April 16, 2013(Lead Story)
The Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, has directed
that the proceedings of the presidential election petition currently
before the Supreme Court be broadcast live via television and radio.
“This decision has been taken in response to the increasing calls
from the public for the proceedings of the court to be broadcast live
in view of the historic importance of this case,” a statement signed by
the Judicial Secretary, Mr Justice Alex B. Opoku-Acheampong, and issued
in Accra said.
According to the statement, the Supreme Court
would communicate guidelines for the live broadcast at its next sitting,
adding that “we expect that all media houses will co-operate and comply
with the guidelines when they are announced.”
It expressed
the hope that the decision “will deepen our country’s democracy and
satisfy the greater public desire for accurate and up-to-date
information on this historic and landmark case.”
The
petitioners had, from the time of filing of their petition, advocated
live coverage of proceedings, but the Judicial Service was not
forthcoming on its position on the suggestion
A highly placed
source informed the Daily Graphic that although, it was not a normal
practice to allow cameras into courtrooms, the Judicial Service had made
the exception to allay speculations and the twisting of facts by
sections of the media and the public, reports Mabel Aku Baneseh.
“We
are doing this in the interest of justice to all parties in the case.
We want the public to follow events live to avoid needless
speculations,” the source said.
The hearing of the substantive
petition is billed for today, but considering the large number of boxes
containing thousands of affidavits filed by lawyers for President
Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), it is most likely the
petitioners may not be served with all the documents before hearing
begins today.
As of Monday piles of boxes were heaped on the
premises of the Supreme Court, while court clerks busily sorted them out
and stamped them as filed.
Reactions to live coverage
A
member of the NDC legal and communications team, Victor Kwadjogah
Adawudu, said the NDC and the President welcomed the decision.
“A
step in the right direction and victory for democracy because the whole
world will see how the petitioners are performing in court and will
come to the conclusion that the election was free and fair and the
President validly won the election on the wheels of hard work.
“It
will also allow Ghanaians, the international community and supporters
of the parties to know what actually happened in court and can judge
which media are biased in their reportage and are being an appendage of
the political parties.
“Secondly, it will also break the
mystery that justice is always shrouded in secrecy and that the door to
the shrine of justice should be kept shut,” he said.
The
Executive Director of the Danquah Institute and member of the
petitioners’ legal team, Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko, said, “Excellent
news. We asked for it even before the petitioners could file their case.
“It
will be useful in getting overwhelming national acceptance of the
decision of the court. It will give all Ghanaians the opportunity to
hear and see what is going on to follow the proceedings and not leave it
to propaganda spin by the parties.
“It is good news. We are
happy the Supreme Court has been flexible to the realities in this
regard because we got a letter from the Judicial Secretary that said no.
We are happy they have changed their mind. We have not received any
official written communication yet.”
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Election petiton before Supreme Court - HEARING BEGINS TODAY
April 16, 2013 (Lead Story)
HEARING of the landmark electoral petition which is contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential polls begins at the Supreme Court in Accra today.
The petitioners are expected to call their first witness/witnesses today, depending on how long the witness/witnesses will testify, how long the cross-examination will take and, if need be, how long the re-examination lasts.
The case, which promises to be a significant historical event in Ghana’s legal and political culture, has the petitioners urging the court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes and subsequently declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as the one who won the December presidential election.
According to them, Nana Akufo-Addo won the elections with 59.69 per cent of the votes cast, while President Mahama polled 39.1 per cent.
They are, therefore, challenging the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as winner of the presidential polls with 50.70 per cent.
However, the EC, which is one of the respondents in the case and conductor of the polls, is standing by its December 9, 2012 declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls with 50.7 per cent, with Nana Akufo-Addo placing second with 47.7 per cent.
Oral Evidence
Per the April 2, 2013 orders of the court, the petitioners and the respondents are at liberty to give oral evidence in court.
Therefore, Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, are at liberty to give oral evidence, while President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are also at will to do same.
However, all other potential witnesses for the parties in the case are expected to give their evidence through written and sworn affidavits.
The court did not place any limitation on the number of affidavits to be sworn by the parties in the case.
It will, however, consider the relevance of the content of the sworn affidavits and factor them into its final decision.
Star Witness for Petitioners
Although lawyers for the petitioners are tight-lipped over who their first witness will be, what is not in dispute per the affidavit they have served on the respondents is that Dr Bawumia will be their star witness.
In an 83-paragraph affidavit dated April 7, 2013 and filed at the Supreme Court registry, Dr Bawumia has averred that he was the Chairman of the committee that investigated the results of the December polls, during which widespread and gross irregularities were recorded in 11,916 polling stations.
He has indicated in his affidavit that he will give a detailed tabulation on how electoral irregularities took place in the 11,916 polling stations across the country.
Six additional witnesses for petitioners
Additionally, six persons, including the Member of Parliament (MP) for Berekum East, Mr Kwabena Twum Nuamah; the NPP’s parliamentary candidate for Upper West Akim in the Eastern Region, Mr Eugene Sackey; the NPP parliamentary candidate for Tano North, Freda Prempeh; a resident of Savelugu, Fuseini Safinu; Abdulai Abdul Hamid of Pong-Tamale and Peter Wuni of Nalerigu, have also given their evidence in the form of sworn affidavits.
The court may request the physical presence of some of the witnesses who have sworn affidavits to indicate how irregularities occurred in their respective areas only if compelling reasons are given to warrant their physical presence in court.
Claims of petitioners
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 CI 75, widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification, in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of CI 75, as well as widespread instances of 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.
They are also alleging widespread instances of polling stations where different results were strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station code when, by the EC’s established procedure, each polling station is assigned a unique code in order to avoid confusing one polling station with another which could not be explained by a reference to special voting.
In a bid to prove their allegations of fraud, the petitioners have since served 24 boxes filled with thousands of documents on the respondents in the case as evidence.
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, CI 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 are alleging irregularities in 11,916 polling stations, the burden of proof is on them to prove each of the alleged infraction.
Nonetheless, the EC has denied all petitioners’ allegations and insists the elections were held on a clean sheet and, therefore, President Mahama won fairly in the full glare of the media, local and international election observers.
President Mahama and the NDC, who are the first and third respondents, respectively, in the petition, have also denied the claims of the petitioners.
Issues for determination
After 10 sittings to consider and rule on more than 21 interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court has set out two issues for trial.
They are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012 and whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the elections.
The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (CI 74)
The main objective of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (CI 74) is to ensure that petitions of this nature are disposed of expeditiously.
By virtue of provisions in CI 74, the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution allows the court to review its own decisions.
The amendment to the Supreme Court rules states, among other things, that the hearing of a petition against a presidential election shall be done on a daily basis, including public holidays.
