Video: Major highlights of Dr. Bawumia's lecture on Ghana's economy

Read Article

Comments (14)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (14)

BB 7 years ago

MAHAMA FOR 2016!!!!

MAHAMA FOR 2016!!!!
The Mask 7 years ago

Doctors in hospitals in the country are supposed to conduct mortality meetings. At such weekly meetings mortalities(deaths) of patients are discussed and health personnel questioned. Reports indicate that less than 10 hospita ...
read full comment

Doctors in hospitals in the country are supposed to conduct mortality meetings. At such weekly meetings mortalities(deaths) of patients are discussed and health personnel questioned. Reports indicate that less than 10 hospitals in the country have been conducting such meetings.
Sources say hospitals like KATH have not done that for the past 16 years

The MOH has chalked successes but its ineptitude in this regard is totally mind boggling.
Asylamdown 7 years ago

Mr President you dey chop too much ,you dey enjoy and the poor parents and children dey suffer this fit be curse on you and your family ohh if you chop Ghana make u see say some people dey suffer and God and Allah go curse al ...
read full comment

Mr President you dey chop too much ,you dey enjoy and the poor parents and children dey suffer this fit be curse on you and your family ohh if you chop Ghana make u see say some people dey suffer and God and Allah go curse all this people whey dey chop Ghana
MMAER 7 years ago

LEAVE TO CAMPAIGN WITH OUR ECONOMY

LEAVE TO CAMPAIGN WITH OUR ECONOMY
DUADA 7 years ago

ONLY LIES NPP WANT TO WIN OUR VOTES

ONLY LIES NPP WANT TO WIN OUR VOTES
GIVE ME MY BALLOT PAPER NOW 7 years ago

Mahama's propaganda has been deflated screamingly to last for over 50 years by Alhaji Dr. Mahammadu Bawumia.

Mahama's propaganda has been deflated screamingly to last for over 50 years by Alhaji Dr. Mahammadu Bawumia.
Nana Kuffuor, Abeka 7 years ago

Please don't listen to that pathological liar. ZANU(PF) youth wing are looking for him for plunging Zimbabwe into an economic ditch. He said Kuffuor had more infrastructural projects than Mahama. Do you believe that?

Please don't listen to that pathological liar. ZANU(PF) youth wing are looking for him for plunging Zimbabwe into an economic ditch. He said Kuffuor had more infrastructural projects than Mahama. Do you believe that?
JOHN 7 years ago

MR PINK SHEETS, MILLION TOGOLESE IN VOTERS REGISTER ETC ETC. JUST WAIT, AFTER ELECTIONS, NPP WILL DUMP YOU LIKE A GOAT

MR PINK SHEETS, MILLION TOGOLESE IN VOTERS REGISTER ETC ETC. JUST WAIT, AFTER ELECTIONS, NPP WILL DUMP YOU LIKE A GOAT
Kpenyigba Kwesi 7 years ago

Whoever wins the 7 December needs Dr Bawumia as principal Economic Advisor and not as a vice president for he is not good as a politician because he always insults. Nana is aged but not too old to be a President but he looks ...
read full comment

Whoever wins the 7 December needs Dr Bawumia as principal Economic Advisor and not as a vice president for he is not good as a politician because he always insults. Nana is aged but not too old to be a President but he looks very tired at the meeting, so will he make it?
Kay 7 years ago

Is so sad that people can't see how our country Ghana is heading to with this government

Is so sad that people can't see how our country Ghana is heading to with this government
Kay 7 years ago

The truth really hurt,am not for any party but I can say kuffour government was better than what we have now

The truth really hurt,am not for any party but I can say kuffour government was better than what we have now
ea 7 years ago

Insightful!

