Confusion over 2004 Presidential results

Three top men of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), who have jointly filed a suit at an Accra Fast Track High Court challenging the gazetting of the 2004 presidential elections results by the Electoral Commission (EC), have expressed shock at fresh developments at the EC.

After the suit, which intimated that the EC did not follow procedure in gazetting the results, the High Court gave an order restraining the EC from destroying or causing to be destroyed the said documents and materials or any of them.

But before the Fast Track Court could determine the case, investigations indicate that acts contrary to the Court’s order had been carried out by the EC.

This turn of events have angered the plaintiffs, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, an Educational Consultant and ex-Communications Director of Atta Mills’ Campaign office; Squadron Leader (Retired) Clend Sowu, a former Member of Parliament for Anlo Constituency and Kofi Portuphy, a Farmer and Consultant, who have questioned whether the EC should be trusted.

The violation of the December 14, 2005 court order further became evident as the EC sought an order of the court, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, to vary the restraining order against it to enable them use the ballot boxes for the impending District Level Elections throughout the country.

Information trickling into The Chronicle further suggests that the plaintiffs, who are all kingpins of the NDC, are threatening another legal showdown with the EC for flouting the court order.

On visits by yours truly to the Odododiodio District EC office at the City Engineers Department, an officer of the EC indicated that ballot papers had been removed from the boxes and prepared to be labeled for the forth-coming District Assembly Elections scheduled for September 12, 2006.

Information gathered indicated that ballot papers had been transferred into sacks and the boxes kept under lock.

Further investigation at the Ga-West electoral office at Amansaman, revealed some ballot boxes and papers scattered on the ground of a room located behind the District Assembly hall with no security, while other ballot boxes were being washed by two EC officers at their offices located on the premises of the District court.

Information gathered indicated that the ballot papers had been sent to Tema for recycling into toilet rolls.

However the investigation was prompted by plaintiffs/respondents’ assertion to the court hearing an application of the EC seeking variation of the restraining order that some ballot papers could be seen flying in the transparent boxes, especially in the District offices of the EC at the Odododiodio constituency.

The claim was a rebuttal against assertions made by counsel for the EC, Mr. E.O. Armah that ballot papers are sealed in an envelop and secured in the sealed ballot boxes, noting that all the materials were under accurate protection.

The court has fixed August 28, 2006 to give its ruling on the EC’s application. Advancing his case, Mr. Armah told the court that in view of the extensive nature of the District Assembly elections, the ballot boxes containing the ballot papers of the Presidential elections of December 7, 2004 would be required for use by the EC.

Counsel further sought the direction of the court as to where the ballot papers should be kept after they have been removed from the ballot boxes.

Counsel argued that the EC would not in any way tamper with the ballot papers, which were kept in seal-up packets with relevant documentation under the Public Elections Regulations of 1996.

According to him, the 21,000 polling stations in the District Assemblies throughout the country would need two ballot boxes each; one for the election of an Assemblyman and the other for the election of Unit Committee members.

Mr. Armah therefore noted that in all, 42,000 ballot boxes would be needed for the conduct of the district elections and therefore the EC was in real need of the boxes used for both Presidential and Parliamentary elections.

Counsel was of the view that the restraining order did not affect the ballot boxes but the ballot paper and other electoral materials contained in the boxes.

In an affidavit opposing the application of the EC, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, Mr. Tony Lithur, argued that if the application was granted, it would not only vary but also undermine the injunction of December 14, 2005, and tamper with electoral material, which is a subject matter of the restraining order.

Counsel further noted that the granting of the EC’s application would undermine the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, which is expected to determine the constitutional interpretation of the gazette provisions in the Constitution.

Mr. Lithur told the court that the suit touches on issues of governance; therefore the integrity of the ballot boxes and other electoral materials should be preserved in the manner stated by the court order, explaining that the EC could use other means for the District level elections that would not undermine the sanctity of the initial orders of the court.

Counsel additionally complained about why the EC did not make alternative arrangements for the conduct of the District elections as it knew that the boxes, which is a subject of the suit, could in no way be determined anytime soon before the District Assembly elections, suggesting that the boxes used for the 2004 Parliamentary elections could be used.

Mr. Lithur also indicated that if the EC insisted on the removal of the ballot papers from the ballot boxes and tampering with it as a result, then his clients would propose that the ballot papers be counted under the supervision and in the presence of the plaintiffs or their representatives and representatives of all political parties before the papers are stored.

It was this request that elicited a negative response from counsel for the EC, who rejected the counting of the ballot papers as requested by the plaintiffs/respondents.

Mr. Lithur then asked that the EC be given time to fashion out a way for an acceptable means of preserving the ballot papers.

It was this instance that the court called on Squadron Leader (Rtd.) Sowu to suggest a way out.

He however told the court that ballot papers are not well-preserved by the EC and that they could be seen flying in the boxes, especially in the EC’s office in Odododiodio, and suggested that the papers be counted.