Akufo-Addo v. Electoral Commission: Matters Arising (Part 2)

Read Article

Comments (102)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (102)

MOHAMMED 11 years ago

NDC IS EVIL , THIEVES,FOOLS AND ANIMALS

NDC IS EVIL , THIEVES,FOOLS AND ANIMALS
Alugu 11 years ago

NPP read the laws and other provisions! The sad part is that our former Attorney Generals are involved in this childish petition.

NPP read the laws and other provisions! The sad part is that our former Attorney Generals are involved in this childish petition.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Please note, you shouldn't be surprised if the attorney-generals are under-performing. They are the government's legal advisors but are not always the best legal brains appointed to the position. One would hope for better but ...
read full comment

Please note, you shouldn't be surprised if the attorney-generals are under-performing. They are the government's legal advisors but are not always the best legal brains appointed to the position. One would hope for better but don't hold your breath.
Nsem fon Ahi 11 years ago

I want to ask NPP whether in 2016 they will go to the EC they have discredited to register their party for the 2016 elections. I wish NPP well in their attempt to discredit the EC. NPP should know that some good people of Gha ...
read full comment

I want to ask NPP whether in 2016 they will go to the EC they have discredited to register their party for the 2016 elections. I wish NPP well in their attempt to discredit the EC. NPP should know that some good people of Ghana are going to team of together and prevent the EC from registering thier party in 2016. There is going to be an international and local movement that will resolve to petition the highest legal body to prevent NPP from registering in 2016. We are not against multi party democracy but we are against useless war mongering political parties from registering in this peaceful country of ours. NPP should forget 2016. They cannot discredit EC today and tomorrow come to them for registration. This absolute nonsense -to borrow Kwesi Pratts words
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

No, but Nsem, if you do that, you are destroying our hard won democracy. I can see you are frustrated by what the NPP is doing, but it is within their rights. The best way of showing disapproval of a party if to VOTE. Banning ...
read full comment

No, but Nsem, if you do that, you are destroying our hard won democracy. I can see you are frustrated by what the NPP is doing, but it is within their rights. The best way of showing disapproval of a party if to VOTE. Banning a party will be unconstitutional and we shouldn't encourage that, although I understand your frustration.
KAB 11 years ago

Professor, you suggest the inclusion of Mahama is wrong because of his presidential immunity from suit. I'm very supprised someone of your standing could be so uncritical in your analysis or reasoning. The immunity of the pre ...
read full comment

Professor, you suggest the inclusion of Mahama is wrong because of his presidential immunity from suit. I'm very supprised someone of your standing could be so uncritical in your analysis or reasoning. The immunity of the president is not absolute. The constitution states expressly that such is subject to prerogative writs. I hope you know what that implies if you really are a legal person. This is an exceptional case and it is a kind that falls on the thorns of a review of an alleged administrative malfeasance of the EC in collusion and conivance with Mahama, hence falling within the exception provided under the constitution.
Alternatively, since the case can potentially cause the removal of the president, the constitution expressly requires that notwithstanding the somewhat immunity of the president he must submit himself to the jurisdiction of the supreme court or any tribunal seized with the case against him.
Further, any lawyer of sound judgment would know that even if Mahama is immuned from this suit it would be suicidal for him to insist on the same since the case could proceed without him which might eventually lead to his removal.
Prof, you need to contact me for practical legal reasoning lessons. Happy New Year.
Regards
KAB
Nana Tutugyagu-USA 11 years ago

You explanation make sense. i don't think these ndc guys really understand the constitution very well.

You explanation make sense. i don't think these ndc guys really understand the constitution very well.
Bangbene 11 years ago

Massa you reseasoning is like class one child.

Massa you reseasoning is like class one child.
somebody 11 years ago

Can Mahama assume to be full president since he was not voted by the people of Ghana?He is only acting bcos he bos fell out unexpectedly. otherwise would you say that in this recent election mahama did run for his first or se ...
read full comment

Can Mahama assume to be full president since he was not voted by the people of Ghana?He is only acting bcos he bos fell out unexpectedly. otherwise would you say that in this recent election mahama did run for his first or second time as president? can he run in 2016, if this 2012 election is his second term? He is acting president and a presidential candidate and therefore can be sued. this is my laymans view.
KwaK 11 years ago

Well done KAB! The argument put forward here by the Professor is one-sided. No election can be free and fair without rules that pitch the participants on a level playing field. The EC cannot deny some citizens their voting ri ...
read full comment

Well done KAB! The argument put forward here by the Professor is one-sided. No election can be free and fair without rules that pitch the participants on a level playing field. The EC cannot deny some citizens their voting rights for breakdown or malfunctioning of the biometric verification machine and allow others to vote without verification.

Election rules should be applied universally to guarantee that elections are free and fair. This is the main reason why people are assigned responsibilities to referee elections just like in football matches.

What we are talking about here is free and fair elections. The EC could not ensure that, and that’s why he is due to go before the Supreme Court judges to justify his actions.

Don’t give us reasons and ammunitions to tell you to shut up, Professor! You don’t seem an expert in constitutional law. Am I not right?
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

KAB, certainly the immunity of the president is not absolute. Your argument, "The constitution states expressly that such is subject to prerogative writs" is drawn from Article 57 clause 4 of the constitution and it states t ...
read full comment

KAB, certainly the immunity of the president is not absolute. Your argument, "The constitution states expressly that such is subject to prerogative writs" is drawn from Article 57 clause 4 of the constitution and it states that:
"Without prejudice to the provisions of article 2 of this Constitution, and subject to the operation of the prerogative writs, the President shall not, while in office, be liable to proceedings in any court for the performance of his functions, or for any act done or omitted to be done, or purported to be done, or purported to have been done or purporting to be done in the performance of his functions, under this Constitution or any other law.".

This supports the argument that the President can be sued, but the reference point is the performance of his functions or any act done or omitted to be done, etc., in the performance of his functions. The key phrase here is "in the performance of his functions." Going through the petition, the ONLY wrong that Mahama seem to have commited is to have been legally declared by the Chairman of the EC as the winner of the elections based on the results received. There is no single accusation against Mahama in the 3-paged petition. This being so, it is very normal to say that article 57 clause 4 cannot be used to argue that Mahama can be sued as a result of being declared the President-Elect after a legally contested election.

This leaves us with article 57 clause 5 of the Constitution, which states: "The President shall not, while in office as President, be personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings in court."

So please come back again and justify why you think Mahama should be a respondent in the NPP writ.
Kobena 11 years ago

Mahama announced after voting in his contituency that those who could not be verified biometrically should be allowed to vote. There are records of this statement
Cry the beloved country!

Mahama announced after voting in his contituency that those who could not be verified biometrically should be allowed to vote. There are records of this statement
Cry the beloved country!
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

You said he announced. Granted. De he make a law to this effect? No.

Did the NPP make any accusation in their petition to this effect? No. Do you think they thid not hear him?

This has nothing to do with crying. It ...
read full comment

You said he announced. Granted. De he make a law to this effect? No.