Insightful!
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ. 7 years ago

DEAR READING PUBLIC OF GHANAWEB.COM,

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, BARRISTER-AT LAW, QCL, PLC, DPA, CPA, BA (HONS) {GHANA}, MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) {NEW YORK, USA} PENDING, MEMBER, INTERNATIONAL (WORLD/GLOBAL) BAR ASSOCIATION, ...
read full comment

DEAR READING PUBLIC OF GHANAWEB.COM,

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, BARRISTER-AT LAW, QCL, PLC, DPA, CPA, BA (HONS) {GHANA}, MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) {NEW YORK, USA} PENDING, MEMBER, INTERNATIONAL (WORLD/GLOBAL) BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATE MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION

EBAA LAW CONSULT
ORCA DECO (TOKU) BUILDING, 1ST
FLOOR
P.O. BOX AN 5966
ACCRA.
GHANA.

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER photo BenonyTonyAmekudzi2.jpg

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

TEL: 0545758633

MOBILE NO: 0245848560

TO: H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA

H.E.VICE PRESIDENT OF GHANA KWESI AMISSAH ARTHUR

HER LADYSHIP CHIEF JUSTICE OF GHANA GEORGINA THEODORA WOOD

HON. MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL MARIETTA BREW APPIAH-OPPONG.

HON. MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & REGIONAL INTEGRATION HANNAH TETTEY

HON. NPP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 NANA AKUFO ADDO

HON. NPP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 DR.BAWUMIA

HON. CHAIRMAN OF NDC DR.KOFI PORTUPHY

INFO TO:

H.E.FORMER PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JOHN AGYEKUM KUFUOR

H.E.FORMER PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JERRY JOHN RAWLINGS

HON. NDP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 NANA KONADU AGYEMAN-RAWLINGS

SPECIAL INFO ALERT TO:

H.E.PROFESSOR MR.PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BARACK OBAMA

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN KERRY

H.E.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AMBASSADOR TO GHANA ROBERT JACKSON

DATE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2016

SUBJECT: REFRESHING MEMORIES AND TO RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT MY KIND ATTENTION HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO YESTERDAY, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY HON.NPP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DR.BAWUMIA THEREBY AS I WAS DULY INFORMED THAT HE TOUCHED BRIEFLY "IN PASSING" OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS" THAT I DULY FILED AT THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE 2012 GHANA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS PETITION HELD AT THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA".

HOWEVER, EVERY FRANTIC EFFORTS THAT I DULY MADE BY SEARCH TO READ FOR MYSELF WHAT EXACTLY DR.BAWUMIA SAID ABOUT THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS CANNOT OR COULD NOT BE SEEN, THERETO.

THAT SHOULD THE INFORMATION DULY GIVEN TO ME IF IT WAS TRUE THEN IT IS MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION TO HON.NPP VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 TO KINDLY CONSIDER TO PUBLISH SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND THE COURTESY OF THE DISPENSATION OF INFORMATION SHARING WHICH HELPS TO PROMOTE BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND FRIENDSHIP, THERETO.

IT IS THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THAT RESPECTFULLY REFRESHING MEMORIES OF THE PUBLICATIONS, BELOW:

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

GOD BLESS GHANA AND AMERICA.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

PLEASE, REFER TO THE PUBLICATIONS, BELOW:

Tuesday 28th May, 2013
Supreme Court dismisses Amekudzi's application
Supreme Court in Accra
Accra, May 28, GNA - The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously dismissed a review application for amicus curiae, filed by Lawyer Benoni Tony Amekudzi, challenging the suit against the President in the on-going election petition.
Before the ruling, Lawyer Amekudzi told the court that per the 1992 Constitution, the President could not be sued or be joined to a law suit as a defence.
He, therefore, described the petition against the President as frivolous, gross error and dangerous precedent, citing article 57, section 4, 5, 6, of the constitution as basis for his argument.
Lawyer Amekudzi cited a Supreme Court case involving the NPP and President Rawlings in the early 90s in which the NPP challenged President Rawlings over the appointment of District Chief Executives in court but by a 3-2 majority the court held that the President could not be sued.
He said the President is Head of State, father of the nation and the Commander in Chief of the Ghana Armed Forces and that the aura and respectability of his office must be protected.
In its ruling, Justice William Atuguba, President of the Supreme Court, said though the applicant did not follow the procedures in moving his application, the court has had to look at the substance of his case.
He said the applicant needed a proper locus which he lacked.
Justice Atuguba said the court had given thought to the concerns of Amekudzi but Article 64 of the constitution, on which basis the petitioners are in court is a unique article on its own, and could not change its earlier position, and therefore, dismissed the application.
On 3rd May, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed an application for an amicus curiae brief, filed by Lawyer Amekudzi, which sought to draw the attention of the court to a violation of the law in the hearing of the presidential election petition involving the President.
GNA