Therefore, once hearing begins, the court will go into a marathon session to dispose of the case expeditiously, according to its amended rules.
Judgement and declaration of results
After taking evidence from all the parties in the case, the court will fix a date for judgement.
It will then forward its order to the EC for implementation.
It is important to note that the EC will be expected to declare the results again, irrespective of the outcome of the court’s decision.
Rule 71 of 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 panel and legal teams
Justices of the Supreme Court who will determine the landmark case are Mr Justice William Atuguba (presiding), Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
A 10-member legal team, including a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo; Mr Philip Addison, Mr Frank Davies, Mr Alex Quaynor, Mr Akoto Ampaw, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Mr Kwame Akuffo, Mr Kwaku Asirifi, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, Mr Egbert Faibille and Professor Ken Attafuah, is representing the petitioners.
President Mahama is being represented by Mr Tony Lithur and Dr Abdul Basit Aziz Bamba, while Mr Tsatsu Tsikata and Mr Samuel Codjoe represent the NDC.
Mr James Quashie-Idun, Mr Anthony Dabi and Mr Stanley Amarteyfio are representing the EC.
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
HEARING of the landmark electoral petition which is contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential polls begins at the Supreme Court in Accra today.
The petitioners are expected to call their first witness/witnesses today, depending on how long the witness/witnesses will testify, how long the cross-examination will take and, if need be, how long the re-examination lasts.
The case, which promises to be a significant historical event in Ghana’s legal and political culture, has the petitioners urging the court to annul 4,670,504 valid votes and subsequently declare the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, as the one who won the December presidential election.
According to them, Nana Akufo-Addo won the elections with 59.69 per cent of the votes cast, while President Mahama polled 39.1 per cent.
They are, therefore, challenging the EC’s declaration of President Mahama as winner of the presidential polls with 50.70 per cent.
However, the EC, which is one of the respondents in the case and conductor of the polls, is standing by its December 9, 2012 declaration of President Mahama as the winner of the polls with 50.7 per cent, with Nana Akufo-Addo placing second with 47.7 per cent.
Oral Evidence
Per the April 2, 2013 orders of the court, the petitioners and the respondents are at liberty to give oral evidence in court.
Therefore, Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, are at liberty to give oral evidence, while President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are also at will to do same.
However, all other potential witnesses for the parties in the case are expected to give their evidence through written and sworn affidavits.
The court did not place any limitation on the number of affidavits to be sworn by the parties in the case.
It will, however, consider the relevance of the content of the sworn affidavits and factor them into its final decision.
Star Witness for Petitioners
Although lawyers for the petitioners are tight-lipped over who their first witness will be, what is not in dispute per the affidavit they have served on the respondents is that Dr Bawumia will be their star witness.
In an 83-paragraph affidavit dated April 7, 2013 and filed at the Supreme Court registry, Dr Bawumia has averred that he was the Chairman of the committee that investigated the results of the December polls, during which widespread and gross irregularities were recorded in 11,916 polling stations.
He has indicated in his affidavit that he will give a detailed tabulation on how electoral irregularities took place in the 11,916 polling stations across the country.
Six additional witnesses for petitioners
Additionally, six persons, including the Member of Parliament (MP) for Berekum East, Mr Kwabena Twum Nuamah; the NPP’s parliamentary candidate for Upper West Akim in the Eastern Region, Mr Eugene Sackey; the NPP parliamentary candidate for Tano North, Freda Prempeh; a resident of Savelugu, Fuseini Safinu; Abdulai Abdul Hamid of Pong-Tamale and Peter Wuni of Nalerigu, have also given their evidence in the form of sworn affidavits.
The court may request the physical presence of some of the witnesses who have sworn affidavits to indicate how irregularities occurred in their respective areas only if compelling reasons are given to warrant their physical presence in court.
Claims of petitioners
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 CI 75, widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification, in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of CI 75, as well as widespread instances of 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.
They are also alleging widespread instances of polling stations where different results were strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station code when, by the EC’s established procedure, each polling station is assigned a unique code in order to avoid confusing one polling station with another which could not be explained by a reference to special voting.
In a bid to prove their allegations of fraud, the petitioners have since served 24 boxes filled with thousands of documents on the respondents in the case as evidence.
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, CI 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 are alleging irregularities in 11,916 polling stations, the burden of proof is on them to prove each of the alleged infraction.
Nonetheless, the EC has denied all petitioners’ allegations and insists the elections were held on a clean sheet and, therefore, President Mahama won fairly in the full glare of the media, local and international election observers.
President Mahama and the NDC, who are the first and third respondents, respectively, in the petition, have also denied the claims of the petitioners.
Issues for determination
After 10 sittings to consider and rule on more than 21 interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court has set out two issues for trial.
They are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012 and whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the elections.
The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (CI 74)
The main objective of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (CI 74) is to ensure that petitions of this nature are disposed of expeditiously.
By virtue of provisions in CI 74, the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution allows the court to review its own decisions.
The amendment to the Supreme Court rules states, among other things, that the hearing of a petition against a presidential election shall be done on a daily basis, including public holidays.
Therefore, once hearing begins, the court will go into a marathon session to dispose of the case expeditiously, according to its amended rules.
Judgement and declaration of results
After taking evidence from all the parties in the case, the court will fix a date for judgement.
It will then forward its order to the EC for implementation.
It is important to note that the EC will be expected to declare the results again, irrespective of the outcome of the court’s decision.
Rule 71 of 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 panel and legal teams
Justices of the Supreme Court who will determine the landmark case are Mr Justice William Atuguba (presiding), Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
A 10-member legal team, including a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo; Mr Philip Addison, Mr Frank Davies, Mr Alex Quaynor, Mr Akoto Ampaw, Nana Asante Bediatuo, Mr Kwame Akuffo, Mr Kwaku Asirifi, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, Mr Egbert Faibille and Professor Ken Attafuah, is representing the petitioners.
President Mahama is being represented by Mr Tony Lithur and Dr Abdul Basit Aziz Bamba, while Mr Tsatsu Tsikata and Mr Samuel Codjoe represent the NDC.
Mr James Quashie-Idun, Mr Anthony Dabi and Mr Stanley Amarteyfio are representing the EC.
Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
EC runs to Supreme Court - To vary April 2 order
April 10, 2013 (Front Page)
The Supreme Court will sit today - Wednesday - to consider a request from the Electoral Commission (EC) for the court to vary its orders in a petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
In a motion on notice filed on behalf of the EC by its solicitors, Lynes Quashie-Idun and Co, the EC is urging the court to vary its April 2, 2013 order which directed respondents in the petition to file their written affidavits within five days from the service of petitioners’ affidavits on them.
