February 9, 2013 (Page 27)
The Supreme Court on Thursday, refused petitioners
challenging the December 2012 presidential elections, access to inspect and
make copies of original results from 275 collation centres across the country.
In a unanimous decision, the nine-member panel also rejected
the petitioners’ prayer to be allowed to make copies of original of pink sheets
from 26,002 polling stations.
“We find the petitioners request superfluous, unnecessary
and premature,” the court stated in a ruling read on its behalf by Mrs Justice
Sophia Adinyira.
The other members of the panel were: Mr Justice William
Atuguba, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones
Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S.
Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, presidential
candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP); his running mate, Dr Mahamadu
Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, had pleaded
with the court to permit them to inspect and make copies from original results
recorded in 275 collation centres.
They had also implored the court to authorise them to
inspect and make copies of original results recorded in all 26,002 polling
stations across the country, but the court said no, on grounds that they
(petitioners) had copies of duplicates upon which they had based their
allegations of irregularities.
The ruling
Touching on the petitioners’ argument that they
(petitioners) had a right to access the said documents based on Article 21 (1)
(f) of the 1992 Constitution, the court held that their reliance on Article 21
(1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution “is rather lame”.
The petitioners had argued that they had the right under the
1992 Constitution to access the said documents, since they were public
documents, but the court reminded them that their party, just as the other
political parties which participated in the 2012 general elections, had been
given duplicated copies of the said documents.
According to the court, Section 166 of NRCD 323 (Evidence
Act) clearly states that the duplicate of an original copy can be tendered in
evidence in court.
It said the petitioners had failed to “raise concerns” with
the said documents to warrant the court to grant their request, adding that
Order 21 Rule 11 (1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47)
indicated that orders could be made only when they were necessary.
In this particular instance, the court was of the view that
“where a party is in possession of a document, it will be unnecessary to apply
to court to order for a copy,” adding that “duplicates are admissible” under
the Evidence Act.
It took into cognisance its February 5, 2013 ruling, which
directed the Electoral Commission (EC) to answer all questions posed by the
petitioners, as well as an order it directed at the petitioners to furnish the
EC and other parties in the case with further and better particulars on the
alleged irregularities at 4,709 polling stations before arriving at its
decision.
The other respondents in the case are President Mahama and
the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
The court submitted further that the petitioners had relied
on the said documents to raise issues of irregularities in December 7, 2012
polls, and for that reason, their rights had not been infringed upon under the
1992 Constitution.
“They failed to make a case for us to order the Electoral
Commission to produce documents for inspection. They have failed to convince
the court on how their rights under Article 21 (1) (f) have been infringed
upon,” the court said, and consequently stressed that “the petitioners motion
of discovery and inspection is dismissed”.
It said discoveries could be made at any time during trials,
and not at the end of pleadings, adding that the petitioners’ prayer for the
original documents was “premature”.
Background to application for discoveries
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, had on
February 5, 2013 argued that although the petitioners had photocopies of the
said documents, the signatures of presiding officers did not appear on most of
the pink sheets and it was, therefore, important that the court allowed them
(petitioners) to have access to the said documents.
However, counsel for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, stated
that Order 21 Rule 6 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47) states
that the court could order a discovery only if it was necessary.
Under the present circumstance, counsel was of the view that
the discovery being sought by the petitioners was not necessary because they
already had copies of the documents.
He said Dr Bawumia had on January 25, 2013 stated in an
affidavit sworn on behalf of the other two petitioners that they (petitioners)
had copies of the documents “for which they are seeking discovery”.
Mr Quashie-Idun accused the petitioners of embarking on a
“fishing expedition”, adding that the burden of proof was on the petitioners.
“They started with 4,709 polling stations. Now they are
claiming for 26,002 polling stations. This is oppressively unnecessary,” Mr
Quashie-Idun remarked.
The court eventually upheld the EC’s opposition.
The Petition - President and EC’s denials
The petitioners filed a petition at the Supreme Court, dated
December 28, 2012 and noted, among other things, that irregularities recorded
at 4,709 polling stations favoured President Mahama.
They, however, amended their petition on January 31, 2013 to
request the Supreme Court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes cast during the
election at 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
They are also seeking to introduce the claim that there were
28 locations where elections took place, which, according to them, were not
part of the 26,002 polling stations created by the EC.
The court has since allowed the amendment into the court’s
records.
The President and the EC denied the claims and have both
described the election results as credible and accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment