Dr Tony Aidoo, Head of Policy Monitoring and Evaluation at the Presidency has indicated that if the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA’s) suggestion that parties in the election petition at the Supreme Court should not seek for review if they are not satisfied with the final ruling was because of how it (election petition) has affected the lives of Ghanaians especially governance, then their argument is flawed.

According to him, government cannot use the election petition as an excuse to say that it is not performing its functions or activities well because of the case in court.

"…the IEA might be acting in good faith by saying that ‘look don't let us prolong this issue because from the practical point of view it has affected the lives of Ghanaians especially the governance of this country’. If that is the point, there are some serious queries that arises. Is it a case that the government's attention has been diverted simply because it is being sued in court? I don't think this is something that should happen at all because until the case is disposed off, government has a responsibility to govern and govern well. So you cannot say that because of this case activities of government have been seriously affected...

“then you will ask if the IEA is saying it because it wants to forestall conflict or more or less bring an end to the bitterness that seems to have characterized the case over the last few months? Then one may say that if it is going to guarantee that a decision not to seek a review will bring an end to the hostility, then it is a good call but there is no guarantee that this is going to happen; a bitter person is a bitter person," Tony Aidoo.

Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in a statement issued on August 20, 2013, urged the party that will lose in the petition challenging the legitimacy of President Mahama to refrain from seeking a review in the interest of peace.

But contributing to a panel discussion on Radio Gold's Alhaji and Alhaji, Dr Tony Aidoo said going for a review is good because it will prove that the party is committed to the rule of law.

"it is even good that the losing party will go for a review because when you go and you get the same results, then you will know... after the second ruling is given, you will have no moral justification to complain...seeking the review represents a commitment to the rule of law; it is indicative that the party is committed to the rule of law. One of the constitutional precepts that needs to be paid attention to is that the IEA recommendation that losing parties must not seek a review can be tantamount to saying that don't take advantage of your constitutional right," he pointed out.