were challenged without any violence. If this wisdom had prevailed in Cote d’Ivoire, we would not be here as refugees,” he stressed, and thanked the government for providing refuge for Ivorian refugees in the country.
Special thanks to former President J. J. Rawlings
Dr Katinan expressed gratitude to former President Jerry John Rawlings for visiting him when he was in custody, adding, “I appreciate that very much.”
Will he go back?
Asked if he would go back to his home country one day, Dr Katinan sighed and said that was his wish, noting, however, that under the circumstances, it was impossible.
“There is an arrest warrant on most of us. Our bank accounts have been frozen; our homes have either been taken over or destroyed,” Dr Katinan disclosed.
Message to Presidents Ouatarra and Mahama
Dr Katinan pleaded with current Ivorian President Alassane Ouatarra to do all he could to unite Ivorians in order to promote peace, as well as book a place in the history books.
He urged President John Dramani Mahama to promote the re-integration of the sub-region and stressed that there could not be stability without the integration of countries in the sub-region.
Brief Profile
Dr Katinan was born on November 14, 1965 and entered active politics at age 21. He rose through the ranks in his party and was eventually appointed Minister of Budget in December 2010.
But the government in which he served was toppled in April 2011.
He fled to Ghana on April 13, 2011 and has since been living under a refugee status.
Court “trotting”
Dr Katinan was picked up by the International Police Organisation ( INTERPOL) Section of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service on September 28, 2012, three days after he had been granted bail by the Osu District Magistrate Court.
He was first arrested by operatives of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, 2012 following a warrant issued for his arrest by an Ivorian court for him to face robbery charges.
Katinan was picked up by security forces following a request from the Ivorian government for him to be extradited to face prosecution for alleged economic crimes he committed during the recent post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire.
After being trundled among the Human Rights Court, the AMA District Court and the Osu District Court, Dr Katinan finally breathed the air of freedom on August 30, 2013.
He was the second top official in Gbagbo's government to be arrested while living in exile.
The first case was the extradition of Moise Lida Kouassi, a former Defence Minister, who was picked up in Togo on June 6, 2012 and extradited the same day.
Katinan, 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 Ouatarra, in December 2010.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
How the judges ruled in the election petition - Judgements of Justices Atuguba and Ansah
September 4, 2013 (Page 17)
THE Supreme Court has released the full judgement on the 2012 presidential election petition, four days after leaving the public in suspense.
In a 588-paged judgement, the court by a 5-4 majority decision justified why President Mahama was validly elected.
There were four and three consistent judges who voted against and for the annulment of more than two million votes due to what the petitioners described as gross and widespread irregularities recorded during the election.
Justices William Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo in an “overall” decision dismissed the petitioners claims for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices who held the view there were issues to be settled with allegations of over voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They declined to declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president, but held the view that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
The Switches
Messrs Justice Victor M. Dotse and Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, changed their voting patterns. For instance while Mr Justice Dotse upheld the petitioners allegation of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers – Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld the petitioners case of voting without biometric verification.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie dismissed the allegations of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets while Mr Justice Dotse dismissed the allegations of voting without biometric verification.
The Majority Decision
(1)Transparency of the Voters Register
According to the majority decision, read by Mr Justice Atuguba, although the petitioners complained about the transparency of the voters’ register and its non or belated availability before the elections, this line of their case did not seem to have been strongly pressed.
It said in any event, the evidence clearly showed that the petitioners raised no such complaint prior to the elections nor had any prejudice been shown therefrom.
“ Indeed even in this petition the petitioners claim that the 1st petitioner was the candidate rather elected, obviously upon the same register. So also their allegations that there were irregularities and electoral malpractices which “were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting the 1st respondent to win the 2012 December Presidential Elections.” Indeed the 2nd petitioner for and on behalf of all the petitioners, testified that the first respondent did no wrong with regard to the conduct of the elections but was merely the beneficiary of the alleged malpractices, irregularities and violations.
ABSENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE
According to the majority, the irregularity which had engaged and sharply divided the court as to its consequence is “absence of the signature of a presiding officer.”
“This irregularity is anchored in Article 49 of the 1992 constitution,” adding that “it is undoubtable that in some instances the declared results were not signed by the presiding officer though the petitioners’ polling agents did sign. The crucial question that has devastated this court is whether those results should be annulled.”
“Unfair and Fraudulent”
It said it would be unfair and fraudulent for the petitioners to authenticate the results through their polling agents’ signatures and turn round to seek to invalidate on the purely technical ground of absence of the presiding officer’s signature.
Administrative Error
“Clearly the underlying purpose of the signatures of the presiding officer and the polling agents on the pink sheets is to provide evidence that the results to which they relate were those generated at the relevant polling station in compliance with the constitutional and other statutory requirements, otherwise each “signature in itself has no magic about it.
“In those circumstances even if the failure by the presiding officer to sign the same is condemned as unconstitutional yet the polling agents’ signatures, the public glare of the count and declaration of the results in question, the provision of copies of the same to the polling agents and their sustenance at the constituency’s collation centre and all the way to the strong room of the 2nd respondent (the Electoral Commission) and the cross checking of the same by the parties; representatives should satisfy the policy objective of Article 49(6) regarding signature,” it said.
It said the petitioners had not on any ground approaching prejudice of any sort questioned the authenticity of the results which do not bear the presiding officer’s signature.
OVER VOTING
It said there was a question as to what constitutes over-voting.
“The evidence of Dr. Mahamadu Bawumia, the 2nd petitioner, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress and of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the electoral Commission the 2nd respondent, established two types of over voting.
“The first is where the number of those who voted at a polling station exceeds the number of voters contained in the relevant polling station register. The second situation is where the number of ballots in the ballot box exceeds the number of ballot papers issued to the relevant polling station. Pondering over these two categories closely I would think that the second category of overvoting is rather an instance of ballot stuffing as testified by Johnson Asiedu Nketia.”
It said according to the evidence where the votes in the ballot box were exceeded by even one vote the integrity of that vote was said to be compromised and must be annulled and depending on the impact of that vote on the overall results, the election in that polling station must be rerun.
Burden of Proof
According to the majority, before tackling the issues of over-voting and voting without biometric verification at length the question of the burden of proof had to be settled.
It is said that election petitions were peculiar in character hence the question of burden of proof had evoked various judicial opinions in the common law world.
“This means that unless the contrary is proved the president is presumed to have been validly elected. The cardinal question therefore is whether the petitioners have been able to rebut the presumption of validity created by the presidential Declaration of Results Instrument, “ it said.
Voting without Biometric Verification
It said the complaint about voting without biometric verification cannot therefore hold in the absence of some other contrary evidence.
“The pink sheets contained errors of omission of e.g. proxy votes, blanks, repetitions, wrong grammatical renditions, etc. Indeed Dr. Bawumia admitted under cross-examination that the pink sheets cannot alone supply answer to issues arising from them, in all situations,” it added.
It said the pink sheet or its equivalent in other jurisdictions has been judicially regarded as the primary record of an election.
“But no one has given it a conclusive effect. Neither the constitution nor any other statute, substantive or subsidiary has accorded the pink sheet any particular status.
“It appears that the petitioners rather belatedly, towards the end of the case, realised the need for the adduction in evidence of such vital documents like the voters registers, collation sheets, etc and tried to do so, sometimes with the indulgence of this court, through cross-examination of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission and also through unsuccessful applications for leave to serve on him notices to produce such documents.
“It is felt, and the petitioners so submit, that the pink sheets do operate as estoppel as to the facts therein contained and therefore, inter alia, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. The shortest answer to this is that the constitution being the supreme law of the land doctrines of estoppels do not apply to constitutional litigation.
“In the circumstances I do not think that the petitioners have established their allegations of over-voting and voting without biometric verification, except to the limited extent admitted by the Electoral Commission’s chairman, which cannot impact much on the declared results,” it stated.
Polling Agents
According to the majority, the petitioners sought to devalue the status of the polling agents to that of mere observers, pointing out that “That is certainly unacceptable.”
“If they were such passive attendants at an election it is inconceivable that the constitution would have considered their signatures to the results sheet significant enough to merit express constitutional requirement, “ it held.
It thus held that polling agents have a special role to play in a free, equal and secret poll.
“The signatures of the polling agents to the declaration of results therefore have high constitutional and statutory effect and authority, which cannot be discounted.
Reforms
It said the petition however had exposed the need for certain electoral reforms. I mention same of them.
• The Voters register must be compiled and made available to the parties as early as possible.
• A supplementary register may cater for late exigencies.
• The calibre of presiding officers must be greatly raised up.
• The pink sheet is too elaborate, a much simpler one to meet the pressures of the public, weariness and lateness of the day at the close of a poll etc.
• The carbon copying system has to be improved upon.
• The Biometric Device System must be streamlined to avoid breakdowns and the stress on the electorate involved in an adjournment of the poll.
• Invalidating wholesale votes for insignificant excess numbers is not the best application of the administrative principle of the proportionality test.
MINORITY DECISION
In a minority decision read by Mr Justice Julius Ansah said the duty of the court was to determine how the evidence supported the facts alleged.
It said since the respondents denied each and every averment of the petitioners in the petition, this imposed on the petitioners the duty of proving every single allegation they made in order to obtain a favourable finding thereof by the court.
CATEGORIES OF IRREGULARITIES
A. UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
The petitioners’ claim here concerns the 22 so-called unknown polling stations. This was a reduction of the petitioners’ initial allegation of 28 unknown polling stations.
The 2nd respondent showed that the flag bearer of the political party to which the petitioners belong, who is also the 1st petitioner herein, himself signed letters appointing polling agents to these same polling stations. It is difficult to fathom how in light of this the petitioners could maintain a claim that these polling stations were unknown.
“I find the petitioners’ case in this respect not satisfactory. There was evidence that following the aforesaid appointment letters, the petitioners sent their agents to the polling stations, voting took place there, the votes were counted and results declared, and finally the agents signed the result forms.
“ In the face of these overwhelming evidence, no one will doubt that the allegation of voting taking place at stations outside the 26,002 polling stations created by the second respondent was ill founded and remained unproven at the end of the trial,” it said.
B. PINK SHEETS NOT SIGNED BY PRESIDING OFFICERS OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
It said the presiding officer was not relieved from the duty to sign the declaration forms, since it was a mandatory duty cast on them by the constitutional and statutory provisions governing elections in the country.
According to the minority, the legitimate inference was that failure by the presiding officer to sign the declaration form was an irregularity which cannot be excused or waived on the grounds that the pressure of time, prevailing atmospheric condition, etc, etc, did not simply allow or permit them to sign the forms and thereby comply with the constitutional duty.
“The duty cast on the presiding officers to sign the declaration was couched in mandatory terms and deserves obedience and not meant to be disobeyed,” it added.
“An election much more so, Presidential Elections, are serious matters governed by well laid rules to preserve sanctity and integrity of the elections, especially where a specific duty is imposed on election officials. A breach of any of those duties meant the integrity of the election was compromised and ultimately affected the exercise of the right to vote as well as jeopardizing the sovereign will of the people.
“Because of this, I am unable to accept the alibi put up by the respondents, like pressure of work, nature of carbon paper making the signatures look faint through over use, and pressing the pen too often, too hard.
“I hold in my concluding comments on this ground, that the failure to sign the pink sheet was a monumental irregularity unmitigated by any circumstances.