Did the NPP make any accusation in their petition to this effect? No. Do you think they thid not hear him?

This has nothing to do with crying. It is about the laws of the land.
KAB 11 years ago

Nana, the presidential immunity is a farce.Mahama probably hasn't committed any wrongdoing and there dont appear to be clear allegations against him in the petition. But what many legal persons fail to realise is that this ca ...
read full comment

Nana, the presidential immunity is a farce.Mahama probably hasn't committed any wrongdoing and there dont appear to be clear allegations against him in the petition. But what many legal persons fail to realise is that this case falls within the exceptions provided under Article 57. It is a petition for a review of an alleged unconstitution administrative decision of the electoral commission[declaring Mahama winner when he allegedly did not obtain 50% plus of the valid votes cast]. Asuming Mahama is an innocent beneficiary of electoral fraud, he hasnt committed any wrongdoing. But since the case is a kind of a prerogative writ[for a review of the constitutional error or fraud and a declaration that his election is invalid or unconstituional] his immunity doesn't apply. Even if Mahama is completely innocent, since he or his election is the subject of this petition his immunity doesn't apply.
I will very much doubt the intellect of any lawyer for Mahama who pleads the presidential immunity in Mahama's defence since doing so will be fatal. The case could proceed against the electoral commission if Mahama insists on his immunity and if it is established that his election is in fact unconstitutional be removed from office as president. Nana, it would be a tactical suicide to plead the so-called immunity of the president.
If any lawyer tells you the president is not answerable to any suit before any court, tell him he doesn't understand the constitution.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

KAB, I have not mentioned anywher that "president is not answerable to any suit before any court." In all the comments I have made with reference to this case, I have restricted myself from generalisations and quoted the app ...
read full comment

KAB, I have not mentioned anywher that "president is not answerable to any suit before any court." In all the comments I have made with reference to this case, I have restricted myself from generalisations and quoted the applicable laws.

I will repeat herre that the president is not mentioned in the petition as the first respondent because he has done any single thing in contravention to any law. Since this is the fact, you cannot apply article 57 (4) to him.

Once again his appearance in the writ is because the chairman of the EC had legally declared him winner of the elections. That is the only reason why he is supposed to go to court. It is left to his lawyers to respond to the SC, stating their opinion of the case. I expect that they will tell the court, that Mahama has nothing to say to the court or the petitioner. It is not necesarily a question of whether the president is immune or not, but rather if it is legally correct for the the NPP to make him a respondent.

This opinion is backed by your own assertion "The case could proceed against the electoral commission if Mahama insists on his immunity ..."

Personally I am of the opinion that the only and legitimate respondent in this case is the EC. And the EC will go to court to defend itself.
KAB 11 years ago

Nana, I dont expect Mahama to say he has nothing to say. I believe he is likely to say 'he is the legitimate winner of the election and that the results as declared by the EC is correct and free from fraud as alleged or at al ...
read full comment

Nana, I dont expect Mahama to say he has nothing to say. I believe he is likely to say 'he is the legitimate winner of the election and that the results as declared by the EC is correct and free from fraud as alleged or at all etc. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree the EC is the only legitimate respondent. It is a petition for a review of an action by the EC and anyone would expect that the EC should appropriately be the only defendant but since Mahama's interests are the subject of the petition and the outcome could potentionally lead to his removal it is acceptable that he be so enjoined to the suit so he could have the opportunity to defend his interests.
KOLA ,LONDON PROPER 11 years ago

Yours is generalization of issues without regard to the constitution as quoted clearly by the renowned professor.

But in anyway, you've tried but accept that you are not what you see yourself to be.Technically you've been ...
read full comment

Yours is generalization of issues without regard to the constitution as quoted clearly by the renowned professor.

But in anyway, you've tried but accept that you are not what you see yourself to be.Technically you've been ripped into pieces in this legal argument.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

How do you expect him to defend his interests when in the writ he has nothing to answer? Please read the petition.

The normal thing would have been to sue the EC, let the case be decided, and if the court decided to uphol ...
read full comment

How do you expect him to defend his interests when in the writ he has nothing to answer? Please read the petition.

The normal thing would have been to sue the EC, let the case be decided, and if the court decided to uphold the EC, then Mahama steps in to challenge the sentence, unless of course the constitution gives no right for the declared winner to challenge the decision if it goes against him. Do you know anything about this scenario?
KAB 11 years ago

Put immunity arguments aside. It would have been tactically easier for the NPP to sue just the EC though I believe including him as a respondent is not a mistake. If the person whose interests are at stake is not party to the ...
read full comment

Put immunity arguments aside. It would have been tactically easier for the NPP to sue just the EC though I believe including him as a respondent is not a mistake. If the person whose interests are at stake is not party to the case the court might be reluctant to grant the remedies sought against him.
But I find the Professor's Article quite misconceived especially his assertion that Article 57[5] applies. If I should sue Mahama over a piece of land or for an unpaid debt then his immunity is engaged. But a challenge on the constitutionality of his election does not trigger his immunity, not under Article 57[5] or Article 57[4] as argued by some learned people in this forum.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

Check the other thread. The writ IS NOT about the constitutionality of the declared results. It is challenging the ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS based on the allegations of irregularities.

The NPP has suddenly moved from accus ...
read full comment

Check the other thread. The writ IS NOT about the constitutionality of the declared results. It is challenging the ACCURACY OF THE RESULTS based on the allegations of irregularities.

The NPP has suddenly moved from accusations of results massaging, additions to Mahama and subtractions from Nana Addo, to irregularities IN FAVOUR OF ALL CANDIDATES. Check their argument below:

(1) John Dramani Mahama : 916,409;
(2) Henry Herbert Lartey : 6,413;
(3) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo : 395,784;
(4) Papa Kwesi Nduom 8,778;
(5) Akwasi Addai Odike : 2,544;
(6) Hassan Ayariga : 5,956;
(7) Michael Abu Sakara Forster : 3,166;
(8) Jacob Osei Yeboah : 3,795

The above figures represent their prayer to the court to deduct the quoted votes the corresponding candidates. What happened to all the noise they were making?
KAB 11 years ago

It is about the constitutionality of his election because the petition clearly states that Mahama did not obtain 50% plus of the valid votes cast as required by the constitution and therefore his election is unconstitutional.