PLEASE, REFER TO OTHER PUBLICATION, BELOW:

News
POLITRICKS OF THE DAY: NPP Vrs John Mahama Case-Supreme Court Throws Out “Amicus Curiae” Amekudzi Again
GC Staff 3 years ago No Comments

Facebook

Prev Article Next Article
It seems each day comes with its own drama in court for the parties in the on-going NPP and John Mahama case. Once again, Benoni Tony Amekudzi who calls himself a “Friend of the Court” has been thrown out of court, failing to stop the Supreme Court from proceeding with the Election Petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Mahama…
Graphic Reports;

“Friend of the Court”, Benoni Tony Amekudzi Tuesday failed once again to stop the Supreme Court from proceeding with the Election Petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Mahama.
Amekudzi told the Court that the 1992 Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, protects the sitting President from being sued or being joined in any litigation processes before the court and was therefore improper that the Court should entertain the present election petition filed by three members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
But the Court held that there was no ground whatsoever to review its earlier ruling and that where the court was prompted to have taken up the issue by itself, Mr. Amekudzi patently lacked the ‘locus standi’ to apply for the review.
Mr Amekudze was unsuccessful on May 2, when he applied for leave of the court in an amicus curiae application to move a motion to stop the hearing.
On that occasion the court held that Article 64, on which he based his application was a special constitutional provision that did not apply to his case. He was also told he failed to file his affidavit evidence to support his case as per the rules of the court and was therefore not properly before the court.

In his review application, Amekudzi contended that per a number of precedents, the President after he was sworn into office as the father of the nation cannot and
should not be part of the present petition.
He said since it was a well-established position of the law, he expected the court to have taken up the matter and thus decline jurisdiction to the petition filed by Nana Addo Dankwa-Akufo-Addo, NPP presidential candidate in the 2012 general election; Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, vice presidential candidate of the party and Jake Otanka Obetsebi Lamptey, NPP chairman.
Not even several interventions and directions from the bench would deter the determined Amekudzi, who spoke with such verve and style that one of judges had to ‘plead’ with him to bring his pronunciations to the Ghanaian level for all to understand.
Counsel for the petitioners, Philip Addison did not oppose the application but chose to leave it in the capable hands of the court, while counsel for the respondents, Messrs.’ Tony Lithur, James Quashie-Idun, and Tsatsu Tsikata all opposed the application and urged that it be dismissed.
While Lithur said the applicant failed to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction properly, Tsatsu maintained his earlier submission that the applicant be treated as an inter-meddler whose admission was only going to needlessly delay the petition hearing.
Justice William Atuguba, Chairman of the panel of judges read the decision of the court as follows;
“When invoking our review jurisdiction, we prefer to look at the substance thereof, we consider it on its merit. As far the refusal to grant him leave to intervene as Amicus Curiae is concerned, there are no grounds whatsoever for reviewing our earlier ruling. That remains the issue that the court itself should have raised the point. Even there the applicant first needs locus standi to apply for this review which he patently lacks, however the constitution being a fundamental law and this court having jurisdiction under Article 129 Clause 3, to depart from its decisions on point of law, we deem it meet to give some thought to the matter. We think that Article 64 is a unique and special provision as we held in our earlier ruling and nothing that has been urged on us moves us to change our position to that effect. The application is accordingly dismissed.”

PLEASE, REFER TO THE SUBMISSION, BELOW:

REFRESHING MEMORIES !