“I am emboldened to come to this conclusion following upon the holding that: “the Ghana Supreme Court has recognised the concept of the spirit of the constitution as a tool of constitutional interpretation……to ensure that Ghana succeeds in her fourth attempt at democratic and constitutional system of government, both the government and the people should observe not only the written provision of the constitution but it’s spirit as well.”
Monstrous Irregularity
It expressed the opinion that the failure by the presiding officer to sign the pink sheet before announcing the results constituted an omission to perform and a breach of his constitutional duty.
“It vitiated the votes cast at the polling station, a more monstrous irregularity no one can imagine,” it held.
“It was as unpardonable as it was inexcusable that presiding officers should fail to sign declaration portion of pink sheets they worked with on the polling day from the beginning to the end of polls on the election day.
“Based on the foregoing discussion under this head of irregularities, I find that all votes cast and declared during the 2012 presidential elections which involved pink sheets not signed by presiding officers or their assistants are to be nullified and I so declare,” it further held.
Voting Without Prior Biometric Verification
According to the minority, it was unable to agree with the submission by the respondents that biometric verification could not be limited to only finger prints.
“A reading of regulation 30 of C.I. 75 shows that the voter shall mandatorily go through a biometric verification process by a biometric verification equipment for the purpose of establishing the identity of the voter by finger print.
“In order to ensure that those who through no fault of theirs have no fingers at all, or have fingers but whose finger prints could not be taken for one reason or the other, special provisions/arrangements were made for them. Those voters are labeled ‘FOs’ and are excused from undergoing biometric verification by the equipment.
“In evaluating the evidence by the petitioners, I note that when the petitioners were ordered by the court to provide further and better particulars on the allegation of voting without biometric verification, they stated the irregularity took place at 2,279 polling stations.
“However, by the close of trial and addresses stage, they deleted 148 of them from the list relied on 2,131 polling stations. I have said these reductions in figures did not prove fatal to the petitioners’ case and will be considered by the court.
In the result, the minority declared that all votes cast at the 2012 presidential elections which were affected by this irregularity of voting without prior biometric verification were nullified.
Over voting
The minority said Mr. John Mahama, had 5,574,761 declared in his favour by the E.C. in the over voting category, and thus he benefitted by 504,014 votes.
“When these are annulled, he had 5,070,747 valid votes in his favour. That would leave him with 49.47%.
“Nana Akufo-Addo had 5,248,898 votes declared in his favor by the E.C., out of which he benefitted 226,198 in the over voting category, which as they are being annulled left a total of 5,027,700 valid votes in his favor. Expressed in percentages, that would be 49.00% of the valid votes cast at the elections.
“The foregoing evaluation of the impact of the nullified votes shows that they resulted in neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent obtaining the critical fifty percent plus one valid vote threshold.
“As neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent had the required number of votes by the constitution to be declared the President of the Republic of Ghana,
I make the following conclusions and directions:
1. That the relief that an declaration be made that Mr. John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected the President of Ghana, is hereby granted;
2. That a declaration be made that Nana Akufo-Addo be declared the candidate who was validly elected the President of Ghana, is also refused.
3. The consequential order I make is that the E.C. conducts a re-run of the Presidential elections for the two leading candidates, Mr. John Dramani Mahama and Nana Akufo-Addo, in all the polling stations affected and indicated in the petition and its supporting documents, forthwith.
THE Supreme Court has released the full judgement on the 2012 presidential election petition, four days after leaving the public in suspense.
In a 588-paged judgement, the court by a 5-4 majority decision justified why President Mahama was validly elected.
There were four and three consistent judges who voted against and for the annulment of more than two million votes due to what the petitioners described as gross and widespread irregularities recorded during the election.
Justices William Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo in an “overall” decision dismissed the petitioners claims for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices who held the view there were issues to be settled with allegations of over voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They declined to declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Nana Akufo-Addo as the validly elected president, but held the view that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
The Switches
Messrs Justice Victor M. Dotse and Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, changed their voting patterns. For instance while Mr Justice Dotse upheld the petitioners allegation of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets by presiding officers – Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld the petitioners case of voting without biometric verification.
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie dismissed the allegations of over-voting and non-signing of pink sheets while Mr Justice Dotse dismissed the allegations of voting without biometric verification.
The Majority Decision
(1)Transparency of the Voters Register
According to the majority decision, read by Mr Justice Atuguba, although the petitioners complained about the transparency of the voters’ register and its non or belated availability before the elections, this line of their case did not seem to have been strongly pressed.
It said in any event, the evidence clearly showed that the petitioners raised no such complaint prior to the elections nor had any prejudice been shown therefrom.
“ Indeed even in this petition the petitioners claim that the 1st petitioner was the candidate rather elected, obviously upon the same register. So also their allegations that there were irregularities and electoral malpractices which “were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting the 1st respondent to win the 2012 December Presidential Elections.” Indeed the 2nd petitioner for and on behalf of all the petitioners, testified that the first respondent did no wrong with regard to the conduct of the elections but was merely the beneficiary of the alleged malpractices, irregularities and violations.
ABSENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE
According to the majority, the irregularity which had engaged and sharply divided the court as to its consequence is “absence of the signature of a presiding officer.”
“This irregularity is anchored in Article 49 of the 1992 constitution,” adding that “it is undoubtable that in some instances the declared results were not signed by the presiding officer though the petitioners’ polling agents did sign. The crucial question that has devastated this court is whether those results should be annulled.”
“Unfair and Fraudulent”
It said it would be unfair and fraudulent for the petitioners to authenticate the results through their polling agents’ signatures and turn round to seek to invalidate on the purely technical ground of absence of the presiding officer’s signature.
Administrative Error
“Clearly the underlying purpose of the signatures of the presiding officer and the polling agents on the pink sheets is to provide evidence that the results to which they relate were those generated at the relevant polling station in compliance with the constitutional and other statutory requirements, otherwise each “signature in itself has no magic about it.
“In those circumstances even if the failure by the presiding officer to sign the same is condemned as unconstitutional yet the polling agents’ signatures, the public glare of the count and declaration of the results in question, the provision of copies of the same to the polling agents and their sustenance at the constituency’s collation centre and all the way to the strong room of the 2nd respondent (the Electoral Commission) and the cross checking of the same by the parties; representatives should satisfy the policy objective of Article 49(6) regarding signature,” it said.
It said the petitioners had not on any ground approaching prejudice of any sort questioned the authenticity of the results which do not bear the presiding officer’s signature.
OVER VOTING
It said there was a question as to what constitutes over-voting.
“The evidence of Dr. Mahamadu Bawumia, the 2nd petitioner, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress and of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the electoral Commission the 2nd respondent, established two types of over voting.
“The first is where the number of those who voted at a polling station exceeds the number of voters contained in the relevant polling station register. The second situation is where the number of ballots in the ballot box exceeds the number of ballot papers issued to the relevant polling station. Pondering over these two categories closely I would think that the second category of overvoting is rather an instance of ballot stuffing as testified by Johnson Asiedu Nketia.”
It said according to the evidence where the votes in the ballot box were exceeded by even one vote the integrity of that vote was said to be compromised and must be annulled and depending on the impact of that vote on the overall results, the election in that polling station must be rerun.
Burden of Proof
According to the majority, before tackling the issues of over-voting and voting without biometric verification at length the question of the burden of proof had to be settled.
It is said that election petitions were peculiar in character hence the question of burden of proof had evoked various judicial opinions in the common law world.
“This means that unless the contrary is proved the president is presumed to have been validly elected. The cardinal question therefore is whether the petitioners have been able to rebut the presumption of validity created by the presidential Declaration of Results Instrument, “ it said.
Voting without Biometric Verification
It said the complaint about voting without biometric verification cannot therefore hold in the absence of some other contrary evidence.
“The pink sheets contained errors of omission of e.g. proxy votes, blanks, repetitions, wrong grammatical renditions, etc. Indeed Dr. Bawumia admitted under cross-examination that the pink sheets cannot alone supply answer to issues arising from them, in all situations,” it added.
It said the pink sheet or its equivalent in other jurisdictions has been judicially regarded as the primary record of an election.
“But no one has given it a conclusive effect. Neither the constitution nor any other statute, substantive or subsidiary has accorded the pink sheet any particular status.
“It appears that the petitioners rather belatedly, towards the end of the case, realised the need for the adduction in evidence of such vital documents like the voters registers, collation sheets, etc and tried to do so, sometimes with the indulgence of this court, through cross-examination of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission and also through unsuccessful applications for leave to serve on him notices to produce such documents.
“It is felt, and the petitioners so submit, that the pink sheets do operate as estoppel as to the facts therein contained and therefore, inter alia, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible. The shortest answer to this is that the constitution being the supreme law of the land doctrines of estoppels do not apply to constitutional litigation.
“In the circumstances I do not think that the petitioners have established their allegations of over-voting and voting without biometric verification, except to the limited extent admitted by the Electoral Commission’s chairman, which cannot impact much on the declared results,” it stated.
Polling Agents
According to the majority, the petitioners sought to devalue the status of the polling agents to that of mere observers, pointing out that “That is certainly unacceptable.”
“If they were such passive attendants at an election it is inconceivable that the constitution would have considered their signatures to the results sheet significant enough to merit express constitutional requirement, “ it held.
It thus held that polling agents have a special role to play in a free, equal and secret poll.
“The signatures of the polling agents to the declaration of results therefore have high constitutional and statutory effect and authority, which cannot be discounted.
Reforms
It said the petition however had exposed the need for certain electoral reforms. I mention same of them.
• The Voters register must be compiled and made available to the parties as early as possible.
• A supplementary register may cater for late exigencies.
• The calibre of presiding officers must be greatly raised up.
• The pink sheet is too elaborate, a much simpler one to meet the pressures of the public, weariness and lateness of the day at the close of a poll etc.
• The carbon copying system has to be improved upon.
• The Biometric Device System must be streamlined to avoid breakdowns and the stress on the electorate involved in an adjournment of the poll.
• Invalidating wholesale votes for insignificant excess numbers is not the best application of the administrative principle of the proportionality test.
MINORITY DECISION
In a minority decision read by Mr Justice Julius Ansah said the duty of the court was to determine how the evidence supported the facts alleged.
It said since the respondents denied each and every averment of the petitioners in the petition, this imposed on the petitioners the duty of proving every single allegation they made in order to obtain a favourable finding thereof by the court.
CATEGORIES OF IRREGULARITIES
A. UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
The petitioners’ claim here concerns the 22 so-called unknown polling stations. This was a reduction of the petitioners’ initial allegation of 28 unknown polling stations.
The 2nd respondent showed that the flag bearer of the political party to which the petitioners belong, who is also the 1st petitioner herein, himself signed letters appointing polling agents to these same polling stations. It is difficult to fathom how in light of this the petitioners could maintain a claim that these polling stations were unknown.
“I find the petitioners’ case in this respect not satisfactory. There was evidence that following the aforesaid appointment letters, the petitioners sent their agents to the polling stations, voting took place there, the votes were counted and results declared, and finally the agents signed the result forms.
“ In the face of these overwhelming evidence, no one will doubt that the allegation of voting taking place at stations outside the 26,002 polling stations created by the second respondent was ill founded and remained unproven at the end of the trial,” it said.