It is about the constitutionality of his election because the petition clearly states that Mahama did not obtain 50% plus of the valid votes cast as required by the constitution and therefore his election is unconstitutional.
Bomfaboy 11 years ago

If the results are not accurate, then it cannot be relied on. If the corrected results then shows either did not reach the constitutionally mandated figure, then the declaration is unconstitutional. ,

If the results are not accurate, then it cannot be relied on. If the corrected results then shows either did not reach the constitutionally mandated figure, then the declaration is unconstitutional. ,
Bomfaboy 11 years ago

This court case by Nana Akuffo-Addo and Jake must be very important to every Ghanaian who aspire to elective public office. We must congratulate the petitioners for their efforts in making sure right things are done and rules ...
read full comment

This court case by Nana Akuffo-Addo and Jake must be very important to every Ghanaian who aspire to elective public office. We must congratulate the petitioners for their efforts in making sure right things are done and rules and regulations and our laws are respected by all, no matter who he or she may be.
In my lay mans mind I think the argument by the learnered prof is flawed. I believe in electoral matters, there cannot be a president, otherwise there wouldnt be a level playing field. For an election purposes there cannot be any immunity of a president. What if a president has that mindset and therefore uses state power to abuse the process to his favor?
The question as to whether the no verification no vote hasna force of law, is laughable. I believe this was discussed at length at the IPAC. All parties agreed to the implementation of the biometric voting and verification. That wasnwhy money was appropriated for the purpose by parliament. Is it not in the electoral law that a person can only be issued a ballot only after he or she is verified by the electronic system? If that is the case, how does people who have not been verified as eligible voters get a ballot to cast in the first place??if we are not going by that process so agreed to and for which public money have been used, will it not amount to financial loss to the state??? Even if this "no verification no vote" is not particularly stated in the law, l believe it is implied, and therefore lawful. Wencannot simply spend money on equipment, train people on the system at tax payees expense only for it to be dumped??? THis isnoutrageous. I am earger to hear what the SC have to hear about this. Formallmthe young and upmand coming politicians must pay good attention tomthis case as it will help even the playing field for all come what the outcome. Onthis notenI think the prof is very wrong.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

The issue we've been discussing is not necessarily about imunity, but rather the correctness of making Mahama a respondent in the petition. Have you read the petition? Have you paused to ask yourself what Mahama will be doin ...
read full comment

The issue we've been discussing is not necessarily about imunity, but rather the correctness of making Mahama a respondent in the petition. Have you read the petition? Have you paused to ask yourself what Mahama will be doing at the court?

Whether all parties agreed on No Verification No Vote at IPAC or not is of little or no relevance here. What is of relevance is what the laws of the land say. You are right in saying that the law section 30 (2) states "(2) The voter shall go through a biometric verification process." But as I said in my main argument in a higher thread we are talking about relying on a machine to do what a human can do in section 1 of the quoted clause. So in the event of the failure of the machine our option is to close down and adjour till the following day, subject to the approval by the highest authority of the EC. This is a legal issue that can be argued out. The winds favour the strict adherence to the rules, but a court can rule in favour of a human decision taken to save cost, time and resources instead of relying on a machine.

In the event of deciding to annul the votes of the polling stations where voting was done without biometric verification, the right and natural thing to do will be to order re-voting. You cannot disenfranchise a voter for having voted as a result of an error commited by an electoral officer. And you are talking of over 400,000 disenfranchised!

I am sure the judges will not want to disenfranchise 400,000 voters for no fault of theirs.
Bomfaboy 11 years ago

Exactly, why the voting was suspended to the next day so the faulty machines will be replaced. As it turned out there were nothing wrong with the machines in most places. None of the voters would have beendisenfranchied. So t ...
read full comment

Exactly, why the voting was suspended to the next day so the faulty machines will be replaced. As it turned out there were nothing wrong with the machines in most places. None of the voters would have beendisenfranchied. So there was a deliberate effort, condoned by the EC and it's officials backed by Mahama, who said clearly that people should go and vote without verification. What if after the registration was over thevEC managed to add names and printed ID cards to match them which could not be verified, and they got somebody to thumb print ballots for those?
Bomfaboy 11 years ago

The EC declared the total number of voters after the registration, and the changed it on their website. The EC after the votes declared the total number of votes cast both valid and rejected votes. Few days after the same EC ...
read full comment

The EC declared the total number of voters after the registration, and the changed it on their website. The EC after the votes declared the total number of votes cast both valid and rejected votes. Few days after the same EC changed the numbers on their web site. How could that have happened?
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago

Kab, why would Prof and for that any other person need to contact you for practical legal reasoning lessons, when your legal impairment has unable you to see the unlawfulness of the NPP joining the sitting president who happ ...
read full comment

Kab, why would Prof and for that any other person need to contact you for practical legal reasoning lessons, when your legal impairment has unable you to see the unlawfulness of the NPP joining the sitting president who happens to be a Presidential candidate of the NDC to its Petition at the Supreme Court against the EC.

In fact what is shocking and most obvious is your failure to recognise and accept the FACT that Article 57(5) of the 1992 constitution gives the President ABSOLUTE immunity from any civil or criminal proceedings in any Court. I humbly advice that you need quality legal education.
KAB 11 years ago

Article 57[5] does not give absolute immunity. It gives him immunity from personal liability. This is a challenge on the constitutionality of his election. And in such circumstances the constitution doesn't grant him any immu ...
read full comment

Article 57[5] does not give absolute immunity. It gives him immunity from personal liability. This is a challenge on the constitutionality of his election. And in such circumstances the constitution doesn't grant him any immunity or at all and Article 57[5] doesn't apply.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

I beg to differ here. The challenge is NOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of Mahama having been declared winner, but rather about the VALIDILTY and/or CORRECTNESS of the results that were declared. Let's understand the princip ...
read full comment

I beg to differ here. The challenge is NOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of Mahama having been declared winner, but rather about the VALIDILTY and/or CORRECTNESS of the results that were declared. Let's understand the principles.

The declaration is constitutional. The NPP is CHALLENGING THE RESULTS and NOT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DECLARATION.
Bangbene 11 years ago

This is wisdom in law and i think the block headed Nana Addo and the NPP lawyers should copy notes from him.

This is wisdom in law and i think the block headed Nana Addo and the NPP lawyers should copy notes from him.
The Motherland 11 years ago

Thanks Prof., yours has been sheer legal wizardry. Please give us some more, pleeeeease!!!!

Thanks Prof., yours has been sheer legal wizardry. Please give us some more, pleeeeease!!!!
Bangbene 11 years ago

Nana Addo and his lawyers should copy notes since they are block headed.

Nana Addo and his lawyers should copy notes since they are block headed.
Ed. London 11 years ago

With all apologies, I think Doc overlooked the simple fact that if stake holders arrive at a gentleman's agreement duly signed by all involved, that surely stands in court. Similarly, if all parties have agreed on "No verific ...
read full comment

With all apologies, I think Doc overlooked the simple fact that if stake holders arrive at a gentleman's agreement duly signed by all involved, that surely stands in court. Similarly, if all parties have agreed on "No verification, no vote", duly signed by all concern, that agreement should stand in court even in matters to do with constitution. That is COMMON SENSE!
CD 11 years ago

Whereas the law is not made by the entities responsible, any gentleman agreement is not the law of the land. There is nothing like common sense law.

Whereas the law is not made by the entities responsible, any gentleman agreement is not the law of the land. There is nothing like common sense law.
miracles 11 years ago

Please,common sense/law or constitution are different terminologies all together,,they never meet.