Rather, the EC is praying the court to review its order by directing it (EC) to file its written response “within five days from the close of the petitioners’ case”.
What the EC is requesting the court to do is allow it and other respondents to file their evidence in the form of written affidavits after the petitioners have closed their case in the trial, which is set to begin on April 16, 2013.
The EC’s motion, which was filed on Monday, April 8, 2013, barely 24 hours after the petitioners had complied with the court’s directive to them to file their evidence in the form of affidavits, has been opposed by the petitioners.
An affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the petitioners by one of their lawyers, Mr Akoto Ampaw, and dated April 9, 2013 is praying the court to reject the EC’s plea because the commission had “a clear indication of the case of the petitioners, especially following the detailed particulars that the respondent applied to the court and obtained from the petitioners”.
The petitioners, in this particular instance, are referring to the further and better particulars on the 11,916 polling stations where alleged widespread malpractice and irregularities were recorded during the December 7 and 8, 2012 polls and which they (petitioners) furnished the EC with following the court’s order to that effect.
Affidavit in Support of EC’s Motion
An affidavit in support of the EC’s motion deposed by one of its lawyers, Mr Anthony Dabi, said since the court was functioning as a trial court, “it is respectfully requested, taking into account that the petitioners have the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion”.
It said the petitioners should be ordered to open their case, present their evidence (oral evidence and evidence by affidavit) and close their case before the second respondent was required to open its case, present its evidence (oral evidence and evidence by affidavit) and close its case.
The EC, which is the second respondent in the petition, is praying that its request would not cause any delay or hinder the expeditious hearing of the case but, on the contrary, it would ensure “a smooth and well-ordered trial in accordance with the established procedures of the court”.
Petitioners oppose EC
According to the affidavit in opposition, the petitioners said a presidential election was not a private matter between two individual parties “but a matter of utmost importance for not only the contending litigants but for all political parties, the electorate and, indeed, Ghanaians as a whole”.
It further argued that the EC’s proposal could not find support, “whether directly or by analogy, in any rule of law, procedure or practice”.
It said the EC’s application was without merit, had been brought in bad faith and calculated to overreach the petitioners and cause delay, adding, “It ought to be dismissed with punitive costs.”
Background to case
President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are the first and third respondents, respectively.
The petitioners, who are 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 4,670,504 votes, representing votes cast in 11,916 polling stations across the country, due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities”.
But the respondents have denied the petitioners’ claims on the grounds that the election results were credible.
After nine sittings to consider and rule on more than 20 interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court fixed the date for hearing of the substantive matter after considering issues raised by lawyers for the parties in the case.
Issues for Trial
The issues set out for trial are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
The court will also ascertain whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results of the elections.
Some of the irregularities, malpractices, omissions and violations complained of and due to be determined by the court are allegations of persons being allowed to vote without biometric verification, some presiding officers and/or their assistants not signing declaration forms (pink sheets), total number of votes cast exceeding the total number of registered voters, as well as total number of ballot papers issued.
Other irregularities to be considered by the court include whether or not the alleged statutory violations introduced 4,670,504 invalid votes cast in the December 2012 presidential election, whether or not ballots cast without biometric verification were taken into account by the EC in the declaration of results, among others.
The Supreme Court will sit today - Wednesday - to consider a request from the Electoral Commission (EC) for the court to vary its orders in a petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
In a motion on notice filed on behalf of the EC by its solicitors, Lynes Quashie-Idun and Co, the EC is urging the court to vary its April 2, 2013 order which directed respondents in the petition to file their written affidavits within five days from the service of petitioners’ affidavits on them.
Rather, the EC is praying the court to review its order by directing it (EC) to file its written response “within five days from the close of the petitioners’ case”.
What the EC is requesting the court to do is allow it and other respondents to file their evidence in the form of written affidavits after the petitioners have closed their case in the trial, which is set to begin on April 16, 2013.
The EC’s motion, which was filed on Monday, April 8, 2013, barely 24 hours after the petitioners had complied with the court’s directive to them to file their evidence in the form of affidavits, has been opposed by the petitioners.
An affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the petitioners by one of their lawyers, Mr Akoto Ampaw, and dated April 9, 2013 is praying the court to reject the EC’s plea because the commission had “a clear indication of the case of the petitioners, especially following the detailed particulars that the respondent applied to the court and obtained from the petitioners”.
The petitioners, in this particular instance, are referring to the further and better particulars on the 11,916 polling stations where alleged widespread malpractice and irregularities were recorded during the December 7 and 8, 2012 polls and which they (petitioners) furnished the EC with following the court’s order to that effect.
Affidavit in Support of EC’s Motion
An affidavit in support of the EC’s motion deposed by one of its lawyers, Mr Anthony Dabi, said since the court was functioning as a trial court, “it is respectfully requested, taking into account that the petitioners have the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion”.
It said the petitioners should be ordered to open their case, present their evidence (oral evidence and evidence by affidavit) and close their case before the second respondent was required to open its case, present its evidence (oral evidence and evidence by affidavit) and close its case.
The EC, which is the second respondent in the petition, is praying that its request would not cause any delay or hinder the expeditious hearing of the case but, on the contrary, it would ensure “a smooth and well-ordered trial in accordance with the established procedures of the court”.
Petitioners oppose EC
According to the affidavit in opposition, the petitioners said a presidential election was not a private matter between two individual parties “but a matter of utmost importance for not only the contending litigants but for all political parties, the electorate and, indeed, Ghanaians as a whole”.
It further argued that the EC’s proposal could not find support, “whether directly or by analogy, in any rule of law, procedure or practice”.
It said the EC’s application was without merit, had been brought in bad faith and calculated to overreach the petitioners and cause delay, adding, “It ought to be dismissed with punitive costs.”
Background to case
President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) are the first and third respondents, respectively.
The petitioners, who are 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 4,670,504 votes, representing votes cast in 11,916 polling stations across the country, due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities”.
But the respondents have denied the petitioners’ claims on the grounds that the election results were credible.
After nine sittings to consider and rule on more than 20 interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court fixed the date for hearing of the substantive matter after considering issues raised by lawyers for the parties in the case.
Issues for Trial
The issues set out for trial are whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
The court will also ascertain whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices (if any) affected the outcome of the results of the elections.
Some of the irregularities, malpractices, omissions and violations complained of and due to be determined by the court are allegations of persons being allowed to vote without biometric verification, some presiding officers and/or their assistants not signing declaration forms (pink sheets), total number of votes cast exceeding the total number of registered voters, as well as total number of ballot papers issued.
Other irregularities to be considered by the court include whether or not the alleged statutory violations introduced 4,670,504 invalid votes cast in the December 2012 presidential election, whether or not ballots cast without biometric verification were taken into account by the EC in the declaration of results, among others.