From: benony amekudzi
To: "president@oop.gov.gh" ; "Vice@oop.gov.gh" ; "FirstLady@oop.gov.gh" ; "Speaker@Parliament.gh" ; "Speaker@Parliament.gov.gh" ; "Info@Judicial.gov.gh" ; "chairman@ndc.com" ; "chairman@npp-ghana.org" ; "Info@Ndc.com" ; "Info@Moj.gov.gh" ; J. J. Rawlings ; "Info@Johnakufuorfoundation.org" ; "Info@Akufoaddo2012.com" ; "Info@Johnmahama.org" ; "Info@Moi.gov.gh" ; "Larry.lartey@Gmail.com" ; "Info@ec.gov.gh" ; "fa.agbotse@yahoo.com" ; "huudu_iddrisu@Yahoo.co.uk" ; "blegeyaovincent@gmail.com" ; "tonyamekudzi@Yahoo.com"
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:26 PM
Subject: Fw: WHO IS INTERMEDDLER WHO TALKS LAW AND LAWYERS WHO NEVER TALK LAW ?

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: benony amekudzi
To: "president@oop.gov.gh" ; "Vice@oop.gov.gh" ; "FirstLady@oop.gov.gh" ; "Info@Moj.gov.gh" ; "Info@Ndc.com" ; "chairman@ndc.com" ; "Info@Judicial.gov.gh" ; "chairman@npp-ghana.org" ; "Info@Johnmahama.org" ; "dattivor22@Yahoo.com" ; "Larry.lartey@Gmail.com" ; "Speaker@Parliament.gh" ; "Speaker@Parliament.gov.gh" ; "Info@Moi.gov.gh" ; "fa.agbotse@yahoo.com" ; "tonyamekudzi@Yahoo.com"
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 12:05 PM
Subject: WHO IS INTERMEDDLER WHO TALKS LAW AND LAWYERS WHO NEVER TALK LAW ?

FROM: BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
EBAA LAW CONSULT, LEGAL PRACTITIONERS/CONSULTANTS
NO. 4 GRAPHIC ROAD, P.O.BOX AN 5966, ORCADECO BUILDING
FIRST FLOOR
ACCRA.
MOBILE PHONE NO. 0545758633

TO: H.E. PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
H.E.VICE PRESIDENT OF GHANA AMISSAH ARTHUR
FIRST LADY OF GHANA LORDINA MAHAMA
HON.MR. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT OF GHANA DOE ADZAHO
HER LORDSHIP CHIEF JUSTICE OF GHANA GEORGINA THEODORA WOOD
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GHANA

INFO TO:
HON. CHAIRMAN OF NDC DR.KWABENA ADJEI
HON. GENERAL SECRETARY OF NDC JOHNSON ASIEDU NKETIA
HON. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT DZIFA ATTIVOR

DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
SUBJECT: TO RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY REFER TO THE ABOVE RELATED SUBJECT-MATTER WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTED MY PERSONALITY AND THE ISSUES THEREON RAISED WERE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE SO CALLED LAWYERS/COUNSELS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES TO ENABLE THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