Please,common sense/law or constitution are different terminologies all together,,they never meet.
Trokosi 11 years ago

The law cannot be common sense, when it can bite you left and right. The law is an ass, you can be found guilty even if you ignorant

The law cannot be common sense, when it can bite you left and right. The law is an ass, you can be found guilty even if you ignorant
Sani 11 years ago

Scepticts to Ed's analogy, read this. Try to agree on a sale of an item by gentleman's agreement, duly signed by the buyer and seller, then one party breaches his side of the bargain. Isn't it sufficient for the complaint
t ...
read full comment

Scepticts to Ed's analogy, read this. Try to agree on a sale of an item by gentleman's agreement, duly signed by the buyer and seller, then one party breaches his side of the bargain. Isn't it sufficient for the complaint
to have his day in court. This is COMMON SENSE.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

Ed, it is not a gentleman's agreement that is the law, especially in this particular matter but the supreme law of the state, the Constitution. There appears to be a perception amonst both NDC and NPP that because the "no ver ...
read full comment

Ed, it is not a gentleman's agreement that is the law, especially in this particular matter but the supreme law of the state, the Constitution. There appears to be a perception amonst both NDC and NPP that because the "no verification, no vote" was in the CI75, it is legal and constitutional. I beg to differ because that "edict" is against the spirit of the Constitution (the right to vote)and could be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (SC). Remember that even Acts of parliament can be ruled unconstitutional by the SC, let alone a Constitutional Instrument.

This is another excellent contribution to the post election debate and the development of Constitutional Law in Ghana. Those who disagree with the learned professor should not abuse him because he is only giving his legal opinion and not a definitive judgement. Even the Justices who will sit on NPP's petition may not all agree on the final decision so the majority will carry the day. Instead of abusing him, please put out your alternative opinion on the matters he addressed.
Nana Yaw III 11 years ago

1. Was any agreement signed?

2. If signed at all in legal issues of this nature (and we are talking about constitutional issues) an agreement of this nature without a constitutional backing cannot hold in the Supreme Cou ...
read full comment

1. Was any agreement signed?

2. If signed at all in legal issues of this nature (and we are talking about constitutional issues) an agreement of this nature without a constitutional backing cannot hold in the Supreme Court.

The gentleman thing to do, and the common sense dictate may have been a plea for voting in areas where biometric verifications are alleged not to have taken place, and possible a recount of votes in polling stations where allegations of over-votes occured.

When you side-step the gentleman and common sense stance and prefer the full rigors of the law, then you have to take it as it comes.
KB 11 years ago

You have provided a very deep insight into the NPP's pending case against the EC and the president. I think the immunity of the president is limited to acts of the president in the course of carrying out his official duties. ...
read full comment

You have provided a very deep insight into the NPP's pending case against the EC and the president. I think the immunity of the president is limited to acts of the president in the course of carrying out his official duties. I am not a lawyer but the law is subject to various kinds of interpretations. The issue of "no verification, no vote" and biometric machine is problematic because it appears like the EC used the loop holes in the memorandum of understanding as you explained to benefit a particular candidate because it occurred systematically in NDC strong holds. I wish you could also have addressed the issue of over-voting where the counted votes exceeded the issued ballots. Good job, Prof!
Foso 11 years ago

Prof P. Kuruk, so with all these chains of degrees give you the wisdom to analyse these two cases by ending and summarising as JHS student.

You seem to have lost the way to analyse issues just because YOUR STOMACH AND POCK ...
read full comment

Prof P. Kuruk, so with all these chains of degrees give you the wisdom to analyse these two cases by ending and summarising as JHS student.

You seem to have lost the way to analyse issues just because YOUR STOMACH AND POCKET are paramount to you.

Come again with reasonable argument, since Ghana should always be first in matters relating the nation.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago

this Kuruk guy may have all the degrees in the world, but he puts ethnicity before ethics of his profession.

this Kuruk guy may have all the degrees in the world, but he puts ethnicity before ethics of his profession.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Akadu, please, I know you have a good heart but are hurting. Frankly there was nothing tribalistic about this beautiful legal exposition. Are you not proud that Ghana has such a fine scholar? Kweku Asare gave a brilliant arti ...
read full comment

Akadu, please, I know you have a good heart but are hurting. Frankly there was nothing tribalistic about this beautiful legal exposition. Are you not proud that Ghana has such a fine scholar? Kweku Asare gave a brilliant article from the other side and we all admired him. This is another legal opinion, NOT the VERDICT please. I am learning a lot and I hope you are too from all these legal 'gurus'.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago

Some of you people paa!

Some of you people paa!
Taamiawu 11 years ago

Since Akadu Mensema sees everything through a jaundiced prism,I am not at surprised to her introduce an extraneous factor, like ethnicity, into an intellectual and scholarly discussion,when that element was never broached,eve ...
read full comment

Since Akadu Mensema sees everything through a jaundiced prism,I am not at surprised to her introduce an extraneous factor, like ethnicity, into an intellectual and scholarly discussion,when that element was never broached,even tangentially, by the learned Professor!
Unlike you,I would be bold in declaring that Kwaku Azar`s piece was cleverly written and skewed to give the impression that whatever Bawumiah and the NPP have put out, is the "gosple" truth, and will, in fact, withstand close scrutiny! But even those of us who are not lawyers,clearly understand that this not the case.
Kofi 11 years ago

Look who is talking!

Look who is talking!
A GERSIS 11 years ago

GVYB TV

A GERSIS REPORTING

Fellow Ghanaians

Akadu is nothing more than a rhymeter and a versifier of inferior verses.

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS

GVYB TV

A GERSIS REPORTING

Fellow Ghanaians

Akadu is nothing more than a rhymeter and a versifier of inferior verses.

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS
Kpengson Ray 11 years ago

I think A. GERSIS and Akadu Mensema are in love! That is how some start their love affair-by quarreling before they bond and make love!

I think A. GERSIS and Akadu Mensema are in love! That is how some start their love affair-by quarreling before they bond and make love!
van-london 11 years ago

I thought you were also going to put forward your analysis for all to read!! Talk is indeed cheap!

I thought you were also going to put forward your analysis for all to read!! Talk is indeed cheap!
kormi 11 years ago

Well, we are waiting to hear what akufo addo and his lawyers will say when their case is thrown out of court

Well, we are waiting to hear what akufo addo and his lawyers will say when their case is thrown out of court
George 11 years ago

I am not surprise,about P P Kuruk,after buying his degrees,under the NDC rule he can get shelter in ghana.birds of the same feathers flies together.

I am not surprise,about P P Kuruk,after buying his degrees,under the NDC rule he can get shelter in ghana.birds of the same feathers flies together.
miracles 11 years ago

Look,,,,hmmm,correct your english before you insult the Professor.You are funny,,,,,,,correct yourself ok.You really need free SHS.It is bad to write"birds of the same feathers flies together" shame unto you,consult your engl ...
read full comment

Look,,,,hmmm,correct your english before you insult the Professor.You are funny,,,,,,,correct yourself ok.You really need free SHS.It is bad to write"birds of the same feathers flies together" shame unto you,consult your english tutor.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago

You argue that the President is above the law! Does it mean that if the President kills his wife, he will not have to go to court at all?