Accused person in gold deal granted permission to travel
April 9, 2013 (Page 3 Lead)
The Accra Circuit Monday granted permission to one of the persons accused of playing a role in the illegal shipment of 1.5 tonnes of gold worth $52 million to Turkey to travel to Nigeria to seek medical care.
Alhaji Musah Ahmed, the lawyer for Peter Kofi Bedzra, a miner, had prayed the court to review its bail conditions and allow his client to travel to Nigeria for medical care.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Patience Mills-Tetteh, a High Court judge with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge, had, on February 26, 2013, granted Bedzra bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with three sureties.
Bedzra had also been ordered to surrender his passport to the BNI and report himself to the national investigative body on Fridays.
Following counsel’s plea to the court to review the bail conditions, it gave the accused person permission to retrieve his passport from the BNI.
The legal team for a third accused person, Joseph Kwame Donkor, prayed the court to order the BNI to release Donkor’s vehicle to him.
The court refused the request and advised the legal team to repeat the application on May 6, 2013, the next adjourned date.
A second accused person, Frank Mould, alias Ebo, a forwarding agent, who was first put before the court on March 19, 2013 and remanded, has been granted bail by the Accra High Court.
All the three accused persons were in court.
Bedzra has pleaded not guilty to one count of forgery of document, contrary to Section 158 of the Criminal Code 1960, Act 29, while Mould has pleaded not guilty to two counts of abetment of crime and uttering forged documents, contrary to Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Donkor, the third person to be picked up by the BNI, is also a trader and Managing Director of Joedith Ventures Limited.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of abetment and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with two sureties, on March 22, 2013. He was also ordered to report himself to the BNI on Fridays.
According to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Mr A. A. Annor, Bedzra had, on December 31, 2012, allegedly forged certain documents, including a Geological Survey Department certificate for mineral samples numbered OC5/6/12/13, Bank of Ghana foreign exchange Form 4A with the serial number 14317261 and goods movement certificate No. A296968 to enable him to export 1,500 kilogrammes of gold to Dubai.
Mould, for his part, is alleged to have, on December 31, 2012, aided and abetted Bedzra to forge the documents, as well as uttered forged documents, to aid Bedzra evade the requirement under the law by exporting the 1.5 tonnes of gold.
According to the prosecution, Donkor abetted Bedzra to ship the gold to Turkey without undergoing the stipulated legal requirement before the shipment.
The facts of the case are that Mould, who is a forwarding agent, operates at the KIA. In December 2012, Valid Moradi Moghaddam and his partners, all Arabs, arrived in Ghana to purchase gold.
They got in touch with Omanye Gold Mining Limited which sold to them a quantity of gold weighing 1.5 tonnes and valued at $52 million.
According to the prosecution, the buyers packed the gold into 30 boxes for export to Dubai.
The prosecution informed the court that Mould was contracted to process the consignment for export and ,in the process, he aided Bedzra to forge documents of the Geological Survey Department, Bank of Ghana foreign exchange forms and goods movement certificate in order to ship the said 30 boxes through customs and other security checks at the KIA and subsequently exported the said consignment to Dubai on December 31, 2012.
It said on December 29, 2012, a chartered cargo plane arrived at the KIA to carry the consignment to Dubai.
The prosecution said the cargo aircraft containing the gold was, however, intercepted and detained in Turkey because documents accompanying the gold appeared not to be genuine.
Investigations are ongoing.
The Accra Circuit Monday granted permission to one of the persons accused of playing a role in the illegal shipment of 1.5 tonnes of gold worth $52 million to Turkey to travel to Nigeria to seek medical care.
Alhaji Musah Ahmed, the lawyer for Peter Kofi Bedzra, a miner, had prayed the court to review its bail conditions and allow his client to travel to Nigeria for medical care.
The court, presided over by Mrs Justice Patience Mills-Tetteh, a High Court judge with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court judge, had, on February 26, 2013, granted Bedzra bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with three sureties.
Bedzra had also been ordered to surrender his passport to the BNI and report himself to the national investigative body on Fridays.
Following counsel’s plea to the court to review the bail conditions, it gave the accused person permission to retrieve his passport from the BNI.
The legal team for a third accused person, Joseph Kwame Donkor, prayed the court to order the BNI to release Donkor’s vehicle to him.
The court refused the request and advised the legal team to repeat the application on May 6, 2013, the next adjourned date.
A second accused person, Frank Mould, alias Ebo, a forwarding agent, who was first put before the court on March 19, 2013 and remanded, has been granted bail by the Accra High Court.
All the three accused persons were in court.
Bedzra has pleaded not guilty to one count of forgery of document, contrary to Section 158 of the Criminal Code 1960, Act 29, while Mould has pleaded not guilty to two counts of abetment of crime and uttering forged documents, contrary to Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Donkor, the third person to be picked up by the BNI, is also a trader and Managing Director of Joedith Ventures Limited.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of abetment and was granted bail in the sum of GH¢100,000, with two sureties, on March 22, 2013. He was also ordered to report himself to the BNI on Fridays.
According to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Mr A. A. Annor, Bedzra had, on December 31, 2012, allegedly forged certain documents, including a Geological Survey Department certificate for mineral samples numbered OC5/6/12/13, Bank of Ghana foreign exchange Form 4A with the serial number 14317261 and goods movement certificate No. A296968 to enable him to export 1,500 kilogrammes of gold to Dubai.
Mould, for his part, is alleged to have, on December 31, 2012, aided and abetted Bedzra to forge the documents, as well as uttered forged documents, to aid Bedzra evade the requirement under the law by exporting the 1.5 tonnes of gold.
According to the prosecution, Donkor abetted Bedzra to ship the gold to Turkey without undergoing the stipulated legal requirement before the shipment.
The facts of the case are that Mould, who is a forwarding agent, operates at the KIA. In December 2012, Valid Moradi Moghaddam and his partners, all Arabs, arrived in Ghana to purchase gold.
They got in touch with Omanye Gold Mining Limited which sold to them a quantity of gold weighing 1.5 tonnes and valued at $52 million.
According to the prosecution, the buyers packed the gold into 30 boxes for export to Dubai.
The prosecution informed the court that Mould was contracted to process the consignment for export and ,in the process, he aided Bedzra to forge documents of the Geological Survey Department, Bank of Ghana foreign exchange forms and goods movement certificate in order to ship the said 30 boxes through customs and other security checks at the KIA and subsequently exported the said consignment to Dubai on December 31, 2012.
It said on December 29, 2012, a chartered cargo plane arrived at the KIA to carry the consignment to Dubai.
The prosecution said the cargo aircraft containing the gold was, however, intercepted and detained in Turkey because documents accompanying the gold appeared not to be genuine.