THEREFORE MAKING OUR DEAR PRESIDENT OF GHANA H.E.PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AS LITIGANT THAT WOULD AFFECT FUTURE PRESIDENTS OF GHANA TO BE SUBJECTED TO FRIVOLOUS, MALICIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND VEXATIOUS LAWSUITS.
THAT AS I HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AS THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS THAT I STILL BELIEVED THE RESPONDENTS COUNSELS DID NOT EXERCISE REASONABLE AND DUE DELIGENCE AS REQUIRED FROM COUNSELS/LAWYERS TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLIENT(S).
THAT I ALSO BELIEVED THAT "THERE SHOULD BE FINALITY TO LITIGATION" BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA JURISPRUDENCE IT BEHOOVES ON ME AS INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT TO RAISE THE ISSUE SINCE THE RESPONDENTS COUNSELS WOEFULLY FAILED TO EVEN TALK TO ME AS FRIENDS OF THE GHANA BAR AND EVEN WHILE THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF AND THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NDC EXPRESSED "CONDOLENCES" TO ME EVEN AT THE COURT WHEN THREE (3) DAYS TO MOVING THE MOTION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA, TO PROTECT GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION ITSELF AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION UNDER CHAPTER 001 ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE COUNSELS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT TONY LITHUR AND COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT TSATSU TSIKATA DEEM ME AS "INTERMEDDLER ---" AND EVEN THE CASE I RESPECTFULLY MADE CONCERNING THE PETITIONERS FRIVOLOUS PETITION AND PRAY TO THE COURT TO TAKE "A JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE PETITION ITSELF" AND TO DISMISS SAME DID NOT EVEN SEEM USEFUL TO COUNSEL FOR FIRST RESPONDENT TONY LITHUR.
THAT BECAUSE THEIR CALIBER OF LAWYERS ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO OTHERS BUT SEEKING THEIR OWN SELFISH AND SELF SEEKING INTERESTS.
THAT IT IS MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION THAT BECAUSE COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENTS DID NOT EXERCISE REASONABLE LEGAL RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE BUT BASED THEIR ARGUMENTS ON MERE "LOGIC" AND RATIONALIZATION OF THE FACTS BROUGHT SHARP DIVISION AT THE COURT WHICH CULMINATED IN MAJORITY AND MINORITY DECISIONS INSTEAD OF OUTRIGHT STRIKE OF THE FRIVOLOUS CASE BASED MAINLY ON HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ERRORS ON PINK SHEETS. THAT THE PURPORTED MALPRACTICES NEVER OCCURRED AT THE ACTUAL POLLING STATIONS THAT ALSO RESULTED IN THE SECOND PETITIONER DR.BAWUMIA POSTULATION "YOU AND I WERE NOT THERE BUT ON THE PINK SHEETS".
THAT THE SECOND PETITIONER DR.BAWUMIA WHO IS AN ECONOMIST RATHER GAVE THE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS ESPECIALLY HON.NANA AKUFO ADDO WHO WAS GHANA FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL RATHER NEVER SPOKE A WORD IN THE SUPREME COURT BUT RATHER BEING SEEN TO BE RECEIVING PRAISES. WHAT A PROVERBIAL SCENARIO SITUATIONS THAT WE AS GHANAIANS ARE EXHIBITING AND RELEGATING "TRUTH" RATHER FROM THE SCENE?
IT IS AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT I STILL HOLD THAT THE "MINORITY DECISION WAS TAKEN "PER CURIA" IN GROSS VIOLATION OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS.
THAT AS INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT I WOULD NOT WAIT FOR ANY OTHER LAWYER FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO RAISE THE ISSUES.
IT IS THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT I AM RESPECTFULLY PUBLISHING JUST SOME FEW EXCERPTS FROM THE DRAFT PROCEEDINGS AT THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING MY MOTION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND TO HUMBLY REQUEST THE COURT ITSELF AND ALL THE MEDIA HOUSES THAT CAPTURED THE PROCEEDINGS TO PUBLISH THE FULL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE "AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF".

" DRAFT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, THE SUPREME COURT {CIVIL DIVISION} SITTING IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2013

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF AMICUS CURIAE

AMEKUDZI : RESPECTFULLY YOUR LORDSHIPS, THIS IS AN APPLICATION OR AN APPEAL FOR REVIEW OF YOUR LORDSHIPS DECISION, PER INCURIAM, ON A MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS OR FRIEND OF COURT BRIEF TO DRAW THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE COURT TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND A SETTLED LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT THE COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANT SHOULD HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION ON BEFORE ENTERTAINING THIS PETITION, FRIVOLOUS PETITION BROUGHT AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OF GHANA, WHERE THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THE COURT ON MAY 2ND, 2013, WHERE THE GIST OF IT SIMPLY WAS THAT, THE MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE FOR AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WAS DISMISSED AND THE "RATIO DECIDENDI" FOR DISMISSING THE MOTION ON NOTICE FOR LEAVE WAS A GROSS ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, A DIRECT SLAP AT THE FACE OF JUSTICE, TWISTING, IF NOT TRYING TO BREAK THE ARM OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION THAT FRAMERS OF THIS CONSTITUTION THAT WAS RATIFIED IN A REFERENDUM BY THE PEOPLE OF GHANA NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT WHILE IN OFFICE SHALL NOT BE SUED OR JOINED TO A LAWSUIT AS DEFENDANT.
NOW THE RATIO THAT THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON WAS ARTICLE 64 AND C.I. 16 AND I WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THIS HIGHEST COURT OF GHANA THAT THE DECISION BASED ON THAT RATIO WAS A GROSS ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE REALM, WHICH WILL SERVE A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT IF NOT REVIEWED BECAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO UNDER WHICH THE SUPREME COURT RELIED ITS DECISION ARTICLE 64, IF YOUR LORDSHIPS WILL KINDLY PERMIT ME TO READ THE ARTICLE 64 THEN I WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THAT THE FRAMERS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION NEVER CONTEMPLATED, NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT WHILE IN OFFICE SEEKING RE-ELECTION SHOULD COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 64 SECTIONS 1 AND 2, EVEN 3 BECAUSE OF C.I.16 THAT YOU RELIED ON----YOUR LORDSHIPS, THE HEADING----CHALLENGING ELECTION OF PRESIDENT---SECTION 1 PROVIDES THAT COUNSEL READS OUT.