You argue that the President is above the law! Does it mean that if the President kills his wife, he will not have to go to court at all?
A GERSIS 11 years ago

Indeed, this lesbian who calls herself a Prof and who writes colorless poems is a sick lesbian goat.

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS

Indeed, this lesbian who calls herself a Prof and who writes colorless poems is a sick lesbian goat.

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS
somebody 11 years ago

Are you sure you have human brains in your head? you sound like the people who lost their brains during the revolution

Are you sure you have human brains in your head? you sound like the people who lost their brains during the revolution
JOEMOORE 11 years ago

yes the law said the president must not go to court while in office. but if he commits any crime or kill his wife as you ask, he would appear in court after the presidency, that is the law and i believe all the president in t ...
read full comment

yes the law said the president must not go to court while in office. but if he commits any crime or kill his wife as you ask, he would appear in court after the presidency, that is the law and i believe all the president in the world know this. that is why you can only vote him out or overthrow him before taking him to court.
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago

Why do we go to court? It is based on the belief that one is right and the other is wrong. of course, it is the court that decides. Based on this, I find your statement below very childish and unscholarly, if not stupidly bai ...
read full comment

Why do we go to court? It is based on the belief that one is right and the other is wrong. of course, it is the court that decides. Based on this, I find your statement below very childish and unscholarly, if not stupidly baised!

The NPP puts the number of people who voted without going through the biometric verification process at 456,933, a figure that the party includes in its count of 1,342,845 “illegal” votes. To sound a precautionary note, these claims are mere allegations and not much weight should be attached to them until they are thoroughly examined in the Supreme Court after the EC’s response.
TRUTH GURU 11 years ago

TOO KNOWN PEOPLE ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!

TOO KNOWN PEOPLE ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!
Akadu Mensema 11 years ago

The professors makes stupid arguments and your anger should be should be directed at him for a simple question: Prof. Kuruk, why do we have courts?

The professors makes stupid arguments and your anger should be should be directed at him for a simple question: Prof. Kuruk, why do we have courts?
A GERSIS 11 years ago

The courts are for these lesbians; Akadu, Akua, and Ursula; the other pretty ones

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS

The courts are for these lesbians; Akadu, Akua, and Ursula; the other pretty ones

ANTONIO GERSIS
PLAZA ONE
DALLAS
KOLA ,LONDON PROPER 11 years ago

Akadu you sounded as an illiterate. Reason being that the professor has stated clearly using the constitution in his argument. And here you are just writing words you have no idea of.

Can you argue against what the profes ...
read full comment

Akadu you sounded as an illiterate. Reason being that the professor has stated clearly using the constitution in his argument. And here you are just writing words you have no idea of.

Can you argue against what the professor has said that the President is immune by using facts?
tony 11 years ago

I can see that the Professor isn't knowledgeable enough tr I know what our constitution say about who can be sued in electoral matters. Where did this guy get his professor from? Waste of space.

I can see that the Professor isn't knowledgeable enough tr I know what our constitution say about who can be sued in electoral matters. Where did this guy get his professor from? Waste of space.
Wiafe 11 years ago

I agree with the Prof.
1. The presidency is a "big" position. So the president is immuned from prosecution even if he kills his wife. However the constitution allows for him to be impeached. The courts cannot try a sitting ...
read full comment

I agree with the Prof.
1. The presidency is a "big" position. So the president is immuned from prosecution even if he kills his wife. However the constitution allows for him to be impeached. The courts cannot try a sitting president.

2. Biometric system. The constitution grants me the right to vote as a citizen. The biometric system does not grant me the citizenship right. That's why we voted in the past without biometric systems. So the failure of the biometric system cannot invalidate my citizenship right to vote. So my vote has to count.

3. The Memo of Understanding. The EC and the politicaal parties have no right to make law. The EC is a constitutional body (so they can make law)--but the political parties are not constitutional bodies. So the memo of understanding by the political parties and EC cannot be binding on me as a citizen--especially a citizen who is not a member of any political party.
miracles 11 years ago

NPP is gonna cry at the S.C

NPP is gonna cry at the S.C
KOJO 11 years ago

Ghanaians I think there is something everybody is overlooking, if the right to vote is not coupled with the biometric verification, the voting period should have ended just a day and not continue the following day because som ...
read full comment

Ghanaians I think there is something everybody is overlooking, if the right to vote is not coupled with the biometric verification, the voting period should have ended just a day and not continue the following day because some machine were faulty in some areas. OVER TO YOU GHANAIANS.
Patty 11 years ago

Because the verification machine broke down, voting was extended. So it makes sense to conclude that 'No Verification No Vote'

Because the verification machine broke down, voting was extended. So it makes sense to conclude that 'No Verification No Vote'
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

The pity is that YOU cannot even construct a meaningful sentence and yet you question an expert legal opinion. Clearly you do not and cannot understand this analysis let alone our Constitution!

Apparently you did not read ...
read full comment

The pity is that YOU cannot even construct a meaningful sentence and yet you question an expert legal opinion. Clearly you do not and cannot understand this analysis let alone our Constitution!

Apparently you did not read the whole article to the end so you did not see the credentials of the eminent professor. You should be proud to have Ghanaian professors of such standing who are not show offs like some half-baked types people of your ilk have supported in this forum to date.

You need to be educated if you only you are willing and the scales fall off your eyes to see properly my friend. No one obliges you to express an opinion so hold your peace if you have nothing important to say.
mRNA + tRNA 11 years ago

We have to listen to what a real professor of law has just said NOT the "kokoase" NPP lawyers who know nothing just "takashi!"

We have to listen to what a real professor of law has just said NOT the "kokoase" NPP lawyers who know nothing just "takashi!"
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Thank you Professor Kuruk for your very clear, insightful and eloquent legal analysis. It is concise yet detailed enough to provide what I believe is a neutral but helpful expert opinion. I recommend this for all readers on t ...
read full comment

Thank you Professor Kuruk for your very clear, insightful and eloquent legal analysis. It is concise yet detailed enough to provide what I believe is a neutral but helpful expert opinion. I recommend this for all readers on this forum. rill isn't!!
Adu Poku U.S.A. 11 years ago

The court case of the NPP is outmoded at birth. It will be struck out by the supreme court in no time. They should read this article advice themselves and stop wasting our precious time.

The court case of the NPP is outmoded at birth. It will be struck out by the supreme court in no time. They should read this article advice themselves and stop wasting our precious time.
Private Eye 11 years ago

It's very distasteful and offensive for Ghanaians to hurl insults on the Prof. for a well written and insightful "scholarly/academic" opinion; he did not cast a verdict - please grow up!!. In my opinion, this is an opportunit ...
read full comment

It's very distasteful and offensive for Ghanaians to hurl insults on the Prof. for a well written and insightful "scholarly/academic" opinion; he did not cast a verdict - please grow up!!. In my opinion, this is an opportunity for the NPP legal team to revisit their case and measure it againts the legal points raised by the Prof. Note the Prof. is a "scholar" and NOT a "trial" attorney. See you in court Prof. I am waiting for your analysis of the EC's response, if it ever becomes public before the trial, (which I doubt it).
Wiafe 11 years ago

Political parties are voluntary organizations organized for the purpose of running and contesting elections--but they are not necessarily legitimate and good for the polity. So NDC and NPP pushing to destroy Ghana's democrac ...
read full comment

Political parties are voluntary organizations organized for the purpose of running and contesting elections--but they are not necessarily legitimate and good for the polity. So NDC and NPP pushing to destroy Ghana's democracy..