B. PINK SHEETS NOT SIGNED BY PRESIDING OFFICERS OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
It said the presiding officer was not relieved from the duty to sign the declaration forms, since it was a mandatory duty cast on them by the constitutional and statutory provisions governing elections in the country.
According to the minority, the legitimate inference was that failure by the presiding officer to sign the declaration form was an irregularity which cannot be excused or waived on the grounds that the pressure of time, prevailing atmospheric condition, etc, etc, did not simply allow or permit them to sign the forms and thereby comply with the constitutional duty.
“The duty cast on the presiding officers to sign the declaration was couched in mandatory terms and deserves obedience and not meant to be disobeyed,” it added.
“An election much more so, Presidential Elections, are serious matters governed by well laid rules to preserve sanctity and integrity of the elections, especially where a specific duty is imposed on election officials. A breach of any of those duties meant the integrity of the election was compromised and ultimately affected the exercise of the right to vote as well as jeopardizing the sovereign will of the people.
“Because of this, I am unable to accept the alibi put up by the respondents, like pressure of work, nature of carbon paper making the signatures look faint through over use, and pressing the pen too often, too hard.
“I hold in my concluding comments on this ground, that the failure to sign the pink sheet was a monumental irregularity unmitigated by any circumstances.
“I am emboldened to come to this conclusion following upon the holding that: “the Ghana Supreme Court has recognised the concept of the spirit of the constitution as a tool of constitutional interpretation……to ensure that Ghana succeeds in her fourth attempt at democratic and constitutional system of government, both the government and the people should observe not only the written provision of the constitution but it’s spirit as well.”
Monstrous Irregularity
It expressed the opinion that the failure by the presiding officer to sign the pink sheet before announcing the results constituted an omission to perform and a breach of his constitutional duty.
“It vitiated the votes cast at the polling station, a more monstrous irregularity no one can imagine,” it held.
“It was as unpardonable as it was inexcusable that presiding officers should fail to sign declaration portion of pink sheets they worked with on the polling day from the beginning to the end of polls on the election day.
“Based on the foregoing discussion under this head of irregularities, I find that all votes cast and declared during the 2012 presidential elections which involved pink sheets not signed by presiding officers or their assistants are to be nullified and I so declare,” it further held.
Voting Without Prior Biometric Verification
According to the minority, it was unable to agree with the submission by the respondents that biometric verification could not be limited to only finger prints.
“A reading of regulation 30 of C.I. 75 shows that the voter shall mandatorily go through a biometric verification process by a biometric verification equipment for the purpose of establishing the identity of the voter by finger print.
“In order to ensure that those who through no fault of theirs have no fingers at all, or have fingers but whose finger prints could not be taken for one reason or the other, special provisions/arrangements were made for them. Those voters are labeled ‘FOs’ and are excused from undergoing biometric verification by the equipment.
“In evaluating the evidence by the petitioners, I note that when the petitioners were ordered by the court to provide further and better particulars on the allegation of voting without biometric verification, they stated the irregularity took place at 2,279 polling stations.
“However, by the close of trial and addresses stage, they deleted 148 of them from the list relied on 2,131 polling stations. I have said these reductions in figures did not prove fatal to the petitioners’ case and will be considered by the court.
In the result, the minority declared that all votes cast at the 2012 presidential elections which were affected by this irregularity of voting without prior biometric verification were nullified.
Over voting
The minority said Mr. John Mahama, had 5,574,761 declared in his favour by the E.C. in the over voting category, and thus he benefitted by 504,014 votes.
“When these are annulled, he had 5,070,747 valid votes in his favour. That would leave him with 49.47%.
“Nana Akufo-Addo had 5,248,898 votes declared in his favor by the E.C., out of which he benefitted 226,198 in the over voting category, which as they are being annulled left a total of 5,027,700 valid votes in his favor. Expressed in percentages, that would be 49.00% of the valid votes cast at the elections.
“The foregoing evaluation of the impact of the nullified votes shows that they resulted in neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent obtaining the critical fifty percent plus one valid vote threshold.
“As neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent had the required number of votes by the constitution to be declared the President of the Republic of Ghana,
I make the following conclusions and directions:
1. That the relief that an declaration be made that Mr. John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected the President of Ghana, is hereby granted;
2. That a declaration be made that Nana Akufo-Addo be declared the candidate who was validly elected the President of Ghana, is also refused.
3. The consequential order I make is that the E.C. conducts a re-run of the Presidential elections for the two leading candidates, Mr. John Dramani Mahama and Nana Akufo-Addo, in all the polling stations affected and indicated in the petition and its supporting documents, forthwith.
Tsatsu's refusal to apologise unfortunate - Ayikoi Otoo (page 18)
Published on September 4, 2013
A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, has described as unfortunate the refusal of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata to apologise for accusing a Supreme Court judge of being bias.
Mr Tsikata, who was the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the just-ended presidential election petition, on Saturday, August 31, 2013 accused Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, one of the nine justices who disposed of the petition which challenged the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama, as being bias.
He had accused the justice of being persistently bias against the NDC and also stated he was not surprised because Mr Justice Yeboah had been appointed by former President John Agyekum Kufuor.
However, his comments have received a barrage of criticisms from some members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and former President Kufuor.
Hitting back at his critics, Mr Tsikata stood by his disapproval of the judge’s conduct during the hearing of the petition on the grounds that his (Tsikata’s) comments were factual and truthful.
According to Mr Tsikata, requests that he apologise to Mr Kufuor and Mr Justice Yeboah were out of place and challenged the public to engage in an objective analysis of his comments which were made on TV3.
Mr Ayikoi Otoo’s position on the subject
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Otoo went to the defence of Mr Justice Yeboah and stated that Mr Justice Yeboah was among the justices who voted unanimously to dismiss three of the claims of the petitioners.
“If we go by who appointed who, how could we have lost the case because we appointed more people?” he asked.
“It is unfortunate Tsikata does not want to apologise,” he stated, and wondered why those who had won the case were misbehaving.
Mr Otoo said what Mr Tsikata had done amounted to contempt of court and further wondered why a senior lawyer would make such a pronouncement.
NPP Review
On August 29, 2013, the court, in a 5-4 majority decision, declared President Mahama as the validly elected President of Ghana and accordingly dismissed the petition which challenged his legitimacy.
Asked if the petitioners would apply for a review of the court’s decision, Mr Otoo said, “We are waiting for the judgement. After receipt of the judgement, we will study it and advise ourselves.”
Although the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has conceded defeat, congratulated President Mahama and indicated he would not go for review, Mr Otoo said it did not lie solely with Nana Akufo-Addo to make that decision.
He explained that it was the National Executive Council (NEC) of the NPP that met, deliberated and delegated Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, to challenge the election results.
He said for that reason, the NEC would set up a review committee to study the judgement and decide whether or not to go for review.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.
A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, has described as unfortunate the refusal of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata to apologise for accusing a Supreme Court judge of being bias.
Mr Tsikata, who was the lead counsel for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the just-ended presidential election petition, on Saturday, August 31, 2013 accused Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, one of the nine justices who disposed of the petition which challenged the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama, as being bias.
He had accused the justice of being persistently bias against the NDC and also stated he was not surprised because Mr Justice Yeboah had been appointed by former President John Agyekum Kufuor.
However, his comments have received a barrage of criticisms from some members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and former President Kufuor.
Hitting back at his critics, Mr Tsikata stood by his disapproval of the judge’s conduct during the hearing of the petition on the grounds that his (Tsikata’s) comments were factual and truthful.
According to Mr Tsikata, requests that he apologise to Mr Kufuor and Mr Justice Yeboah were out of place and challenged the public to engage in an objective analysis of his comments which were made on TV3.
Mr Ayikoi Otoo’s position on the subject
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Otoo went to the defence of Mr Justice Yeboah and stated that Mr Justice Yeboah was among the justices who voted unanimously to dismiss three of the claims of the petitioners.
“If we go by who appointed who, how could we have lost the case because we appointed more people?” he asked.
“It is unfortunate Tsikata does not want to apologise,” he stated, and wondered why those who had won the case were misbehaving.
Mr Otoo said what Mr Tsikata had done amounted to contempt of court and further wondered why a senior lawyer would make such a pronouncement.
NPP Review
On August 29, 2013, the court, in a 5-4 majority decision, declared President Mahama as the validly elected President of Ghana and accordingly dismissed the petition which challenged his legitimacy.
Asked if the petitioners would apply for a review of the court’s decision, Mr Otoo said, “We are waiting for the judgement. After receipt of the judgement, we will study it and advise ourselves.”
Although the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has conceded defeat, congratulated President Mahama and indicated he would not go for review, Mr Otoo said it did not lie solely with Nana Akufo-Addo to make that decision.
He explained that it was the National Executive Council (NEC) of the NPP that met, deliberated and delegated Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, to challenge the election results.
He said for that reason, the NEC would set up a review committee to study the judgement and decide whether or not to go for review.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Ghana wins in pink sheets battle (Published in The Mirror)
SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 2013 (Page 3 of The Mirror newspaper)
THE battle of pink sheets has officially ended and Ghana has emerged the victor.
This is particularly so because the losing side has conceded defeat, congratulated the victor and has decided not to file for review of the court’s judgement.
Legal matters related to the petition officially come to a close on August 29, 2013 after eight months of what is now known as the “pink sheet war”.
In exactly four minutes 16 seconds, the Supreme Court settled the legal dispute pertaining to irregularities on 10,119 pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form) and declared President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
The legal battle has officially ended because the contender of the presidency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has since accepted the decision of the court, although he expressed unhappiness with the decision.
The Decision
In a 5-4 majority decision, the court dismissed the petitioners’ legal contest for the highest office of the land and maintained the status quo of President Mahama whose presidency has been under legal fire from December 9, 2012 till August 29, 2013 when the matter was finally settled.
Justices William Anam Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Jones Victor M. Dotse, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo in an “overall” decision dismissed the petitioners claims for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices who held the view that there were issues to be settled with allegations of over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They held the view that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
But the court unanimously dismissed the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes, and unknown polling stations.
Reaction
Both stalwarts of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have expressed joy at Ghana’s thriving democracy.
Ghana’s national flag was distributed among members of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) who sang jubilant songs to praise God for the victory of the party’s flag bearer for the December 2012 presidential poll.
Lawyers for President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Messrs Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, expressed gratitude to the court while lead counsel for the petitioners in response to the court’s decision said, “As the court pleases.”
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
Exciting Journey
Although the legal tussle over alleged irregularities was fraught with vigorous arguments, objections, counter-objections and occasional face-offs, the journey has been sometimes humorous.
Members of the Supreme Court panel have in many instances thrown in a joke or two to calm down nerves anytime the lawyers are in the middle of a ‘fierce legal fight” or are nearing such state.
Words and phrases like “pink sheets,” “I put it to you,” “I suggest to you,” “you and I were not there,” “Bawumia calculator,” “Hurricane Sanity Atuguba,” “Objection,” “Objection sustained,” “Objection overruled”, “amicus curiae”, “contempt of court, “Illegal political galamsey”, “audit of insults” and “Gbeshie powers” among others will forever linger on the lips of Ghanaians who have found ways of introducing these phrases in their daily conversations.
Ghanaians from April 16, 2013 to August 14, 2013 had the opportunity to follow proceedings of the landmark case challenging the highest office of the land, live on television and radio stations across the country.