Investigations are ongoing.
Akufo-Addo, Kpegah face off in court
April 6, 2013 (Lead Story)
The 2012 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has entered appearance, through his lawyers, in the case in which a retired Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah, is challenging the former’s qualification as a lawyer.
Mr Justice Kpegah filed the suit at the Fast Track Division of the High Court on March 19, 2013 and accused Nana Akufo-Addo of impersonation.
The plaintiff’s contention is that Nana Akufo-Addo is holding himself as a lawyer when his name is not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.
By entering an appearance, Nana Akufo-Addo seeks to affirm that he has a defence to put up to clear his name.
One of the lawyers for Nana Akufo-Addo, Mr Frank Davies, confirmed to the Daily Graphic that he had entered appearance in court on Nana Akufo-Addo’s behalf on March 25, 2013.
In the substantive suit, Mr Justice Kpegah is seeking a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the General Legal Council Act, Act 38 of 1960 (as amended), unless a person is called to the Bar in Ghana and his name entered in the Roll of Lawyers by the body mandated under the said Act 38 (as amended) to regulate the training and certification of persons after a prescribed course of study, that person cannot be deemed competent to practise law in any court in Ghana.
He is also seeking a declaration that the law firm established as Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co at 67 Kojo Thompson Road, Adabraka, Accra, is an illegal law firm and, therefore, not competent to represent any party in litigation before any court in Ghana.
The former Supreme Court judge is pleading with the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining Nana Akufo-Addo from holding himself out as a lawyer competent to practise in Ghanaian courts or anybody regarding him as such.
In a statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons, the retired judge also accused former President John Agyekum Kufuor of complicity when his government knew or ought to have known that Nana Akufo-Addo was not on the roll of lawyers but appointed him as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who, by the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, must be a lawyer in good standing.
It also indicated that Nana Akufo-Addo never signed the matriculation book at the Ghana School of Law, which was evidence of enrolment in an institution.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not known to have changed his name, neither had he been installed anywhere in the country within the meaning of the 1992 Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act.
According to the statement, the defendant was impersonating W.A.D. Akufo-Addo, who is on the roll of lawyers as number 1190.
It said claims by the defendant that he obtained his early education at Government Boys’ School and later Kinbu before proceeding to the UK for his Ordinary and Advanced Level certificates implied that he obtained his Ordinary and Advanced certificates in the UK.
It said Nana Akufo-Addo returned to the UK to read Law and was called to the English Bar (Middle Temple) as Number 1190 on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.
The statement averred that the defendant never took advantage of the provisions of the General Legal Council Act which enabled people like Mr R.J.A. Stanley Harvey of Grey’s Inn, who was called to the English Bar in 1947 but was specifically called to the Ghana Bar in 1972, to enable him to practise in Ghana.
“Former President Kufuor, who claims to have read Law in Oxford has not been called to the Ghana Bar and, therefore, keeps a respectful distance from the courts,” the statement said, adding that Professor Kwamena Ahwoi, who had not been called to the Ghana Bar, restricted himself to academia.
The statement noted that no lawyer in Ghana worth his salt could say that if you were called to the English Bar you could automatically practise in Ghana without being called to the Ghana Bar.
The 2012 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, has entered appearance, through his lawyers, in the case in which a retired Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Francis Yaonasu Kpegah, is challenging the former’s qualification as a lawyer.
Mr Justice Kpegah filed the suit at the Fast Track Division of the High Court on March 19, 2013 and accused Nana Akufo-Addo of impersonation.
The plaintiff’s contention is that Nana Akufo-Addo is holding himself as a lawyer when his name is not on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.
By entering an appearance, Nana Akufo-Addo seeks to affirm that he has a defence to put up to clear his name.
One of the lawyers for Nana Akufo-Addo, Mr Frank Davies, confirmed to the Daily Graphic that he had entered appearance in court on Nana Akufo-Addo’s behalf on March 25, 2013.
In the substantive suit, Mr Justice Kpegah is seeking a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of the General Legal Council Act, Act 38 of 1960 (as amended), unless a person is called to the Bar in Ghana and his name entered in the Roll of Lawyers by the body mandated under the said Act 38 (as amended) to regulate the training and certification of persons after a prescribed course of study, that person cannot be deemed competent to practise law in any court in Ghana.
He is also seeking a declaration that the law firm established as Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and Co at 67 Kojo Thompson Road, Adabraka, Accra, is an illegal law firm and, therefore, not competent to represent any party in litigation before any court in Ghana.
The former Supreme Court judge is pleading with the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining Nana Akufo-Addo from holding himself out as a lawyer competent to practise in Ghanaian courts or anybody regarding him as such.
In a statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons, the retired judge also accused former President John Agyekum Kufuor of complicity when his government knew or ought to have known that Nana Akufo-Addo was not on the roll of lawyers but appointed him as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who, by the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, must be a lawyer in good standing.
It also indicated that Nana Akufo-Addo never signed the matriculation book at the Ghana School of Law, which was evidence of enrolment in an institution.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant was not known to have changed his name, neither had he been installed anywhere in the country within the meaning of the 1992 Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act.
According to the statement, the defendant was impersonating W.A.D. Akufo-Addo, who is on the roll of lawyers as number 1190.
It said claims by the defendant that he obtained his early education at Government Boys’ School and later Kinbu before proceeding to the UK for his Ordinary and Advanced Level certificates implied that he obtained his Ordinary and Advanced certificates in the UK.
It said Nana Akufo-Addo returned to the UK to read Law and was called to the English Bar (Middle Temple) as Number 1190 on the roll of lawyers in Ghana.
The statement averred that the defendant never took advantage of the provisions of the General Legal Council Act which enabled people like Mr R.J.A. Stanley Harvey of Grey’s Inn, who was called to the English Bar in 1947 but was specifically called to the Ghana Bar in 1972, to enable him to practise in Ghana.
“Former President Kufuor, who claims to have read Law in Oxford has not been called to the Ghana Bar and, therefore, keeps a respectful distance from the courts,” the statement said, adding that Professor Kwamena Ahwoi, who had not been called to the Ghana Bar, restricted himself to academia.
The statement noted that no lawyer in Ghana worth his salt could say that if you were called to the English Bar you could automatically practise in Ghana without being called to the Ghana Bar.
Hearing begins April 16: Supreme Court narrows issues to two
April 3, 2013 (Lead Story)
The Supreme Court has fixed April 16, 2013 for the hearing of the substantive petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
The Supreme Court has fixed April 16, 2013 for the hearing of the substantive petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
After nine sittings to consider and rule on more than 20
interlocutory applications filed by parties in the case, the nine-member court
fixed the date after considering issues raised by lawyers for the parties in
the case.