ATUGUBA: MR. AMEKUDZI, SINCE YOU RESPECT THE SACROSANCTSY OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION YOU ARE SEEKING TO DEFEND IS DIVIDED INTO ARTICLES AND SECTIONS ONLY IN THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, AS YOU DON'T TRANSPOSE THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ARRANGEMENT TO THE MAIN BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HAVE TO BE SACROSANCT ALL THE WAY.

AMEKUDZI: THANK YOU.

(----RESERVED THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS LATER BUT TO TOUCH DIRECTLY ON TONY LITHUR AND TSATSU TSIKATA SUBMISSIONS)

TONY LITHUR: I THINK I AM TEMPTED TO SAY "RESQUI SALO QUITO,". I THINK YOUR LORDSHIPS HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE REVIEW JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT OUGHT TO BE INVOKED PROPERLY, I THINK THIS MATTER SHOULD BE DISMISSED. I HAVE NOTHING USEFUL TO IT. AND I MUST SAY THAT IT IS REVIEWED ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE AFFIDAVIT NOTHING HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO SHOW THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR REVIEW OF YOUR LORDSHIPS' EARLIER DECISION.

TSATSU TSIKATA: MY LORDS, I BELIEVE THE ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLES OR CLAUSES OR SECTIONS, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH SOMEONE WISHING TO BE AMICUS CURIAE AND AS WE INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND I THINK THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION IS IN THE NATURE OF INTERMEDDLING AND DOES NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE RULES AND WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR IT TO BE DISMISSED.

ATUGUBA: WELL, HIS APPLICATION IS NOT ENTIRELY FRIVOLOUS, IN SENSE THAT HE WAS SAYING THAT THIS POINT EVEN IF HE COULD NOT COME IN, THE COURT ITSELF OUGHT TO TAKE UP THE POINT, YOU SEE, TO THAT EXTENT, I THINK THERE IS AN ARGUABLE POINT THERE.

IN FACT, YOU KNOW THE FIRST EVER PRESIDENTIAL PETITION IN THIS COUNTRY CAME IN 1969 ON VERY SIMILAR GROUNDS AND IT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT THE PRESIDENT, SO IT IS NOT ALL THAT WISHY-WASHY, BUT, WELL WE HEARD YOUR SUBMISSIONS.
(----OTHER PROCEEDINGS RESERVED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION)

THAT AT THIS TIME AND TIME MATERIAL, I AM RESPECTFULLY RESTING MY CASE AND ALSO URGING THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF AND ALL THE MEDIA HOUSES THAT COVERED THE PROCEEDINGS TO PUBLISH THE FULL EXCERPTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE TO EVERY ISSUE THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO IT, THEREFORE CALLING ON ALL CONCERNED IN THIS RELATED MATTER TO COME OUT WITH THEIR SIDES ALSO.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
GOD BLESS GHANA AND LONG LIVE GHANA !
VERY TRULY YOURS,
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI
INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

PLEASE, REFER TO THE BRILLIANT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ONE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE LORDSHIPS, HER LORDSHIP JUSTICE AKOTO BAMFO WHO DISMISSED ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS AS FOLLOWS:
General News of Tuesday, 24 September 2013
Source: Daily Guide
Pink sheets are not conclusive – Justice Akoto-Bamfo
Email this
Share This
[Close]

Print This
Comments (16)

« Prev
Next »

Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo
Justice Mrs. Vida Akoto-Bamfo, one of the judges who dismissed all the claims brought by the petitioners in the landmark Presidential Election Petition, appears to have de-emphasized the importance of pink sheets in elections in her judgment.