Article 125 (1) of the 1992 Constitution states that “justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution” while Article 125 (2) states, “Citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.”
On the premise of this constitutional principle, viewers and listeners for the past eight months had ample opportunity to witness lawyers for parties in the petition making a case for and against the annulment of votes, the deposing of President Mahama and the subsequent declaration of the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as President of the Republic of Ghana.
Pink sheets supremacy at election petition
At the heart of the election petition were pink sheets. They are so called because they are pink in colour.
The petitioners studied 24,000 out of the 26,002 pink sheets used in declaring President Mahama as the winner of the polls and arrived at their analysis of gross and widespread irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.
According to the petitioners, their investigation uncovered six main categories of constitutional/statutory violations, commissions, irregularities and malpractices, namely: over-voting, widespread instances of polling stations where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets in clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.75, widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75, as well as widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure established by the EC required that each polling station has a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and the will of lawfully registered voters.
The Rules and Onus of Proof
The petitioners brought the petition under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 and 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C.I. 74.
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 (e) such other matters as the court may determine.”
Since the petitioners have alleged irregularities in 10,119 polling stations, the burden of proof is on them to prove each of the alleged infraction.
At the close of the case, the petitioners argued that they had succeeded in producing a “mountain of evidence, sufficient to discharge the burden of proof” that the law placed on them and to obtain a decision in their favour.
But President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) refuted the claims and stated that the petitioners had failed to discharge their burden of proof.
Issues for determination
Two issues that the court set out for determination were whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
It also ascertained whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results of the elections.
Controversy over pink sheets and KPMG audit
Matters surrounding the actual number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners were so sensitive and controversial that the court had to eventually order for an audit to be conducted into the definite number of pink sheets filed at the Supreme Court registry in order to put the matter to rest.
While the petitioners insisted they filed 11,842 pink sheets, the respondents insisted the petitioners filed less than that.
International audit firm, KPMG, was, on May 9, 2013, accordingly, directed to audit pink sheets and subsequently submitted its final report in five volumes on June 24, 2013.
The Beginning
Ghanaians, on December 7 and 8, 2012, exercised their right under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution by joining long queues to cast their ballots in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Voting had to be suspended and continued on December 8, 2012 at 412 polling stations across the country due to the breakdown of newly introduced biometric machines.
The Declaration
With the powers conferred on him under Article 63 (9) of the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll with 50.7 per cent of the valid votes cast, with the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, placing second with 47.7 per cent.
Prior to the declaration of the results, the NPP leadership prevailed upon Dr Afari-Gyan to suspend the declaration because they had uncovered some discrepancies which could affect the final results of the presidential election.
After a marathon meeting with EC officials and members of the Peace Council, Dr Afari-Gyan declined to suspend the announcement of the results on the grounds that the party leadership had failed to prove why the declaration should be halted.
He, accordingly, advised the leadership of the NPP to sue the EC if it felt dissatisfied with the results he was billed to declare.
Reminding him of his words to the party leadership to sue, the presiding judge of the petition, Mr Justice William Atuguba, on July 17, 2013 said to Dr Afari-Gyan who had been discharged from the witness box that, “I hope you’ve seen that ‘go to court, go to court’ is not easy.”
THE battle of pink sheets has officially ended and Ghana has emerged the victor.
This is particularly so because the losing side has conceded defeat, congratulated the victor and has decided not to file for review of the court’s judgement.
Legal matters related to the petition officially come to a close on August 29, 2013 after eight months of what is now known as the “pink sheet war”.
In exactly four minutes 16 seconds, the Supreme Court settled the legal dispute pertaining to irregularities on 10,119 pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form) and declared President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
The legal battle has officially ended because the contender of the presidency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has since accepted the decision of the court, although he expressed unhappiness with the decision.
The Decision
In a 5-4 majority decision, the court dismissed the petitioners’ legal contest for the highest office of the land and maintained the status quo of President Mahama whose presidency has been under legal fire from December 9, 2012 till August 29, 2013 when the matter was finally settled.
Justices William Anam Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Jones Victor M. Dotse, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo in an “overall” decision dismissed the petitioners claims for the annulment of a total of 3,931,339 due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices who held the view that there were issues to be settled with allegations of over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They held the view that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
But the court unanimously dismissed the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes, and unknown polling stations.
Reaction
Both stalwarts of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have expressed joy at Ghana’s thriving democracy.
Ghana’s national flag was distributed among members of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) who sang jubilant songs to praise God for the victory of the party’s flag bearer for the December 2012 presidential poll.
Lawyers for President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Messrs Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun and Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, expressed gratitude to the court while lead counsel for the petitioners in response to the court’s decision said, “As the court pleases.”
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
Exciting Journey
Although the legal tussle over alleged irregularities was fraught with vigorous arguments, objections, counter-objections and occasional face-offs, the journey has been sometimes humorous.
Members of the Supreme Court panel have in many instances thrown in a joke or two to calm down nerves anytime the lawyers are in the middle of a ‘fierce legal fight” or are nearing such state.
Words and phrases like “pink sheets,” “I put it to you,” “I suggest to you,” “you and I were not there,” “Bawumia calculator,” “Hurricane Sanity Atuguba,” “Objection,” “Objection sustained,” “Objection overruled”, “amicus curiae”, “contempt of court, “Illegal political galamsey”, “audit of insults” and “Gbeshie powers” among others will forever linger on the lips of Ghanaians who have found ways of introducing these phrases in their daily conversations.
Ghanaians from April 16, 2013 to August 14, 2013 had the opportunity to follow proceedings of the landmark case challenging the highest office of the land, live on television and radio stations across the country.
Article 125 (1) of the 1992 Constitution states that “justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution” while Article 125 (2) states, “Citizens may exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.”
On the premise of this constitutional principle, viewers and listeners for the past eight months had ample opportunity to witness lawyers for parties in the petition making a case for and against the annulment of votes, the deposing of President Mahama and the subsequent declaration of the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as President of the Republic of Ghana.
Pink sheets supremacy at election petition
At the heart of the election petition were pink sheets. They are so called because they are pink in colour.
The petitioners studied 24,000 out of the 26,002 pink sheets used in declaring President Mahama as the winner of the polls and arrived at their analysis of gross and widespread irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.
According to the petitioners, their investigation uncovered six main categories of constitutional/statutory violations, commissions, irregularities and malpractices, namely: over-voting, widespread instances of polling stations where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets in clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.75, widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75, as well as widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure established by the EC required that each polling station has a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and the will of lawfully registered voters.
The Rules and Onus of Proof
The petitioners brought the petition under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 and 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C.I. 74.
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 (e) such other matters as the court may determine.”
Since the petitioners have alleged irregularities in 10,119 polling stations, the burden of proof is on them to prove each of the alleged infraction.
At the close of the case, the petitioners argued that they had succeeded in producing a “mountain of evidence, sufficient to discharge the burden of proof” that the law placed on them and to obtain a decision in their favour.
But President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) refuted the claims and stated that the petitioners had failed to discharge their burden of proof.
Issues for determination
Two issues that the court set out for determination were whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
It also ascertained whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results of the elections.
Controversy over pink sheets and KPMG audit
Matters surrounding the actual number of pink sheets filed by the petitioners were so sensitive and controversial that the court had to eventually order for an audit to be conducted into the definite number of pink sheets filed at the Supreme Court registry in order to put the matter to rest.
While the petitioners insisted they filed 11,842 pink sheets, the respondents insisted the petitioners filed less than that.
International audit firm, KPMG, was, on May 9, 2013, accordingly, directed to audit pink sheets and subsequently submitted its final report in five volumes on June 24, 2013.
The Beginning
Ghanaians, on December 7 and 8, 2012, exercised their right under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution by joining long queues to cast their ballots in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Voting had to be suspended and continued on December 8, 2012 at 412 polling stations across the country due to the breakdown of newly introduced biometric machines.
The Declaration
With the powers conferred on him under Article 63 (9) of the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll with 50.7 per cent of the valid votes cast, with the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, placing second with 47.7 per cent.
Prior to the declaration of the results, the NPP leadership prevailed upon Dr Afari-Gyan to suspend the declaration because they had uncovered some discrepancies which could affect the final results of the presidential election.
After a marathon meeting with EC officials and members of the Peace Council, Dr Afari-Gyan declined to suspend the announcement of the results on the grounds that the party leadership had failed to prove why the declaration should be halted.
He, accordingly, advised the leadership of the NPP to sue the EC if it felt dissatisfied with the results he was billed to declare.
Reminding him of his words to the party leadership to sue, the presiding judge of the petition, Mr Justice William Atuguba, on July 17, 2013 said to Dr Afari-Gyan who had been discharged from the witness box that, “I hope you’ve seen that ‘go to court, go to court’ is not easy.”
Clerical error corrected in judgement
AUGUST 31, 2013 (Page 3)
VOTES played a key role in deciding the fate of President John Dramani Mahama during the elections in December 2012 and the final judgement on the “pink sheet war”.
The petitioners had complained of electoral irregularities at 10,199 polling stations, called for the cancellation of 3,931,339 votes and the subsequent declaration of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as President.
However, the Supreme Court, in dismissing the petitioners’ case and affirming President Mahama as the validly elected President, committed a clerical error in the vote pattern.
The error has since been corrected.
The error and correction have not gone down well with the petitioners’ legal team, but the legal and communications team of President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) does not see anything wrong with the court correcting itself.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld claims of voting without biometric verification
In its judgement on August 29, 2013, the president of the nine-member panel of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice William A. Atuguba, said Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie had voted for and against the allegation of some persons voting without undergoing biometric verification.
However, the corrected certified true copy of the court’s order issued in Accra yesterday specified that Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had actually upheld the petitioners’ claim of persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, called for the cancellation of results and ordered for a re-run of elections in the affected areas.
Reaction of parties to the correction in the final court order
Reacting to the correction in the court’s final order, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the correction, which was effected after parties in the case had received certified true copies of the judgement, was irregular.
He, however, stated that as lawyers for the petitioners, the matter had ended because Nana Akufo-Addo had decided not to apply for a review.
A member of the legal and communications team of President Mahama and the NDC, Mr Victor K. Adawudu, said the correction of the final order was effected by the court and not at the registry.
“The correction is legal and binding. The court has power to amend clerical errors,” he stated, adding, “It has no effect on the entire outcome of the judgement.”
Shuffling of Votes
The voting pattern at the Supreme Court on Thursday was quite intriguing.
This was so because aside from the nine justices unanimously dismissing the allegations of duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and voting taking place at 22 unknown polling stations, four dismissed the entire claims of the petitioners, while three stood at one side to uphold the other claims of the petitioners.
Justices Atuguba, Sophia Adinyira, N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Vida Akoto-Bamfo stood together throughout the voting and dismissed all the claims of the petitioners who had prayed the court to declare Nana Akufo-Addo President after votes in the affected areas had been annulled.
On the other hand, Justices Julius Ansah, Rose Constance Owusu and Anin Yeboah granted the claims of over-voting, voting without biometric verification and absence of signatures of presiding officers on the pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of president).
The Switches
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie added his vote to those of Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to dismiss the claim of over-voting.
He again joined Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to dismiss the claim relating to absence of signature of presiding officers on pink sheets.