The court has also set two issues for the trial. These are
whether or not there were statutory violations, ommissions, irregularities and
malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012 and
also whether or not the said violations, omissions, irregularities and
malpractices affected the outcome of the elections.
Following a stalemate reached between parties, who were
advised by the court to meet and agree on common issues to be set out for
trial, the court used its discretionary powers to set out the issues for
determination.
To ensure the expeditious determination of the case, the
court also decided to take evidence in the form of sworn affidavits from
potential witnesses in the case.
It, accordingly, directed the petitioners to file the affidavits
of witnesses on or before April 7, 2013, while the respondents were given five
days from the date of service of affidavits filed by the petitioners.
On the issue of cross-examination and re-examination of
affidavits, the court decided to use its discretion in considering those
issues.
The Presiding Judge, Mr Justice William Atuguba, in
announcing the decision of the court after considering issues raised by parties
in the case, also stated that oral evidence would be taken from potential
witnesses based on “compelling reasons”.
Other panel members are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice
Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice
Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs
Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
Oral evidence
Although, the court was explicit in stating that it will
only allow oral evidence from potential witnesses in the case based on
compelling reasons; it gave an exception to the petitioners and the respondents
in the case to give oral evidence when the full trial begins.
Following that, the presidential candidate of the New
Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 presidential election; his running
mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake
Obetsebi-Lamptey, who are the petitioners in the case as well as the
respondents, namely President John Dramani Mahama; the Electoral Commission
(EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), can give oral evidence.
Since the EC and the NDC are entities, they are expected to
select representatives to testify on their behalf in the case which promises to
be a milestone in Ghana’s legal and political history.
Audiovisual aids and power point presentations
The court refused the petitioners’ suggestion that
audiovisual aids and other forms of technology-based gadgets be adopted in
order to facilitate the trial.
According to the court, it preferred to go the
“conservative” way to take evidence and subsequently arrive at its final
judgement.
The court currently uses a recording system by which the
clerks record and transcribe evidence adduced.
Panel members, as part of the practice, take handwritten
notes while considering arguments from parties in the case.
Making a case for the need for the adoption of audiovisual
aids and power point presentations during the trial, Mr Addison, one of the
lawyers for the petitioners, said the evidence was so voluminous that it would
be important for the court to adopt those forms of technology.
Although he did not disagree with the court’s suggestion for
evidence to be taken through affidavits with respect to some potential
witnesses, he said there was the need for the adoption of audiovisual aids to
facilitate the trial.
“We are dealing with huge data here,” he explained.
But the court stood its grounds even after Mr Addison had
suggested that the petitioners were prepared to provide the said gadgets.
Justice Atuguba on Kenya and audiovisual aids
Referring to a recent ruling on Kenya’s electoral petition
which declared Uhuru Kenyatta as the validly elected President of Kenya, Mr
Justice Atuguba reminded the parties in the case of the public’s reference to
the Kenyan “precedence” and maintained that the court would accept a chunk of
the evidence in the form of sworn affidavits in order to expedite the hearing
of the petition.
“These audiovisual aids can work elsewhere but, as you can
see, we do not have the necessary logistics,” he stated.
“The audio aspect we can get, but how do we get the visual
aspect?” Mr Justice Baffoe-Bonnie queried counsel.
Mr Addison: We can provide that.
Mrs Justice Adinyira: Not all here are technologically
equipped so it will be a disadvantage. We will go our conservative way. We had
training but no equipment to work with.
Tsatsu Tsikata’s and power point presentation
Responding to the petitioners’ call for the use of audio
visual aids and power point presentation during the trial, counsel for the NDC,
Mr Tsikata, said, “The red herring about power point presentation and audio
visual aids is irrelevant.”
He said the most important issue was the need for the
petitioners to give evidence and be cross-examined and re-examined thereof,
adding, “We are ready to hear evidence from the petitioners’ witness Number
One.”
Mr Tsikata held that justice would best be served if witnesses
were called into the witness box to testify on oath, pointing out that it was
important for the petitioners to be made to come before the court and prove
their allegations.
After raising a number of issues, the parties eventually
expressed their satisfaction with the court’s decision to resolve their
differences.
Crucial Issues
Some of the irregularities, malpractices, omissions and
violations complained of and due to be determined by the court are allegations
of persons being allowed to vote without biometric verification, some presiding
officers and/or their assistants not signing declaration forms (pink sheets),
total number of votes cast exceeding the total number of registered voters as
well as total number of ballot papers issued.
Other irregularities to be considered by the court include
whether or not the alleged statutory violations introduced 4,670,504 invalid
votes cast in the December 2012 presidential election as well as whether or not
ballots cast without biometric verification were taken into account by the
Electoral Commission (EC) in the declaration of results among others.
President’s Contention
Counsel for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, informed the
court that the petitioners had provided particulars for 8,579 instead of 11,916
polling stations, where alleged irregularities took place during the December
2012 presidential polls.
He alluded that the petitioners embarked on double counting
and for that reason the court should accordingly order the petitioners to
provide particulars in respect of the remaining polling stations beyond the
8,579 polling stations.
In the alternative, Mr Lithur prayed the court to order the
petitioners to amend their second amended petition, to reflect the actual
number of polling stations in respect of which they had provided particulars.
But a lawyer for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison, held a
different view indicating that the EC and the NDC had not objected to the
11,916 figure, adding “we will prove in the course of the trial that his
calculation is wrong.”
EC, NDC oppose Mr Addison
Responding to Mr Addison’s submissions, lawyers for the EC
and the NDC, Mr James Quashie-Idun and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, disagreed and
indicated they also had problems with the figures provided by the petitioners.
Mr Quashie-Idun informed the court that the EC had argued in
its amended answer to the petition that the petitioners had not provided all
the particulars on the 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities
took place.
Mr Tsikata also stated that, “they are not acknowledging
what they have supplied. The court will have to determine who is arithmetically
challenged.”
The President of the court, Mr Justice William Atuguba,
intervened and stated that the court will ascertain the actual figure in the
course of the trial.
EC Amendment upheld
The court in a 6-3 majority decision, allowed the EC to
provide clarification regarding the allegation that some declaration of results
from different polling stations had the same serial numbers.
On the EC’s issue that 22 locations provided by the
petitioners out of the 28 locations as being areas where elections took place
illegally, the court struck out the remaining six areas that were not provided
by the petitioners.
According to the petitioners who are - the presidential candidate
of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running
mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake
Obetesebi-Lamptey, gross and widespread irregularities took place in 11,916
polling stations.
They are, therefore, calling for the annulment of 4,670,504
votes cast in those 11,916 polling stations.