Both parties act as if all Ghanaians have to belong to either the NPP or NDC.

The constitution does not mention NDC or NPP. And Ghanaians should resist attempts by these political parties to entrench themselves in the political space at the expense of ordinary Ghanaians.

How much will the NPP court case cost Ghanaians? Will the loser pay court costs? What if Mahama decides to pack the court--as Kuffour did? What if parliament decides to enact new laws to neutralize the supreme court's ruling? What if the NDC-led govt--decides to pack the EC. Is this the price we have to pay for democracy (or to support the leaders of NPP & NDC)?

At some point--we have to insist that the interests of the nation has to rise above individual ambitions of those of NDC and the NPP--self-serving political charlatans. The country is more important that NPP and NDC.
Kojo 11 years ago

I was indeed searching the internet to read Prof Kuruk's comments on this case. Prof. please don't give up providing your views on these legal issues affecting your country. I notice the insults from some readers but I pra ...
read full comment

I was indeed searching the internet to read Prof Kuruk's comments on this case. Prof. please don't give up providing your views on these legal issues affecting your country. I notice the insults from some readers but I pray you will have a big heart and continue to provide your views. It is refreshing reading your reviews. It plain and straight to the point.
Kwadwo 11 years ago

As practical matter, do you expect Mahama to invoke presidential immunity in an election fraud case that could end his presidency? It will be suicidal for him to do as the case against the EC will go on even if such a motion ...
read full comment

As practical matter, do you expect Mahama to invoke presidential immunity in an election fraud case that could end his presidency? It will be suicidal for him to do as the case against the EC will go on even if such a motion filed on his behalf is granted. Why do do think the NPP lawyers named Mahama as a party? It was a clear strategy to have him court to defend the case because as a practical matter, they knew Mahama was not going invoke presidential immunity and have the EC alone to defend whether he stays in office or not. This is a unique case and immunity defense will kill him!
Addtionally, I do not believe the framers of the constitution intended presidential immunity to be absolute, especially in a case seeking set aside the election of the President. Kuruk, you have been the accolades you have getting from your students seem to be getting in your head. Come to the trenches and get your hands dirty. It appears you haven't taken a real case to a
court room for a while. Your legal reasoning is impractical and nothing to do with real life. Happy New Year.
Wishful thinking? 11 years ago

All the discussions we are engaged in are mere speculations - only the Justices have the final say.

My question to the Professor is: why did we go into a second day of voting if verification with the machines was not an in ...
read full comment

All the discussions we are engaged in are mere speculations - only the Justices have the final say.

My question to the Professor is: why did we go into a second day of voting if verification with the machines was not an integral requirement?

If the Supreme court were to ignore the legal role of the biometric verification devices, then the elections should go into a third day yet to be declared. There are a number of people who were denied the chance of voting because they could not be verified by the machines.

The Court, by the Professor's argument, should then order the EC to schedule a day for these people to vote, for their votes to be counted before declaration. Thus rests my case.
obodai 11 years ago

The answer is simple.If it is determined by the ec that an act of God had unenabled the elections to take place at some polling stations through no fault of anybody the electoral commissioner can postpone the elections to the ...
read full comment

The answer is simple.If it is determined by the ec that an act of God had unenabled the elections to take place at some polling stations through no fault of anybody the electoral commissioner can postpone the elections to the next and even up to a week if necessary.In short that scenario can take place even without the biometric verification machine understanding.
koi 11 years ago

like it happened in the tai elections in brong Ahafo last elections which was postponed and determined the last elections results.

like it happened in the tai elections in brong Ahafo last elections which was postponed and determined the last elections results.
Dr Yaw Ohemeng 11 years ago

We all know what happened in the last election was not an act of God - it was simply because the biometric verification devices broke down.

There are radio recordings of Mrs Sylvia Annor (PRO for the EC) entreating all Gh ...
read full comment

We all know what happened in the last election was not an act of God - it was simply because the biometric verification devices broke down.

There are radio recordings of Mrs Sylvia Annor (PRO for the EC) entreating all Ghanaians who could not vote because the machines broke down to exercise patience, for they (the EC) has decided that those voters would be able to vote the next day.

The legal determination cannot be divorced from the context of what took place on the election day.
koi 11 years ago

No it needn’t be only an act of God that determines the postponement of an election but all circumstances inclusive.The EC determines when there shall be a postponement in order not to disenfranchise the eligible citizen of ...
read full comment

No it needn’t be only an act of God that determines the postponement of an election but all circumstances inclusive.The EC determines when there shall be a postponement in order not to disenfranchise the eligible citizen of his or her right to vote.It needn’t necessary be biometric,an act of God or any circumstance that calls for such decision.
Paa Kwesi Mintah 11 years ago

The suit is against the EC and the sitting government that supervised the elections.

Mahama is the head of the NDC, besides being the president of Ghana.

Mahama is being enjoined as a respondent to the suit an act of sy ...
read full comment

The suit is against the EC and the sitting government that supervised the elections.

Mahama is the head of the NDC, besides being the president of Ghana.

Mahama is being enjoined as a respondent to the suit an act of symbolic collateral summons. He'll not be deposed in any way or asked to offer testimony.

When one sues a company, the CEO is usually enjoined to the suit in a dragnet collateral.

Mahama as a head of state has immunity. Mahama as the head of NDC has no immunity.

Technically his presidential term of office ended during the elections.

I doubt the author has any courtroom experience. We need to hear from trial attorneys and not booklong teachers of law who never go to court or prepare a case.
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago

What a fake lawyer you may pretend to be. How could possibly put out these illogical comments. The author does not need any court room experience, not from you or any attorney, he is an authority in own right.There are those ...
read full comment

What a fake lawyer you may pretend to be. How could possibly put out these illogical comments. The author does not need any court room experience, not from you or any attorney, he is an authority in own right.There are those who are constitutional experts who are or should not necessarily be lawyers or attorneys.

Just pause for a minute and think, if you were or is lawyer and cannot see that currently H.E John Mahama is wearing two hats. That he is the sitting Presidnt and President-elect and that he cannot be sued not now or even after 7 January 2013 as per Article 57(5) of the 1992 constitution then you need quality law education.

The law prof has eloquently put this matter that some of us have written previously about (refer to my article on 30 December 2012 on ghanaweb.com, 'There can be no Jucial Coup d'état) in simple terms and plain English and yet you have failed to grasp the essence of his article.
Paa Kwesi Mintah 11 years ago

You're not helping yourself or the author's lame assertions.

The author is talking about "no verification, no vote" being acceptable and legal. Yet the voting was extended another day to allow others to vote who previously ...
read full comment

You're not helping yourself or the author's lame assertions.