Dismissal of claim of voting without biometric verification
Mr Justice Dotse voted alongside Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to throw out the allegation relating to voting without biometric verification.
Singular votes
Mr Justice Dotse upheld claims of over-voting and absence of signatures and provided a road map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained.
He also called for cancellation and a re-run of the election in the areas affected.
Baffoe-Bonnie upholds claims of voting without biometric verification
According to the certified true copy of the court’s judgement, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie granted the claim of voting without biometric verification, called for the cancellation of the votes involved and ordered a re-run of the election in the areas affected.
Overall effect of the judgement
The overall effect of the judgement was that President Mahama was validly elected and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
A full copy of the certified true copy of the judgement is not ready.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Fact sheet
Voters on December 7 and 8, 2012 exercised their franchise under Article 42 (1) of the 1992 Constitution which states that "a citizen of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda".
The other petitioners are the running mate of Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey.
President Mahama, the EC and the NDC were the respondents in the case which went on for eight month
VOTES played a key role in deciding the fate of President John Dramani Mahama during the elections in December 2012 and the final judgement on the “pink sheet war”.
The petitioners had complained of electoral irregularities at 10,199 polling stations, called for the cancellation of 3,931,339 votes and the subsequent declaration of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as President.
However, the Supreme Court, in dismissing the petitioners’ case and affirming President Mahama as the validly elected President, committed a clerical error in the vote pattern.
The error has since been corrected.
The error and correction have not gone down well with the petitioners’ legal team, but the legal and communications team of President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) does not see anything wrong with the court correcting itself.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld claims of voting without biometric verification
In its judgement on August 29, 2013, the president of the nine-member panel of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice William A. Atuguba, said Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie had voted for and against the allegation of some persons voting without undergoing biometric verification.
However, the corrected certified true copy of the court’s order issued in Accra yesterday specified that Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had actually upheld the petitioners’ claim of persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, called for the cancellation of results and ordered for a re-run of elections in the affected areas.
Reaction of parties to the correction in the final court order
Reacting to the correction in the court’s final order, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, said the correction, which was effected after parties in the case had received certified true copies of the judgement, was irregular.
He, however, stated that as lawyers for the petitioners, the matter had ended because Nana Akufo-Addo had decided not to apply for a review.
A member of the legal and communications team of President Mahama and the NDC, Mr Victor K. Adawudu, said the correction of the final order was effected by the court and not at the registry.
“The correction is legal and binding. The court has power to amend clerical errors,” he stated, adding, “It has no effect on the entire outcome of the judgement.”
Shuffling of Votes
The voting pattern at the Supreme Court on Thursday was quite intriguing.
This was so because aside from the nine justices unanimously dismissing the allegations of duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and voting taking place at 22 unknown polling stations, four dismissed the entire claims of the petitioners, while three stood at one side to uphold the other claims of the petitioners.
Justices Atuguba, Sophia Adinyira, N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Vida Akoto-Bamfo stood together throughout the voting and dismissed all the claims of the petitioners who had prayed the court to declare Nana Akufo-Addo President after votes in the affected areas had been annulled.
On the other hand, Justices Julius Ansah, Rose Constance Owusu and Anin Yeboah granted the claims of over-voting, voting without biometric verification and absence of signatures of presiding officers on the pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of president).
The Switches
Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie added his vote to those of Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to dismiss the claim of over-voting.
He again joined Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to dismiss the claim relating to absence of signature of presiding officers on pink sheets.
Dismissal of claim of voting without biometric verification
Mr Justice Dotse voted alongside Justices Atuguba, Adinyira, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo to throw out the allegation relating to voting without biometric verification.
Singular votes
Mr Justice Dotse upheld claims of over-voting and absence of signatures and provided a road map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained.
He also called for cancellation and a re-run of the election in the areas affected.
Baffoe-Bonnie upholds claims of voting without biometric verification
According to the certified true copy of the court’s judgement, Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie granted the claim of voting without biometric verification, called for the cancellation of the votes involved and ordered a re-run of the election in the areas affected.
Overall effect of the judgement
The overall effect of the judgement was that President Mahama was validly elected and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
A full copy of the certified true copy of the judgement is not ready.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Fact sheet
Voters on December 7 and 8, 2012 exercised their franchise under Article 42 (1) of the 1992 Constitution which states that "a citizen of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda".
The other petitioners are the running mate of Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey.
President Mahama, the EC and the NDC were the respondents in the case which went on for eight month
Supreme Court affirms Mahama - As validly elected President
AUGUST 30, 2013 (Lead Story)
SOME predicted doom, bought tickets and flew out of the country, while many waited with bated breath to “feed” on which ever way the judgement would go.
But Ghana’s democracy once again triumphed on the corridors of law.
In less than five minutes, the Supreme Court settled the eight-month long “pink sheets war” and affirmed President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
The legal war has officially ended because the contender for the presidency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has conceded defeat, congratulated President Mahama and decided not to challenge the court’s decision.
The petitioners and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) faithful did not look happy but managed some smiles, shook hands with one another and patted their backs.
Ghana’s national flag was distributed among members of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) whose candidate for the December 2012 elections had been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the President of Ghana. They sang jubilant songs to praise God for the affirmation.
Lawyers for President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the NDC, Mr Tony Lithur, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, expressed gratitude to the court, while lead counsel for the petitioners, in response to the court’s decision, said, “As the court pleases.”
The Returning Officer of the December 2012 presidential election, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, looked happy and received congratulatory messages and handshakes from some well wishers. He had testified during the hearing of the petition and stood by his declaration of President Mahama as the winner.
Members of the NDC simultaneously brought out white handkerchiefs and waved them, amid smiles, immediately the nine justices had left the courtroom.
The Decision
In a 6-3 majority decision, the court dismissed the petitioners’ legal contest for the highest office of the land and maintained President Mahama’s presidency which had been under “legal fire” from December 9, 2012 till yesterday, August 29, 2013 when the dust was settled.
Mr Justice William Anam Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Jones Victor M. Dotse, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, in an “overall” decision, dismissed the petitioners’ claim for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices, who held the view that there were issues to be settled with allegations of over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification, were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They were of the opinion that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
“The Swap”
There was an interesting swap in the votes of the justices because Ms Justice Owusu had, on January 22, 2013, added her vote to five others to allow the NDC to join the petition as the third respondent, while Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had joined two others to say ‘no’ to the NDC.
However, the two “legally swapped” places when Ms Justice Owusu upheld the claims of the petitioners, with Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie granting the prayer of the respondents.
Registrar to forward judgement to Electoral Commission
Regulation 71 of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) 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.’’
The EC is, therefore, expected to officially hold another press conference to announce the decision of the court and, accordingly, affirm its December 9, 2012 declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll.
By Court
Mr Justice Atuguba read out the judgement as follows:
“Upon a scrutiny of the petition, we found that the issues to be determined are as set out at page 125 of the counsel for the petitioners’ written address.
“They are as follows: i) Over-voting, ii) Voting without biometric verification, iii) Absence of the signature of a presiding officer, iv) Duplicate serial numbers; that is, occurrence of the same serial numbers on pink sheets for two different polling stations, v) Duplicate polling station codes; that is, occurrence of different results/pink sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes, and vi) Unknown polling stations; that is, results recorded for polling stations which are not part of the 26,002 polling stations provided by the second respondent for the election.
“We unanimously dismiss the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and unknown polling stations.
Dismissal of Claim of Over-voting
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim of over-voting.
Dismissal of claims of absence of signatures
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claims relating to absence of signature of presiding officer on the pink sheets.
Dismissal of claims of voting without biometric verification
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.
The dissenting three
“Ansah, Owusu and Anin-Yeboah, JSC, grant all the three claims; that is, over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification, annul votes involved and order a re-run of the affected areas.
“Mr Justice Dotse upholds claims of over-voting and absence of signatures
“Dotse JSC granted the claim of over-voting but has provided a road map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained and cancelled and a re-run of the areas affected.
“Dotse JSC upholds the claim relating to absence of presiding officers’ signatures on the pink sheets, cancels the results concerned and orders a rerun of the areas affected.
“Baffoe-Bonnie JSC grants claims of voting without biometric verification, cancels the votes involved and orders a re-run of the areas affected.
Overall effect of the judgement
“In the circumstance, the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.
“Our various judgements, for the sake of convenience, are handed over to the registrar of this court.”
KPMG commended
The court highly commended the services of KPMG, the official referee appointed on May 9, 2013 to conduct an audit of the pink sheets. The audit firm submitted its report on June 24, 2013.
Lawyers for the parties in the petition were also commended by the court.
Short but long judgement
Many had expected the court to spend more than an hour in delivering its judgment but it decided to read out its consequential orders and rather directed the parties to get copies of the full judgement from the Supreme Court Registry.
As of press time, a certified true copy of the full judgement which is expected to be voluminous was not ready.
These are not light matters
It was a tense moment when the nine-member panel entered the packed courtroom. The court was unusually quiet, to the extent that only the sound of shuffled pieces of paper could be heard.
Mr Justice Atuguba set the ball rolling by apologising to the audience in the courtroom for the panel’s seeming delay, adding, “These are not light matters.”
The panel was expected to begin delivering its judgement by 10 a.m. but it entered the courtroom at 12:54 p.m. and began delivering its judgement at 1:05 p.m.
Waiting and Speculation
The nervous atmosphere that engulfed Ghana in 2008 and 2012 before the declaration of the winner of the presidential elections of those years was replicated at the Supreme Court from 10 a.m. to 12:54 p.m. when the nine-member panel entered the courtroom to deliver its judgement.
The mood in the courtroom was that of apprehension, as the litigants, their lawyers, the media and members of the public awaited the final decision on the pink sheet war.
Many had expected the court to start delivering its judgement by 10 a.m. (its usual time of sitting), but as of 12 noon there was no sign of the judges.
Speculation on what was happening among the justices was rife on social media through text messages and telephone calls.
Questions such as "what's is happening?" kept flowing from all angles.
To ease tension, the party functionaries of both sides went out of the courtroom either to grant interviews to journalists or have private chats.
Others remained glued to their seats in the courtroom.
Photo shoot moments
Journalists, on the other hand, took opportunity of the delay to take memorable photographs after eight long months of covering the proceedings.
Analysis of Petitioners’ Case
The petitioners — Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and NPP Chairman, Jake Obetsebi Lamptey — had indicated that using pink sheets from 10,119 polling stations, over-voting occurred at 1,722 polling stations, while the occurrence of voting without biometric verification occurred at 2,020 polling stations.
The irregularity of absence of presiding officers’ signature occurred at 1,638 polling stations, while the use of duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets affected 8,987 polling stations.
They also alleged irregularities of voting taking place at 23 unknown locations, while some pink sheets had duplicated polling station codes.
According to the petitioners, when the results of those polling stations were annulled, President Mahama’s votes would be reduced by 2,622,551, which would result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.
They said Nana Akufo-Addo’s votes would also be reduced by 1,233,186 but that would still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, more than the needed 50 per cent plus one to be declared as winner of the Presidency.
The petitioners also showed in their addresses that all the four main irregularities on their own had a material impact on the results declared and that annulling the polling stations affected by any of the four irregularities would mean that the declared winner, Mr Mahama, did not secure the required over 50 per cent.
But President Mahama, the ECand the NDC refuted the allegations and prayed the court to dismiss the petition as not proven.
Powers of the Court
The Supreme Court delivered the judgement in line with the powers conferred on it under Article 64 (1, 2 and 3) of the 1992 Constitution and the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (CI 74).
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
SOME predicted doom, bought tickets and flew out of the country, while many waited with bated breath to “feed” on which ever way the judgement would go.
But Ghana’s democracy once again triumphed on the corridors of law.
In less than five minutes, the Supreme Court settled the eight-month long “pink sheets war” and affirmed President John Dramani Mahama as the validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
The legal war has officially ended because the contender for the presidency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has conceded defeat, congratulated President Mahama and decided not to challenge the court’s decision.
The petitioners and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) faithful did not look happy but managed some smiles, shook hands with one another and patted their backs.
Ghana’s national flag was distributed among members of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) whose candidate for the December 2012 elections had been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the President of Ghana. They sang jubilant songs to praise God for the affirmation.
Lawyers for President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the NDC, Mr Tony Lithur, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, respectively, expressed gratitude to the court, while lead counsel for the petitioners, in response to the court’s decision, said, “As the court pleases.”
The Returning Officer of the December 2012 presidential election, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, looked happy and received congratulatory messages and handshakes from some well wishers. He had testified during the hearing of the petition and stood by his declaration of President Mahama as the winner.
Members of the NDC simultaneously brought out white handkerchiefs and waved them, amid smiles, immediately the nine justices had left the courtroom.
The Decision
In a 6-3 majority decision, the court dismissed the petitioners’ legal contest for the highest office of the land and maintained President Mahama’s presidency which had been under “legal fire” from December 9, 2012 till yesterday, August 29, 2013 when the dust was settled.
Mr Justice William Anam Atuguba, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mr Justice Jones Victor M. Dotse, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, in an “overall” decision, dismissed the petitioners’ claim for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes due to electoral irregularities in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential election.
The dissenting justices, who held the view that there were issues to be settled with allegations of over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification, were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
They were of the opinion that the votes affected by these allegations must be annulled and a re-run held.
Unanimous Decision
On the allegations of some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers and voting taking place in 22 unknown locations, the court unanimously dismissed the claims.
“The Swap”
There was an interesting swap in the votes of the justices because Ms Justice Owusu had, on January 22, 2013, added her vote to five others to allow the NDC to join the petition as the third respondent, while Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie had joined two others to say ‘no’ to the NDC.
However, the two “legally swapped” places when Ms Justice Owusu upheld the claims of the petitioners, with Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie granting the prayer of the respondents.
Registrar to forward judgement to Electoral Commission
Regulation 71 of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) 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.’’
The EC is, therefore, expected to officially hold another press conference to announce the decision of the court and, accordingly, affirm its December 9, 2012 declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the presidential poll.
By Court
Mr Justice Atuguba read out the judgement as follows:
“Upon a scrutiny of the petition, we found that the issues to be determined are as set out at page 125 of the counsel for the petitioners’ written address.
“They are as follows: i) Over-voting, ii) Voting without biometric verification, iii) Absence of the signature of a presiding officer, iv) Duplicate serial numbers; that is, occurrence of the same serial numbers on pink sheets for two different polling stations, v) Duplicate polling station codes; that is, occurrence of different results/pink sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes, and vi) Unknown polling stations; that is, results recorded for polling stations which are not part of the 26,002 polling stations provided by the second respondent for the election.
“We unanimously dismiss the claims relating to duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and unknown polling stations.
Dismissal of Claim of Over-voting
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim of over-voting.
Dismissal of claims of absence of signatures
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe, Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claims relating to absence of signature of presiding officer on the pink sheets.
Dismissal of claims of voting without biometric verification
“Atuguba, Adinyira, Dotse, Baffoe-Bonnie, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo dismiss the claim relating to voting without biometric verification.
The dissenting three
“Ansah, Owusu and Anin-Yeboah, JSC, grant all the three claims; that is, over-voting, absence of presiding officers’ signature and voting without biometric verification, annul votes involved and order a re-run of the affected areas.
“Mr Justice Dotse upholds claims of over-voting and absence of signatures
“Dotse JSC granted the claim of over-voting but has provided a road map in his judgement as in the figures of votes to be ascertained and cancelled and a re-run of the areas affected.
“Dotse JSC upholds the claim relating to absence of presiding officers’ signatures on the pink sheets, cancels the results concerned and orders a rerun of the areas affected.
“Baffoe-Bonnie JSC grants claims of voting without biometric verification, cancels the votes involved and orders a re-run of the areas affected.
Overall effect of the judgement
“In the circumstance, the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.
“Our various judgements, for the sake of convenience, are handed over to the registrar of this court.”
KPMG commended
The court highly commended the services of KPMG, the official referee appointed on May 9, 2013 to conduct an audit of the pink sheets. The audit firm submitted its report on June 24, 2013.
Lawyers for the parties in the petition were also commended by the court.
Short but long judgement
Many had expected the court to spend more than an hour in delivering its judgment but it decided to read out its consequential orders and rather directed the parties to get copies of the full judgement from the Supreme Court Registry.
As of press time, a certified true copy of the full judgement which is expected to be voluminous was not ready.
These are not light matters
It was a tense moment when the nine-member panel entered the packed courtroom. The court was unusually quiet, to the extent that only the sound of shuffled pieces of paper could be heard.
Mr Justice Atuguba set the ball rolling by apologising to the audience in the courtroom for the panel’s seeming delay, adding, “These are not light matters.”
The panel was expected to begin delivering its judgement by 10 a.m. but it entered the courtroom at 12:54 p.m. and began delivering its judgement at 1:05 p.m.
Waiting and Speculation
The nervous atmosphere that engulfed Ghana in 2008 and 2012 before the declaration of the winner of the presidential elections of those years was replicated at the Supreme Court from 10 a.m. to 12:54 p.m. when the nine-member panel entered the courtroom to deliver its judgement.
The mood in the courtroom was that of apprehension, as the litigants, their lawyers, the media and members of the public awaited the final decision on the pink sheet war.
Many had expected the court to start delivering its judgement by 10 a.m. (its usual time of sitting), but as of 12 noon there was no sign of the judges.
Speculation on what was happening among the justices was rife on social media through text messages and telephone calls.
Questions such as "what's is happening?" kept flowing from all angles.
To ease tension, the party functionaries of both sides went out of the courtroom either to grant interviews to journalists or have private chats.
Others remained glued to their seats in the courtroom.
Photo shoot moments
Journalists, on the other hand, took opportunity of the delay to take memorable photographs after eight long months of covering the proceedings.
Analysis of Petitioners’ Case
The petitioners — Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and NPP Chairman, Jake Obetsebi Lamptey — had indicated that using pink sheets from 10,119 polling stations, over-voting occurred at 1,722 polling stations, while the occurrence of voting without biometric verification occurred at 2,020 polling stations.
The irregularity of absence of presiding officers’ signature occurred at 1,638 polling stations, while the use of duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets affected 8,987 polling stations.
They also alleged irregularities of voting taking place at 23 unknown locations, while some pink sheets had duplicated polling station codes.
According to the petitioners, when the results of those polling stations were annulled, President Mahama’s votes would be reduced by 2,622,551, which would result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.
They said Nana Akufo-Addo’s votes would also be reduced by 1,233,186 but that would still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, more than the needed 50 per cent plus one to be declared as winner of the Presidency.
The petitioners also showed in their addresses that all the four main irregularities on their own had a material impact on the results declared and that annulling the polling stations affected by any of the four irregularities would mean that the declared winner, Mr Mahama, did not secure the required over 50 per cent.
But President Mahama, the ECand the NDC refuted the allegations and prayed the court to dismiss the petition as not proven.
Powers of the Court
The Supreme Court delivered the judgement in line with the powers conferred on it under Article 64 (1, 2 and 3) of the 1992 Constitution and the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (CI 74).
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Judgement Day is here
AUGUST 29, 2013 (Lead Story)
THERE are striking similarities and differences between the two personalities at the centre of the “pink sheet war”.
One was sworn in as President five months before the general election, while the other had to suspend his campaign and mourn with the newly sworn in President and Ghanaians following the untimely demise of then President John Evans Atta Mills.
They are both Ghanaians, former parliamentarians, leaders of the two main political parties in Ghana, have committed to peace and declared their preparedness to accept the decision of the Supreme Court in their fight over the highest office of the land – the Presidency.
In a typical musical chairs scenario, one was lucky to have sat on the chair when the music stopped playing on December 9, 2012.
However, will the one on the chair be disqualified or allowed to continue sitting on it? Will the other be allowed to sit on it or will the music be played again to find out who finally has the last laugh?
Ghanaians will today get the answers to these questions when the Supreme Court, blessed with powers under Article 64 (1, 2 and 3) of the 1992 Constitution and the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74), puts to rest the pink sheets legal battle which has been fought for the past eight months.
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.”
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”, while 64 (3) states that “the rules of the Court Committee shall, by Constitutional Instrument, make rules of court for the practice and procedure for petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the election of a president”.
Thus the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (CI 74) were promulgated in 2012 to set out modalities to be adhered to in the event a petition is filed to challenge a President’s legitimacy.
Who is Who?
The personalities in the middle of the “pink sheet war”, President John Dramani Mahama and the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, both campaigned vigorously for the presidency.
With powers conferred on him under Article 63 (9) of the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, declared President Mahama the winner of the December 7 and 8, 2013 presidential election.
The battle shifted from the campaign grounds to the Supreme Court on December 9, 2012 when Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, filed a petition under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285) and Rule 68 and 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, CI 74.
The Challenge
Nana Akufo-Addo wants to be declared President on the grounds that there were gross and widespread irregularities at 10,119 polling stations and for that reason the annulment of 3,931,339 invalid votes at those polling stations would reduce President Mahama’s votes and guarantee his (Nana Akufo-Addo’s) seat at the Presidency.
President Mahama has fought back with the argument that he won the elections freely and transparently in the full glare of Ghanaians, the media, local and foreign observers.
Issues for Determination
The court will determine whether or not there were statutory violations, irregularities, commissions and malpractices in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll.
It will also determine whether or not those statutory violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the presidential poll.
Possible Outcome
Justices William Atuguba, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Constance Owusu, Jones Victor Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo will take into consideration the evidence adduced, the laws of the land, both local and international authorities, the rules of court and other statutes before pronouncing the verdict, which has left many Ghanaians entertaining the fear of a possible escalation of violence after the judgement.
After considering the evidence adduced to prove allegations of over-voting, some persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some pink sheets having duplicate serial numbers, the court will determine whether or not to annul some or 3,931,339 million votes.
In the event of an annulment, the court will then decide whether or not the votes annulled are enough to affect the outcome of the poll.
Should the court hold that the votes to be annulled (if any) are not enough to affect the outcome of the presidential poll, it will affirm the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls.
On the contrary, the court could either declare Nana Akufo-Addo the winner of the polls or order for a re-run of the election at affected polling stations.
Obviously, the stakes are high and, for that reason, Mr Philip Addison, Mr Tony Lithur, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lawyers for the petitioners, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, respectively, left no stone unturned in fighting to change or maintain the status quo of the presidency.
Declare Nana Akufo-Addo President
The petitioners indicate that using pink sheets from 10,119 polling stations, over-voting occurred at 1,722 polling stations, while voting without biometric verification occurred at 2,020 polling stations.