But President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic
Congress (NDC) have denied any wrongdoing, and are of the view that the polls
were free, fair and transparent; and for that reason, results declared were
credible and accurate.
The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (C. I. 74)
The main objective of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule,
2012, (C. I. 74) is to ensure that petitions of this nature are disposed of
expeditiously.
By virtue of provisions in
the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), the matter will be determined once and for
all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although
the 1992 Constitution allows the court to review its own decisions.
The amendment to the Supreme Court rules states among other
things that the hearing of a petition against a presidential election shall be
done on a daily basis, including public holidays.
President asks petitoners to provide particulars of 11,916 polling stations
April 2, 2013 (Page 17)
President John Dramani Mahama, has prayed the Supreme Court to order the petitioners challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential polls to provide particulars in respect of the remaining polling stations beyond the 8,579 polling stations they originally cited.
President John Dramani Mahama, has prayed the Supreme Court to order the petitioners challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential polls to provide particulars in respect of the remaining polling stations beyond the 8,579 polling stations they originally cited.
According to the President, the petitioners challenging his
legitimacy had provided particulars for 8,579 instead of 11,916 polling stations,
where alleged irregularities took place during the December 2012 presidential
polls.
In the alternative, President Mahama through his lawyer, Mr
Tony Lithur, is praying the court to order the petitioners to amend their
second amended petition, “to reflect the actual number of polling stations in
respect of which they have provided particulars.”
This was contained in a motion titled, “application for
further orders at the hearing of application for directions,” filed at the
registry of the Supreme Court on April 1, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
The petitioners who had alleged widespread and gross
irregularities in 4,709 polling stations in their original petition dated,
December 28, 2013; amended the petition and stated that after further
examination they had uncovered irregularities in additional 7,207 polling
stations, thereby bringing the total number to 11, 916.
The court on February 7, 2013 granted them permission to
amend their petition as well as provided further and better particulars on the
additional polling stations.
They accordingly filed the further and better particulars on
February 12, 2013 but the President’s latest application seeks to indicate that
the petitioners provided further and better particulars in 8,579 polling
stations.
The court is expected to consider the issues raised by the
President at its sitting in Accra today.
... But EC demands more explanation
April 2, 2013 (Front page)
The Electoral Commission (EC) has requested the Supreme
Court to order the petitioners challenging the results of the December 2012
presidential polls to provide further and better particulars on 28 locations
where they alleged that voting took place without authority.
According to the EC, the petitioners have to date not
complied with the court’s orders to provide further and better particulars on
the said 28 locations.
The petitioners, in an amended petition, have alleged that
voting took place at 28 locations which were not part of the 26,002 polling
stations created by the EC, which has been sued alongside President John
Dramani Mahama for allegedly padding results in favour of President Mahama.
While the petitioners are praying the court to determine
whether or not voting took place in the alleged 28 locations and whether or not
votes cast in those areas were factored into the results declared after the
polls, the EC holds the position that the petitioners have till date not
provided information on the alleged 28 locations.
To buttress its position that the petitioners had not
provided further and better particulars on the said 28 locations, the EC, in a
supplementary affidavit dated April 1, 2013 in response to the petitioners’
affidavit in opposition dated March 30, 2013, stated that the petitioners had
provided 22 locations instead of the alleged 28 locations.
According to the EC, the said 22 locations after careful examination,
"were all part of the 26,002 approved locations known to all political
parties prior to the December, 2012 elections.
"That the non-inclusion of the allegation regarding the
existence of polling stations in which results were recorded on pink sheets
having the same serial numbers was an inadvertent omission which the second
respondent is seeking leave of the Honourable Court to correct, " a
supplementary affidavit deposed to by Mr Amadu Sulley, a Deputy Chairman
in-charge of Finance and Administration stated on behalf of the EC.
In a motion on notice for an order for further and better
particulars filed on behalf of the EC by its solicitors, Lynes, Quarshie-Idun
and Co., on March 28, 2013, the EC stated that the petitioners had failed to
comply with the court’s February 5 and 7, 2013 rulings which directed the
petitioners to provide further and better particulars.
According to the EC, although the court obliged and granted
the EC’s request, the petitioners had to date not furnished it with further and
better particulars on the said 28 locations.
The conductor of the polls, which is also the second
respondent in the petition, is also seeking leave of the court to file an
amended answer to the petitioners’ allegation regarding instances of two polling
stations recording votes on statement of poll and declaration of results forms
(pink sheets) bearing the same serial numbers.
The petitioners had in their original petition alleged that
gross and widespread irregularities took place at 4,709 polling stations but
amended the petition to increase the number to 11,916 after further assessment
of the results declared by the EC on December 9, 2012.
The EC’s motion is expected to be heard today, April 2,
2013.
Rule 69 A (4) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012
(C.I. 74), says a respondent may apply for further and better particulars in
order to prepare adequately for a case.
The parties in the case are accordingly premising their
claims for more information on this rule.
According to the petitioners, who are the presidential
candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his
running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake
Obetsebi-Lamptey, gross and widespread irregularities took place in 11,916
polling stations.
They are, therefore, calling for the annulment of 4,670,504
votes cast in those polling stations.
But President Mahama, the EC and the National Democratic
Congress (NDC) have denied any wrongdoing, and are of the view that the polls
were free, fair and transparent and for that reason, results declared were
credible and accurate.
The nine-member Supreme Court panel, presided over by Mr
Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia
Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin
Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice
Vida Akoto-Bamfo are expected to hear the EC’s application and arrive at a
decision.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Petition against presidential results - COURT SETS RULES TODAY
April 2, 2013 (Lead Story)
The Supreme Court will resume sitting this morning to consider, resolve and adopt some issues to be raised by lawyers in the petition contesting the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
The Supreme Court will resume sitting this morning to consider, resolve and adopt some issues to be raised by lawyers in the petition contesting the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
Barring any last-minute hitch, the court’s sitting is likely
to mark the last hurdle to be cleared before the hearing of the substantive
petition which is calling for the annulment of 4,670,504 votes cast during the
December 2012 presidential polls.
During the sitting, the court will arrive at issues for
trial and subsequent determination based on the rules of the court, the law,
consultation with the parties in the case where the need arises, evidence
before it and also according to its discretion.
In doing that, the court is expected to decide whether or
not to immediately reject some, approve all or fix a date to rule on more than
30 issues proposed by the parties to be set aside for determination.
The court might in accordance with the law and its
discretion not delve into issues agreed on by all the parties in the case.
It will concentrate on stalemate matters, resolve those
issues and thus pave the way for the hearing of the substantive matter which
promises to be a landmark in the legal and political history of the country.
Key among the issues to be looked into is whether President
Mahama was validly elected as President in the December 2012 presidential
polls.