Dr. Afari-Gyan declared John Dramani Mahama winner of the December 2012 presidential elections using results recorded on the Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results forms popularly called pink sheets.

However, in Justice Akoto-Bamfo’s opinion, pink sheets cannot solely be relied on without recourse to the register or the verification machine if one wants to trace the incidence of over-voting or voting without biometric verification – two of the claims that formed the basis for the petition.

Justice Akoto-Bamfo also held in her 21-page judgment that an injustice would perpetrated on the people if the petitioners’ request that because some Presiding Officers failed to sign pink sheets the results should be annulled, was granted.

“Although it is not disputed that the pink sheet was the basic document for the elections it cannot however, be said to be conclusive. It is important to note that an election is not an event, but a process and that the pink sheet derived its source from the Biometric Voters Register. It should therefore be the reference point for a discussion of any issue under this category,” she added.

“Therefore where a dispute arises as to whether a voter had been verified, the best evidence should be the verification machine. Even if the pink sheet were the primary document, it is not conclusive; for it is my respectful view that prints-out from the verification device would have put to rest any arguments as to whether those persons went through the verification process or not,” Justice Akoto-Bamfo held.

Defending the failure of Presiding Officer to sign pink sheets, Justice Akoto-Bamfo said “in my view, visiting the sins of some public official on innocent citizens who have expressed their choice freely would run counter to the principle of universal adult suffrage, one of the pillars of our democracy, and perpetrate an injustice.”

According to Justice Akoto-Bamfo, it is not for the court to determine who occupies the presidency, but rather the citizenry must have that preserve.

“Government, in a democratic system of governance, derives its life from the people and that sacred nexus is made manifest in the electoral system. Among the fundamental precepts in a democracy is the ability to hold periodic free and fair elections together with an effective judicial oversight, bearing in view however, that, as a basic principle, it should not be for the court to determine who occupies the highest office of the land, the presidency; it is the preserve of the citizens.

“Elections therefore offer the citizenry the opportunity to express their satisfaction or otherwise with an incumbent leader or a political party. It is no wonder that this challenge, arising out of the exercise of those rights, has caught the imagination of all Ghanaians.”

Over-voting

Touching on over-voting, Justice Akoto-Bamfo held that it was clear in the circumstances that the total number of polling stations under the category had been reduced by at least 2, by virtue of the KPMG Report, stressing, “Neither the 128,262 nor the 130,136 could have remained unchanged.

“In Court, Dr. Bawumia testified that there had been a number of deletions. He tendered various lists of deleted polling stations. Under Exhibit C-C1-C11, he listed 44 polling stations under this category as having been deleted. These deletions would certainly have affected the number of votes to be annulled. Subsequent thereto, another list of 704 polling stations was tendered as Exhibit D.

“Clearly, the number of polling stations to be affected, and more importantly, the numbers of votes to be affected would see a reduction. One has to bear in mind that numbers are of the essence since they must be used to measure the effect of the irregularity, if any. In this instance however, one cannot determine with precision the number of votes in issue.

“It bears stating that whereas the 2nd respondent denied that there was over-voting, the 3rd respondent did not only deny but went further to assert that there were patent, clerical and sometimes arithmetical errors in the recording which had no material effect on the actual votes publicly cast, sorted, counted and recorded (Paragraph 15 (iii) of the affidavit of Johnson Asiedu filed on 15th April 2013).”

Defining over-voting

Justice Akoto-Bamfo said that even though, in the main, the various definitions offered by both the petitioners and the respondents placed emphasis on the register and ballot paper, the petitioners limited themselves exclusively to what appeared on the face of the pink sheet.