The irregularity of absence of presiding officers’ signature occurred at 1,638 polling stations, while the use of duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets affected 8,987 polling stations.
In all, 3,931,339 votes were affected by the various irregularities at the 10,119 polling stations being challenged by the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, when the results of those polling stations were annulled, President Mahama’s votes would be reduced by 2,622,551, which would result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.
They said Nana Akufo–Addo’s votes would also be reduced by 1,233,186 but that would still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, much more than the needed 50 per cent + 1 to be declared as winner of the election.
The petitioners also showed in their addresses that each of the four main irregularities on its own had a material impact on the results declared and that annulling the votes at the polling stations affected by any of the four irregularities would mean that the declared winner, Mr Mahama, did not secure the required over 50 per cent.
President Mahama beat Nana Akufo-Addo by 325,863 votes.
Maintain President Mahama
However, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC had all argued that the petitioners had failed to prove their case to warrant the annulment of votes and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the presidential poll.
According to the respondents there was no legal, logical or arithmetical basis for the call for the annulment of votes.
Betting on social media
Prejudicial and contemptuous remarks in the media were so serious during the hearing that the Supreme Court had to stamp its authority by “legally cleansing and sealing the mouths” of a few “wayward” social commentators and party bigwigs to avoid the country being turned into a state of anarchy.
Although the highest court of the land, by the powers conferred on it by the 1992 Constitution, has succeeded in restoring some amount of sanity into the body politic, party faithful and fanatics have moved their prejudicial comments to social media.
Some have even gone to the extent of betting and challenging one another over the outcome of the judgement.
The Police Administration has moved in to hunt rumour mongers on social media in its bid to sustain the country’s peace.
Measures to maintain sanity
As part of measures to sustain the country’s fledgling democracy, the Supreme Court, on countless occasions during the hearing, promised that the Judiciary would uphold and sustain the interest of Ghanaians against reckless politicians who did not have the interest of the state at heart.
The Police Administration has deployed more than 30,000 personnel across the country to maintain law and order.
The roads leading to the Supreme Court have been blocked to non-accredited persons, while only accredited persons will be allowed entry into the Supreme Court.
There are reports of panic buying for storage across the country, premised on the fear that violence may escalate after the delivery of the judgement.
Other reports also indicate that people are flying out of the country with their families to avoid being caught up in any possible turmoil after the declaration.
Non-governmental organisations and other bodies have rolled out peace messages on all platforms to sustain the country’s position as the Gateway to Africa.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Fact Sheet
• Regulation 71 of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, ( I 74) says: “The court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of the petition, deliver its judgment and the registrar shall, within seven days of the delivery of the judgement, forward a copy of the judgement to the Electoral Commission.’’
• Although CI 74 had initially stated the matter would be determined once and for all, with the losing party not having the option to appeal, the court overturned that rule on April 30, 2013 and held that a dissatisfied party could apply for a review.
• The National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention, Abu Ramadan, applied for review of the court’s decision on CI 74 but the court, on July 31, 2013, unanimously held that he had no capacity to file a review because he was not a party to the original case.
• The General Secretary of the PNC, Mr Bernard Mornah, instituted the action which resulted in the expunging of aspects of CI 74 which were in contravention with the 1992 Constitution.
THERE are striking similarities and differences between the two personalities at the centre of the “pink sheet war”.
One was sworn in as President five months before the general election, while the other had to suspend his campaign and mourn with the newly sworn in President and Ghanaians following the untimely demise of then President John Evans Atta Mills.
They are both Ghanaians, former parliamentarians, leaders of the two main political parties in Ghana, have committed to peace and declared their preparedness to accept the decision of the Supreme Court in their fight over the highest office of the land – the Presidency.
In a typical musical chairs scenario, one was lucky to have sat on the chair when the music stopped playing on December 9, 2012.
However, will the one on the chair be disqualified or allowed to continue sitting on it? Will the other be allowed to sit on it or will the music be played again to find out who finally has the last laugh?
Ghanaians will today get the answers to these questions when the Supreme Court, blessed with powers under Article 64 (1, 2 and 3) of the 1992 Constitution and the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74), puts to rest the pink sheets legal battle which has been fought for the past eight months.
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.”
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”, while 64 (3) states that “the rules of the Court Committee shall, by Constitutional Instrument, make rules of court for the practice and procedure for petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the election of a president”.
Thus the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012 (CI 74) were promulgated in 2012 to set out modalities to be adhered to in the event a petition is filed to challenge a President’s legitimacy.
Who is Who?
The personalities in the middle of the “pink sheet war”, President John Dramani Mahama and the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, both campaigned vigorously for the presidency.
With powers conferred on him under Article 63 (9) of the 1992 Constitution, the Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, declared President Mahama the winner of the December 7 and 8, 2013 presidential election.
The battle shifted from the campaign grounds to the Supreme Court on December 9, 2012 when Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, filed a petition under Article 64 of the 1992 Constitution; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285) and Rule 68 and 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, CI 74.
The Challenge
Nana Akufo-Addo wants to be declared President on the grounds that there were gross and widespread irregularities at 10,119 polling stations and for that reason the annulment of 3,931,339 invalid votes at those polling stations would reduce President Mahama’s votes and guarantee his (Nana Akufo-Addo’s) seat at the Presidency.
President Mahama has fought back with the argument that he won the elections freely and transparently in the full glare of Ghanaians, the media, local and foreign observers.
Issues for Determination
The court will determine whether or not there were statutory violations, irregularities, commissions and malpractices in the December 7 and 8, 2012 presidential poll.
It will also determine whether or not those statutory violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the presidential poll.
Possible Outcome
Justices William Atuguba, Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Constance Owusu, Jones Victor Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo will take into consideration the evidence adduced, the laws of the land, both local and international authorities, the rules of court and other statutes before pronouncing the verdict, which has left many Ghanaians entertaining the fear of a possible escalation of violence after the judgement.
After considering the evidence adduced to prove allegations of over-voting, some persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets and some pink sheets having duplicate serial numbers, the court will determine whether or not to annul some or 3,931,339 million votes.
In the event of an annulment, the court will then decide whether or not the votes annulled are enough to affect the outcome of the poll.
Should the court hold that the votes to be annulled (if any) are not enough to affect the outcome of the presidential poll, it will affirm the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls.
On the contrary, the court could either declare Nana Akufo-Addo the winner of the polls or order for a re-run of the election at affected polling stations.
Obviously, the stakes are high and, for that reason, Mr Philip Addison, Mr Tony Lithur, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lawyers for the petitioners, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, respectively, left no stone unturned in fighting to change or maintain the status quo of the presidency.
Declare Nana Akufo-Addo President
The petitioners indicate that using pink sheets from 10,119 polling stations, over-voting occurred at 1,722 polling stations, while voting without biometric verification occurred at 2,020 polling stations.
The irregularity of absence of presiding officers’ signature occurred at 1,638 polling stations, while the use of duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets affected 8,987 polling stations.
In all, 3,931,339 votes were affected by the various irregularities at the 10,119 polling stations being challenged by the petitioners.
According to the petitioners, when the results of those polling stations were annulled, President Mahama’s votes would be reduced by 2,622,551, which would result in him securing 41.79 per cent of the new tally of valid votes.
They said Nana Akufo–Addo’s votes would also be reduced by 1,233,186 but that would still see him securing 56.85 per cent of the new tally of valid votes, much more than the needed 50 per cent + 1 to be declared as winner of the election.
The petitioners also showed in their addresses that each of the four main irregularities on its own had a material impact on the results declared and that annulling the votes at the polling stations affected by any of the four irregularities would mean that the declared winner, Mr Mahama, did not secure the required over 50 per cent.
President Mahama beat Nana Akufo-Addo by 325,863 votes.
Maintain President Mahama
However, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC had all argued that the petitioners had failed to prove their case to warrant the annulment of votes and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the presidential poll.
According to the respondents there was no legal, logical or arithmetical basis for the call for the annulment of votes.
Betting on social media
Prejudicial and contemptuous remarks in the media were so serious during the hearing that the Supreme Court had to stamp its authority by “legally cleansing and sealing the mouths” of a few “wayward” social commentators and party bigwigs to avoid the country being turned into a state of anarchy.
Although the highest court of the land, by the powers conferred on it by the 1992 Constitution, has succeeded in restoring some amount of sanity into the body politic, party faithful and fanatics have moved their prejudicial comments to social media.
Some have even gone to the extent of betting and challenging one another over the outcome of the judgement.
The Police Administration has moved in to hunt rumour mongers on social media in its bid to sustain the country’s peace.
Measures to maintain sanity
As part of measures to sustain the country’s fledgling democracy, the Supreme Court, on countless occasions during the hearing, promised that the Judiciary would uphold and sustain the interest of Ghanaians against reckless politicians who did not have the interest of the state at heart.
The Police Administration has deployed more than 30,000 personnel across the country to maintain law and order.
The roads leading to the Supreme Court have been blocked to non-accredited persons, while only accredited persons will be allowed entry into the Supreme Court.
There are reports of panic buying for storage across the country, premised on the fear that violence may escalate after the delivery of the judgement.
Other reports also indicate that people are flying out of the country with their families to avoid being caught up in any possible turmoil after the declaration.
Non-governmental organisations and other bodies have rolled out peace messages on all platforms to sustain the country’s position as the Gateway to Africa.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.
Fact Sheet
• Regulation 71 of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, ( I 74) says: “The court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of the petition, deliver its judgment and the registrar shall, within seven days of the delivery of the judgement, forward a copy of the judgement to the Electoral Commission.’’
• Although CI 74 had initially stated the matter would be determined once and for all, with the losing party not having the option to appeal, the court overturned that rule on April 30, 2013 and held that a dissatisfied party could apply for a review.
• The National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention, Abu Ramadan, applied for review of the court’s decision on CI 74 but the court, on July 31, 2013, unanimously held that he had no capacity to file a review because he was not a party to the original case.
• The General Secretary of the PNC, Mr Bernard Mornah, instituted the action which resulted in the expunging of aspects of CI 74 which were in contravention with the 1992 Constitution.
All is set for judgement - Supreme Court out of bounds to unacrredited persons
AUGUST 28, 2013 (Lead Story)
COURTS within the Supreme Court building and the Fast Track High Court area will not sit tomorrow, August 29, 2013, the day set aside for the delivery of judgement in the presidential election petition.
According to the management of the Judicial Service, the decision formed part of security measures instituted to ensure that security on the court premises and inside the courtroom was not compromised in any way.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex Poku-Acheampong, said the Judicial Service was poised to ensure that it conducted its national assignment effectively.
The affected courts include the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, some High courts, offices for judicial staff, Fast Track High Court One to Six and the Commercial Court.
Other affected courts are the Financial, Labour and Human Rights courts, their various registries, as well as offices.
In effect, non-accredited staff of the Judicial Service and members of the public would not be allowed within the inner and outer perimeters of the Supreme Court.
A statement signed by Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong and issued on August 22, 2013 urged non-accredited members of the public to monitor the judgement from their radio and television sets.
Accredited Persons
Per the statement, only four groups of persons had been accredited to enter the court premises on judgement day — the parties in the case, lawyers, journalists and representatives of the security agencies.