Another vital issue likely to be adopted by the court is
whether or not voting took place without prior biometric verification at
certain polling stations across the country.
The nine-member panel is also expected to consider or reject
whether or not the alleged statutory violations, irregularities and/or
malpractices resulted in 4,670,504 invalid votes being introduced into the
total number of votes cast in the December 2012 presidential election.
During its sitting, lawyers for the petitioners, President
Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress
(NDC) are expected to formally announce the outcome of a meeting they held on
March 17, 2013 in their bid to arrive at a common ground on issues to be
narrowed down for determination.
Lawyers for the parties met on Monday, March 17, 2013,
following a March 14, 2013 directive from the court which advised them to meet,
deliberate and arrive at issues to be set out for trial and determination, but
they reached a stalemate.
Following the communication of the deadlock to the registrar
of the Supreme Court on March 19, 2013, the registrar in another letter dated
March 25, 2013, fixed April 2, 2013 as the date for the court’s next hearing.
Per the court’s procedures, the legal teams for the parties
in the case are expected to officially announce the areas they agreed and
disagreed on.
The court will then consider the issues disagreed on and
arrive at a solution before the hearing of the substantive case begins.
Following that, a memorandum of issues will then be set out
for trial.
Crucial among the memorandum of issues to be set out for
trial are whether or not persons were allowed to vote without biometric
verification, as well as whether or not votes cast in 11,916 polling stations
should be annulled by the court.
On March 4, 2013, the petitioners filed issues to be set out
for trial while the President on March 13, 2013 also filed application for
directions.
Disagreements
President Mahama in his application for directions which was
filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Mr Tony Lithur, is praying the court to
decline the petitioners’ prayer for the court to allow parties in the petition
to adopt audio-visual aids in the presentation of evidence.
Responding to the petitioners’ prayer that parties in the
case be made to exchange documents to be relied on seven days before trial, the
President is pleading with the court to dismiss that request.
President Mahama is also praying the court to decline the
petitioners’ suggestions that seven days before the trial all parties must be
made to present a list of witnesses and a brief summary of the nature and relevance
of each witness’ testimony to enable the court to determine its probative
value.
The EC still has issues with the petitioners with regard to
what the EC terms the failure of the petitioners to adhere to the court’s
orders to provide further and better particulars on 28 alleged locations, where
elections took place outside the approved 26,002 polling stations.
Despite the pockets of disagreements, President Mahama is
not opposed to the petitioners’ suggestion that the hearing of the petition
should take two months.
The parties are also not opposed to application on whether
or not persons were allowed to vote without biometric verification and whether
or not votes cast exceeded ballot papers issued to voters at polling stations
during the polls in some polling stations.
The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule, 2012, (C. I. 74)
The main objective of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rule,
2012, (C. I. 74) is to ensure that petitions of this nature are disposed of
expeditiously.
By virtue of provisions in
the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74), the matter will be determined once and for
all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although
the 1992 Constitution allows the court to review its own decisions.
The amendment to the Supreme
Court rules states among other things that the hearing of a petition against a
presidential election shall be done on a daily basis, including public
holidays.
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
21 days after the declaration of the results of the election in respect of
which the petition is presented”, while
Article 64(2) says: “A declaration by the Supreme Court that the
election of the President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything done
by the President before the declaration.’’
Part VIII of the Supreme Court Rules — Challenge Of Election
of President, Rule 68 — provides: “A petition presented pursuant to Clause (I)
of Article 64 of the Constitution shall state (a) the full name and address of
the petitioner and of his counsel, if any, which shall be an address for
service; (b) the grounds for challenging the validity of the election; (c) a
statement of the facts relied on to be verified by affidavit and of the law in
support of the petition; (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any; and
by (e) such other matters as the court may determine.”
Rule 69 also says: “The Attorney-General and any other
person upon whom a petition is served may file with the registrar, within two
days of the service, an answer to the petition which shall state (a) the
grounds of opposition to the petition; (b) the facts relied upon, verified by
affidavit; (c) the law in support of the answer in opposition to the petition;
and (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any.”
Rule 71 says: “The court shall, at the conclusion of the
hearing of the petition, deliver its judgement and the registrar shall, within
seven days of the delivery of the judgement, forward a copy of the judgement to
the Electoral Commission.’’
The petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr
Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, filed
the petition at the highest court of the land praying the court to annul votes
cast in 11,916 polling stations due to gross and widespread irregularities.
Coming 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) Rule, 2012, C. I. 74, the petitioners are calling for
the annulment of votes cast in 11,916 polling stations on grounds of widespread
and gross irregularities.
They had in a December 28, 2012, petition called for the
annulment of votes cast in 4,709 polling stations, but amended their petition
on February 9, 2013 after the court had granted them permission to do so,
citing 11,916 polling stations as the total number of polling stations where
alleged irregularities were recorded.
The three had initially called for the cancellation of
1,342,845 valid votes cast during the election at 4,709 polling stations due to
the alleged irregularities recorded during the elections, but are now urging
the Supreme Court to pronounce additional 3,327,659 valid votes cast as
invalid.
The Supreme Court on February 7, 2013, granted the
petitioners’ prayer of amendment, and accordingly allowed the amendment.
Respondents
President Mahama, who is the first respondent; the EC and
the NDC, the second and third respondents respectively, have filed their
responses.
They have all refuted the petitioners’ allegations on the
grounds that President Mahama won the elections legitimately in the full glare
of the media and local and international election observers.
The NDC applied to join the petition on December 31, 2012
and was duly granted permission by a 6-3 majority decision of the Supreme Court
on January 22, 2013
On March 14, 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed
applications filed by 327 persons who sought to join the petition.
In a unanimous decision, the nine-member panel held that the
presence of the 327 applicants “was neither necessary nor convenient,” adding
that their being allowed to join would defeat the purpose of the Supreme Court
(Amendment) Rules 2012 (C. 1. 74), which calls for an expeditious trial in an
electoral petition.
Per the court’s ruling, nobody can join the petition.
The nine-member panel
The matter is being heard by the court, presided over by Mr
Justice William Atuguba. Other panel members are Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs
Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr
Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N.S. Gbadegbe and
Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
The petitioners are being led by a 10-member legal team
including a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria
Akuffo, Mr Philip Addison, Mr Frank Davies, Mr Alex Quaynor, Mr Akoto Ampaw,
Nana Asante Bediatuo, Mr Kwame Akuffo, Mr Kwaku Asirifi, Mr Godfred Yeboah
Dame, Mr Egbert Faibille and Professor Ken Attafuah.
President Mahama is being represented by Mr Tony Lithur,
while Mr Tsatsu Tsikata and Mr Samuel Codjoe are representing the NDC.
Story by Mabel Aku Banaseh
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)