The author is talking about "no verification, no vote" being acceptable and legal. Yet the voting was extended another day to allow others to vote who previously were rejected by the verification machines etc.

Laws are not made in a vacuum. Election is a process where each step has governing rules.

The SC determines illegality and unconstitutionality not based on who got the most votes but on the strenght of the evidence before it.

Your mention of "Judicial Coup D' Etat" marks you as a sore camper who's afraid of the SC outcome.

Once again Paul Kuruk is wrong in his legal reasoning here and others have pointed that out to him. His not being a trial attorney is showing.

Your infantile reasoning is even worse than Paul Kuruk's.
Taamiawu 11 years ago

"..the voting was extended another day to allow others to vote who previously were rejected by the verification machines etc".
You listen to people like Asante Bediatuo and other NPP lawyers who have argued voceferously that ...
read full comment

"..the voting was extended another day to allow others to vote who previously were rejected by the verification machines etc".
You listen to people like Asante Bediatuo and other NPP lawyers who have argued voceferously that that somehow their supporters were short-changed by adherence to this "No verification, NO vote" gentleman`s "understanding" which the learned Prof. has indicated,has no force of law. Do you need to be a trial lawyer to make this point?
And you talk about "rules" governing elections as though thry derive their source of strenght from Mars or some other planet!
Did we all not witness the primacy of the constitution vis a vis Acts and subsidiary legislations that are approved by Parliament when provisions of the 1992 constitution held sway over the Transition Act(845 ) with regard to the dissolution or end of a Parliament,today?
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago

The more you write on this matter the more you make yourself laughable as a lawyer or whatever you call yourself.
The elections as konw you were extended for one extra day to enable voters in some constituencies exercise th ...
read full comment

The more you write on this matter the more you make yourself laughable as a lawyer or whatever you call yourself.
The elections as konw you were extended for one extra day to enable voters in some constituencies exercise their right to vote as a result of faulty biometric machines and other related technical and administrative issues? As I understand it, all the parties agents, in those polling stations affected, in discussion with the electoral commission officers came together to find an amicable solution to the problem thus demonstration some level of cooperation and working together to ensure transparency and fairness to all parties and those voters affected alike.

Again it was also agreed that as part of the process, those who could not be screened by the biometric machines but who had proof of identity could be allowed to vote in order not to be disenfranchised as per the provisions of the Ghana constitution? Let me put it to you that in putting together the 1992 constitutional provision of identity and validity for voting, new technologies for verification was not envisaged and therefore the need for the new CI 78 in 2012 in respect of the use of biometric ID for instance.
As pointed out by NPP Lawyer Ndebugri, and others better legal brains, the CI 78 which Nana and his colleagues based their decision to join President Mahama to the petition to the Supreme Court, is inferior to the Act of Parliament. And that where the Constitution says the person (President) cannot be sued while in office and a subsidiary legislation says somebody who happens to be a candidate and who is being complained against, you cannot use that to supersede the provision of the constitution which is the fundamental law of the Land.
This same argument is applicable to the CI 74 that talks about the use biometric machine.
The CI 74 as argued is inconsistent with and equally inferior to the 1992 constitution, especially rule 71B, rule 69C (5), Supreme Court (amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74). These provisions contravene Articles 93(2), 11, 133 and 157 of the 1992 constitution.

Furtheremore, on the issue of the irregularities (not fraud) complained about by Nana and NPP if true, is more of administrative issues which are dealt with at an arbitration, as post electoral issues. Unless the issues of irregularities as alleged can be proved as deliberate or fraudulent I don't see how the Supreme Court can set aside the results of the presidential elections as declared by the EC. The framers of the 1992 constitution in respect of elections, would have been fully aware of electoral irregularities that invariably occur in every and any elections conducted every and any where. And would not have in the ordinary and common sense meant that any electoral irregularities which fraud cannot be proved, but have been alleged should automatically invalidate an election results certified, by polling agents and the EC

Again, your folly that my mention of "Judicial Coup D' Etat" marks me as a sore camper who's afraid of the SC outcome is absolutely absurd. This shows your lack of comprehension.

If you had read and comprehended by article you would not have come to this pathetic position.

Please note that being a lawyer does not make you intelligent. Good nite and bye for now
DAVID ATUGIYA 11 years ago

What a fake lawyer you may pretend to be. How could you possibly put out these illogical comments. The author does not need any court room experience, not from you or any attorney, he is an authority in his own right.There ar ...
read full comment

What a fake lawyer you may pretend to be. How could you possibly put out these illogical comments. The author does not need any court room experience, not from you or any attorney, he is an authority in his own right.There are those who are constitutional experts who are or should not necessarily be lawyers or attorneys.

Just pause for a minute and think, if you were or is lawyer and cannot see that currently H.E John Mahama is wearing two hats. That he is the sitting Presidnt and President-elect and that he cannot be sued not now or even after 7 January 2013 as per Article 57(5) of the 1992 constitution then you need quality law education.

The law prof has eloquently put this matter that some of us have written previously about (refer to my article on 30 December 2012 on ghanaweb.com, 'There can be no Jucial Coup d'état) in simple terms and plain English and yet you have failed to grasp the essence of his article.
MIREKU 11 years ago

This is the real and true professor,and not that hopeless idiot like Ahoofe who is mut decieving himself that he is normal being. What a foolish case and disgrace these criminals are bringing uppon themselves.I thought they s ...
read full comment

This is the real and true professor,and not that hopeless idiot like Ahoofe who is mut decieving himself that he is normal being. What a foolish case and disgrace these criminals are bringing uppon themselves.I thought they said they are legal brains! Even commn and simple calculations,they can´t get it right.If it was Jake alone who came out with such ridiculos figures, Ghanaians wouldn´t be bothered too much since Jake is a useless illiterate to the core,but here is somebody who said he is Economist? What a bunch of fools parading as politicians and legal brains! They are disgrace to human race.
Lee Gbiriko 11 years ago

Trully. peace is a by-product of justice. When issues are legally explained like this then every one's mind is cleared, grievances ease off naturally and peace prevail. Who says going to court is wrong? Thank you Judges.

Trully. peace is a by-product of justice. When issues are legally explained like this then every one's mind is cleared, grievances ease off naturally and peace prevail. Who says going to court is wrong? Thank you Judges.
KD, UK 11 years ago

Prof, I am very disappointed in your one sided analysis. How can an election be free and fair when some people are not allowed to vote without biometric verification while others allowed. Are you saying a president / presiden ...
read full comment

Prof, I am very disappointed in your one sided analysis. How can an election be free and fair when some people are not allowed to vote without biometric verification while others allowed. Are you saying a president / presidential candidate is above the laws of EC and the country? Did the president / presidential candidate not agree to the laws and regulations of EC before he contested?
KD, UK 11 years ago

Prof, I am very disappointed in your one sided analysis. How can an election be free and fair when some people were not allowed to vote without biometric verification while others were allowed to? Are you saying a president / ...
read full comment

Prof, I am very disappointed in your one sided analysis. How can an election be free and fair when some people were not allowed to vote without biometric verification while others were allowed to? Are you saying a president / presidential candidate is above the laws of EC and the country? Did the president / presidential candidate not agree to the laws and regulations of EC before he contested?
ABK Gabon 11 years ago

NNP Empty headed bunch of lawyers who knows nothing about law.Go back to law sschool and obtain your proper law certificate and stop using the fake ones you criminals are parading with. GOD will punish you for touching his an ...
read full comment

NNP Empty headed bunch of lawyers who knows nothing about law.Go back to law sschool and obtain your proper law certificate and stop using the fake ones you criminals are parading with. GOD will punish you for touching his annointed PRESIDENT MAHAMA.
Kobena 11 years ago

Professor Bon Kankan,
Mahama stood the election as plain John Mahama, not as Presideent of Ghana, that was why he had to campaign lke everybody else. That is not law, that is simple common sense.