The Judicial Service also implored party functionaries, former and current Ministers of State, former and current parliamentarians who wished to witness the delivery of the judgement to contact the headquarters of their various parties for accreditation.
Meanwhile, the Police Administration has warned the public to stay a 100-metre radius away from the court premises.
Security will also be beefed up on the court premises on that day.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.
Fact Sheet
• The petition was filed on December 28, 2012, alleging irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of president and parliament) and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.
• The presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes in 10,119 polling stations and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as president.
• But the respondents, who are President John Dramani Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are praying the court to dismiss the petitioners’ claims because they are without basis and have not been proved.
• Evidence gathering has ended and the lawyers have since addressed the court on salient issues. Judgement will be delivered on August 29, 2013.
COURTS within the Supreme Court building and the Fast Track High Court area will not sit tomorrow, August 29, 2013, the day set aside for the delivery of judgement in the presidential election petition.
According to the management of the Judicial Service, the decision formed part of security measures instituted to ensure that security on the court premises and inside the courtroom was not compromised in any way.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex Poku-Acheampong, said the Judicial Service was poised to ensure that it conducted its national assignment effectively.
The affected courts include the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, some High courts, offices for judicial staff, Fast Track High Court One to Six and the Commercial Court.
Other affected courts are the Financial, Labour and Human Rights courts, their various registries, as well as offices.
In effect, non-accredited staff of the Judicial Service and members of the public would not be allowed within the inner and outer perimeters of the Supreme Court.
A statement signed by Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong and issued on August 22, 2013 urged non-accredited members of the public to monitor the judgement from their radio and television sets.
Accredited Persons
Per the statement, only four groups of persons had been accredited to enter the court premises on judgement day — the parties in the case, lawyers, journalists and representatives of the security agencies.
The Judicial Service also implored party functionaries, former and current Ministers of State, former and current parliamentarians who wished to witness the delivery of the judgement to contact the headquarters of their various parties for accreditation.
Meanwhile, the Police Administration has warned the public to stay a 100-metre radius away from the court premises.
Security will also be beefed up on the court premises on that day.
Writer’s email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.
Fact Sheet
• The petition was filed on December 28, 2012, alleging irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of president and parliament) and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.
• The presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes in 10,119 polling stations and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as president.
• But the respondents, who are President John Dramani Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), are praying the court to dismiss the petitioners’ claims because they are without basis and have not been proved.
• Evidence gathering has ended and the lawyers have since addressed the court on salient issues. Judgement will be delivered on August 29, 2013.
NPP, NDC kick against IEA suggestion
AUGUST 22, 2013 (Page 13)
LAWYERS for President John Dramani Mahama and the petitioners in the election petition have stated that it is not for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to determine that the losing party in the petition should not apply for review in the interest of peace.
While lawyers for the petitioners and President Mahama maintained it was not for the IEA to determine the next line of action to be taken after the delivery of the judgement, lawyers for the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), have declined to comment on the matter.
In a statement issued on August 20, 2013, the IEA urged the party that would lose in the petition challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama to refrain from seeking a review in the interest of peace.
But in an interview with the Daily Graphic, counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, said “it is not for the IEA to determine,” and pointed out that, “that decision is for the parties to make.”
For his part, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Akoto Ampaw, said “the IEA is not a legal authority and not a party in the matter.”
He also stated that the petitioners would await the judgement of the Supreme Court in order to know the next line of action to take.
When reached for their reaction to the IEA statement, lawyers for the EC and the NDC, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata respectively stated, “no comment.”
In a related development, the National Chairman of the NPP and one of the petitioners in the case, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, said the issue on whether or not to go for review was not for the petitioners to decide.
He explained that the decision to go to court was determined by the National Executive Council (NEC) of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) but he and the other petitioners went to court because Article 64 (1) required an individual or individuals to file a presidential election petition.
In a telephone interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra today, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, disclosed that he and the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Dr Mahamadu Bawumia would tommorrow (August 22, 2013) meet the NEC to officially inform it of what had so far transpired in court.
“After the verdict, the National Executive Council will meet again to decide what next. It is not for me as an individual to state what to do next,” he added.
Parties in the petition
The parties in the ongoing presidential election petition are - the petitioners, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC.
The petitioners are calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes cast in 10,119 polling stations across the country because of what they termed gross and widespread irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of President) and some pink sheets having duplicate serial numbers.
But President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, who are the respondents in the petition, have denied the claims and have argued that the petitioners were not able to prove the said infractions in court to warrant the annulment of votes and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as President.
Evidence has been adduced and the court is billed to give its judgment on August 29, 2013.
Fact Sheet
• According to the IEA, its suggestion will "facilitate the process of national reconciliation and unity".
• The IEA has called on the winning party to refrain from provocative victory celebrations and taunting of the other party.
• It also urged all Ghanaians to remain calm and trust in the competence of the Supreme Court to deliver a fair judgement.
LAWYERS for President John Dramani Mahama and the petitioners in the election petition have stated that it is not for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to determine that the losing party in the petition should not apply for review in the interest of peace.
While lawyers for the petitioners and President Mahama maintained it was not for the IEA to determine the next line of action to be taken after the delivery of the judgement, lawyers for the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), have declined to comment on the matter.
In a statement issued on August 20, 2013, the IEA urged the party that would lose in the petition challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama to refrain from seeking a review in the interest of peace.
But in an interview with the Daily Graphic, counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, said “it is not for the IEA to determine,” and pointed out that, “that decision is for the parties to make.”
For his part, one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Akoto Ampaw, said “the IEA is not a legal authority and not a party in the matter.”
He also stated that the petitioners would await the judgement of the Supreme Court in order to know the next line of action to take.
When reached for their reaction to the IEA statement, lawyers for the EC and the NDC, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata respectively stated, “no comment.”
In a related development, the National Chairman of the NPP and one of the petitioners in the case, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, said the issue on whether or not to go for review was not for the petitioners to decide.
He explained that the decision to go to court was determined by the National Executive Council (NEC) of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) but he and the other petitioners went to court because Article 64 (1) required an individual or individuals to file a presidential election petition.
In a telephone interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra today, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, disclosed that he and the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 presidential election, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Dr Mahamadu Bawumia would tommorrow (August 22, 2013) meet the NEC to officially inform it of what had so far transpired in court.
“After the verdict, the National Executive Council will meet again to decide what next. It is not for me as an individual to state what to do next,” he added.
Parties in the petition
The parties in the ongoing presidential election petition are - the petitioners, President Mahama, the EC and the NDC.
The petitioners are calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes cast in 10,119 polling stations across the country because of what they termed gross and widespread irregularities of over-voting, persons voting without undergoing biometric verification, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results form for the office of President) and some pink sheets having duplicate serial numbers.
But President Mahama, the EC and the NDC, who are the respondents in the petition, have denied the claims and have argued that the petitioners were not able to prove the said infractions in court to warrant the annulment of votes and the subsequent declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo as President.
Evidence has been adduced and the court is billed to give its judgment on August 29, 2013.
Fact Sheet
• According to the IEA, its suggestion will "facilitate the process of national reconciliation and unity".
• The IEA has called on the winning party to refrain from provocative victory celebrations and taunting of the other party.
• It also urged all Ghanaians to remain calm and trust in the competence of the Supreme Court to deliver a fair judgement.
Election petition - No change in judgement date - Despite looming JUSAG strike
August 26, 2013 (Lead Story)
THE Judicial Service has given an assurance that it is making strenuous efforts with the government to resolve the looming strike by the Judicial Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) to pave way for the delivery of judgement on the presidential election petition before the Supreme Court.
According to the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, “we are making serious efforts to resolve the issue before the judgement date”.
The Supreme Court is billed to deliver its judgement in the petition which is challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong explained that the government had so far released some money to settle part of the allowances due the aggrieved staff.
He said the entire work of the Judicial Service was a national assignment and for that reason the service would not relent in its efforts at meeting the demands of Ghanaians.
“We hope and believe the problem will be resolved early this week before judgement is delivered,” Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong added.
Meanwhile, the leadership of JUSAG has dismissed criticisms that the group would hold the country to ransom if its members carried out their threat of strike two days before the Supreme Court gives it verdict on the petition.
“It is not because of the Supreme Court. It is just coincidence. As we speak, most of the courts are on recess. If we had not announced this in January, people would have been justified that we have an agenda,
“Those saying that are entitled to their opinion, but they must know that our demands did not start today. We had started demanding these allowances since March and threatened the strike in April this year. It is not as if it came out of the blue,” the JUSAG Chairman, Mr Francis Brakwah, told the Daily Graphic.
He maintained that the association was not taking advantage of the Supreme Court judgement on August 29 to push for its demands.
The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning last Thursday released funds for the payment of allowances, including those for fuel, car and motorbike maintenance and overtime, to the members of the association, with their clothing allowance pending.
But Mr Brakwah maintained that the association would call off the intended strike only if the government paid JUSAG members their clothing allowance.
That, he said, was because “it is the most critical among all the allowances and affects all members of JUSAG, with the exception of judges and magistrates”.
“The other allowances affect just some categories. Not until the clothing allowance is paid, we’ll not call off the strike,” he said.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, members of JUSAG served notice that they would embark on an industrial action on August 27 if all outstanding allowances due them were not paid by August 26.
In April this year, JUSAG had threatened to embark on strike if their allowances were not paid by April 4.
THE Judicial Service has given an assurance that it is making strenuous efforts with the government to resolve the looming strike by the Judicial Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG) to pave way for the delivery of judgement on the presidential election petition before the Supreme Court.
According to the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, “we are making serious efforts to resolve the issue before the judgement date”.
The Supreme Court is billed to deliver its judgement in the petition which is challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong explained that the government had so far released some money to settle part of the allowances due the aggrieved staff.
He said the entire work of the Judicial Service was a national assignment and for that reason the service would not relent in its efforts at meeting the demands of Ghanaians.
“We hope and believe the problem will be resolved early this week before judgement is delivered,” Mr Justice Poku-Acheampong added.
Meanwhile, the leadership of JUSAG has dismissed criticisms that the group would hold the country to ransom if its members carried out their threat of strike two days before the Supreme Court gives it verdict on the petition.
“It is not because of the Supreme Court. It is just coincidence. As we speak, most of the courts are on recess. If we had not announced this in January, people would have been justified that we have an agenda,
“Those saying that are entitled to their opinion, but they must know that our demands did not start today. We had started demanding these allowances since March and threatened the strike in April this year. It is not as if it came out of the blue,” the JUSAG Chairman, Mr Francis Brakwah, told the Daily Graphic.
He maintained that the association was not taking advantage of the Supreme Court judgement on August 29 to push for its demands.
The Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning last Thursday released funds for the payment of allowances, including those for fuel, car and motorbike maintenance and overtime, to the members of the association, with their clothing allowance pending.
But Mr Brakwah maintained that the association would call off the intended strike only if the government paid JUSAG members their clothing allowance.
That, he said, was because “it is the most critical among all the allowances and affects all members of JUSAG, with the exception of judges and magistrates”.
“The other allowances affect just some categories. Not until the clothing allowance is paid, we’ll not call off the strike,” he said.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013, members of JUSAG served notice that they would embark on an industrial action on August 27 if all outstanding allowances due them were not paid by August 26.
In April this year, JUSAG had threatened to embark on strike if their allowances were not paid by April 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)