NPP-USA reaffirms its strong conviction in the ongoing petition challenging the legitimacy of John Mahama’s presidency. We have absolute confidence in the astute NPP legal team, so we have restrained ourselves from commenting on legal issues pertaining to the Supreme Court petition. However, when it comes to matters of common sense and logic, we will not hesitate to comment.

It is interesting to note the EC has admitted printing of the duplicate polling station sheets and has advanced the argument that they were duplicates to ensure future candidates are covered. NPP-USA posits *three strong arguments* to invalidate this statement:

· The duplicate polling station sheets were printed for *ONLY THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. *There were nine (9) sheets in the Presidential Polling Station sheets (One original and eight duplicates to reflect the EC and the candidates). If they were concerned about expected increase due to more independent candidates, they could have printed 13 sheets per booklet as was done in the Parliamentary elections. There is certainly no reason to print another booklet with nine sheets when the maximum number has not been reached. This is a strong evidence that there was other reasons for printing the duplicates which corrupted and subverted the election system and enabled the EC to pronounce the wrong person as the winner (John Mahama), an outcome which they wanted from the get go.

· The names of the candidates were also known and there was not going to be any more candidates. Indeed, the concern of more candidates would be better preserved for the Parliamentary candidates since there was the issue of the 45 constituencies and therefore the number of candidates would still be an issue.

· Should the second booklet containing the duplicate sheets not include either blank names or Independent Blank Names since you would not have known the names of the so-called future unknown candidates? Why duplicate the same known names and the same numbers? Surely, this contravened the EC own rule of unique serial numbers for pink sheets of polling stations.

These three points indicate that the EC was bent on undermining the very system (to the advantage of only one candidate Mr. John Mahama) which they have been appointed, paid and resourced by the nation to ensure a fair, clean and independent result. By printing duplicate polling station sheets with duplicate serial numbers, the EC introduced 2.6 million votes which benefited John Mahama and led to an outcome that did not reflect the sovereign will and wishes of the people of Ghana. Therefore NPP-USA concurs with Dr. Bawumia that the EC is economical with the truth on the issue of the Duplicate Polling Station Sheets.