Even Uncle Atta who had a ...
read full comment

Professor Bon Kankan,
Mahama stood the election as plain John Mahama, not as Presideent of Ghana, that was why he had to campaign lke everybody else. That is not law, that is simple common sense.

Even Uncle Atta who had actually been voted for, would have had to stand as Candidate Mills!

If the Biometric verification was not necessary, why did the poor Ghanaian taxpayer have to pay 25% extra for them as the thieves got their cuts? Why was it only in certain areas that no verification was required? How about those voters who were turned away at other stations because they could not be verified?
Cry the beloved country!
Luther King 11 years ago

this prof kuruk guy is intelligent and if NPP listerns to him the better. remember his articles on the legality of the creation of the new 45 constituencies came to pass. ok prof if u have condemed the no verification votes, ...
read full comment

this prof kuruk guy is intelligent and if NPP listerns to him the better. remember his articles on the legality of the creation of the new 45 constituencies came to pass. ok prof if u have condemed the no verification votes, what about the other over votting of over 600,000? lets hear your take on this sir.
Kwame Philly 11 years ago

NPP's paper Argument in Flames

Professor Kuruk rejects NPP's paper argument.

Professor Kuruk is succinct and objective. His narrative is cogent and direct. It is free of legalese; it does not bear the finger print of a ...
read full comment

NPP's paper Argument in Flames

Professor Kuruk rejects NPP's paper argument.

Professor Kuruk is succinct and objective. His narrative is cogent and direct. It is free of legalese; it does not bear the finger print of a self-styled beauty queen/poet; and it is liberated from the ranting of a compulsive contributor who is obsessive with genocide in Ghana. Prof Kuruk is not afraid to be understood. Some folks equate obscurantism with intellect. Are they afraid to be understood because they have nothing sensible to say? Must they hide their deficiencies in convoluted language?

Prof Kuruk has dealt clearly with two critical issues:

1. Whether a sitting President can be sued. Clearly, the president has immunity. Prof Kuruk, however, has noted that regardless of the constitutional standing, it would be in the interest of the President to make legal representation voluntarily.

2. In my view, the most critical view is the defense of the voting rights of the citizen. Professor Kuruk has revealed that NPP's argument is constructed with paper. Biometric verification is not meant to disenfranchise the voter. Allowing voters to cast their votes when there were problems with the biometric machines is not only constitutionally sound, but also reflects the spirit of the constitution and indeed democracy. Moreover, NPP is playing God when it claims that all those who voted after the failure of the machines favored NDC. I suppose that there is still secret balloting.
Offin50 11 years ago

I am indeed surprise a whole Professor educating the public on CI75. At some point he said the matter is in court and that he was not going to comment on it. Why showing that stomach direction. If the verification was no esse ...
read full comment

I am indeed surprise a whole Professor educating the public on CI75. At some point he said the matter is in court and that he was not going to comment on it. Why showing that stomach direction. If the verification was no essence then the CI75 wouldn't have captured it at all. The constitution of Ghana supersedes any individual on the land. When it is passed no other person can use its discretion to overturn unless the Supreme Court. One thing we should know is an 'election' is a process but not an 'event'. The hub or heart of this yrs election was the verification. There should no way somebody should be allowed to vote without being verified. If the verification was needed, we wouldn't have invested heavily on it. We invested sums of money to meet the demand of CI75. In this case, apart from supreme court no has the mandate to ask anybody to vote without being verified. If Prof. Kuruk does not understand the word 'SHALL', been bolded, then he should see a legal interpretation. Secondly, we should not close our eyes on this; if verification was not needed then the election wouldn't travelled to the next day. Furthermore, Prof should ask Mr. Afari Gyan on what basis did he say that after counting papers from polling station and results happens to be more the number verified, he will cancel results from that poling station. What is prof talking about. Ghanaians are discerning and followed every action EC boss took closely. What did Dr Afari Gyan see before coming out with that statement? The verification was to check over voting. Prof give us a break. We are waiting for the interpretation from the court.
Whatever 11 years ago

Don't your time on him

Don't your time on him
nana addo dankwah 11 years ago

I wish the Npp would read this,pls advice them.they need you to explain this to them.they should consult u for advice as I dnt think most of them are lawyers as they claim.they may be clerks at a law firm and think ,oh yes we ...
read full comment

I wish the Npp would read this,pls advice them.they need you to explain this to them.they should consult u for advice as I dnt think most of them are lawyers as they claim.they may be clerks at a law firm and think ,oh yes we know the law.your explanation should teach them Prof P Kuruk.God bless u.
GHANABA 11 years ago

This is the type of matter we want to read on Ghanaweb.

This is the type of matter we want to read on Ghanaweb.
KOFI 11 years ago

LET US LEAVE THE SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE THE MATTER IN COURT. OUR COMMENTS WILL AFFECT THE JUDGES'S MINDS.

LET US LEAVE THE SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE THE MATTER IN COURT. OUR COMMENTS WILL AFFECT THE JUDGES'S MINDS.
Ghanatta Ayaric 11 years ago

Insightful exposition!

Looking forward to reading more MATTERS ARISING, Paul.

I wish you a blissful New Year!

Your classmate.

Insightful exposition!

Looking forward to reading more MATTERS ARISING, Paul.

I wish you a blissful New Year!

Your classmate.
Okoe 11 years ago

Ghanaweb! why do you allow very abusive articles into your publications? I think you must edit and disallow offensive articles to appear in your publications although you may be practising freedom of expression, still, I do c ...
read full comment

Ghanaweb! why do you allow very abusive articles into your publications? I think you must edit and disallow offensive articles to appear in your publications although you may be practising freedom of expression, still, I do condone such articles by the nature of the language. I understand I am not the editor.
A friend 11 years ago

Former visiting prof at Oxford , my ass!! You might fool weak Ghanaians but not me you fraud!!

Former visiting prof at Oxford , my ass!! You might fool weak Ghanaians but not me you fraud!!
Joe 11 years ago

I checked his name in the faculty list and he was not there

I checked his name in the faculty list and he was not there

Akufo-Addo v. Electoral Commission: Matters Arising (Part 2)

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (102)

Read Comments Comments (102)