“I am fortified in this view by the fact that all the political parties were given copies of the voters register which the various polling agents of the major political parties carried to the polling stations on the days the elections were held. These pieces of evidence were not challenged.

“Indeed it is common knowledge that the polling agents who were at the polling stations checked the names of persons who were verified and issued with the ballots. Having regard to their role as watchdogs to check impersonation, multiple voting and certification of the results (they had the right to protest by refusing to sign the pink sheet) as provided for under C. I. 75 Regulation 19 (3) coupled with the voting procedures, publicly sorting and counting etc; it would not be safe to rely solely on the entries on the face of the pink sheet to establish the incidence of over-voting.”

She said should any dispute arise as to whether persons who cast the ballot did exceed the number on the voters register, disregarding the register, the genesis of the pink sheet itself, will result in an error.

“Indeed there was ample evidence that several errors were made by the presiding officers in making the entries. Many of the entries were made in error.”

She held that in some cases, columns were wrongly filled, others were left blank; while yet in others, the figures and words hardly matched.

“It was evident that some of the errors could simply be corrected by entering the figures in the right columns. Others were sheer errors in the arithmetic. “Dr. Bawumia left the court in no doubt that the petitioners were relying solely on the pink sheet to establish cases of over-voting, for, he averred that there were neither protests nor complaints lodged, in terms of the complaints procedures laid out in the governing statute at the polling stations.

“Having regard to the fact that credible evidence was led to show that statistics of ballots issued by the 2nd Respondent to each Region, Constituency and Polling Station were provided to all the political parties whose agents were at the polling station and ticked the names of those verified (in these elections), I am of the view that over-reliance on the pink sheet in the face of errors detected clearly led to a dead end, for one cannot use wrong assumptions or data to arrive at the right conclusions.”

Justice Akoto-Bamfo held that “certainly such multiple inaccuracies cannot be the basis for a finding that there was over-voting. Owing to the mistakes, the pink was manifestly unreliable as a basis for establishing the phenomenon of over voting.”

She said that “none of the polling agents made a report of any irregularity; no evidence was led on ballot box stuffing. And more importantly the ballots were cast and their polling agents attested to the results.

“While the presiding officers obviously did make some mistakes and clerical errors, no mischief or advantage can be attributed thereto. Substantially the voting, counting and tallying of votes were carried to a high degree of accuracy.”

Justice Akoto-Bamfo concluded on over-voting that the questions of which polling stations were affected and how many results have to be annulled were questions that the petitioners failed to answer under the category of over-voting and therefore declined the invitation to annul any votes under the category.

Absence of signatures of Presiding Officers

On absence of signatures, Justice Akoto-Bamfo said that even though the petitioners have claimed some of the pink sheets were unsigned by some Presiding Officers, the respondents essentially did not deny that in some cases the Presiding Officers failed to sign the pink sheets.

“Indeed the 2nd respondent tendered Exhibit SA4, a National Summary by Region Results of sheets not signed by the Presiding Officers. According to the said Exhibit, 905 of the pink sheets were indeed not signed by the Presiding Officers. Of the 2009 the pink sheets the petitioners claimed were not signed by the presiding officers, 1,989 were signed by the agents of the candidates.

“Having admitted that there were at least 905 polling stations in which presiding officers failed to append their signatures, the petitioners were relieved of the duty to call further evidence on the issue.

“Article 49 is couched in mandatory terms. Undoubtedly it is an entrenched provision, which can properly be amended in accordance with the procedure set out under Article 290 of the Constitution. Article 49 sets out in detail the duties of the presiding officers and the polling agents immediately after the close of the poll in any public election or referenda. Under Article 45 (c) of the Constitution, the Electoral Commission is vested with the power to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda.

“Article 51 stipulates that the 2nd respondent shall make regulations for the effective performance of its functions; particularly for the conduct of public elections among others.

“It is evident that even though Article 51 vests the power in the E.C to make regulations for the conduct of the elections; it is only under Article 49 that the steps to be followed by the presiding officers and the polling agents, after the close of the polls, are set out in detail.”

Justice Akoto-Bamfo said since the provision was couched in mandatory terms, clearly where the signature of the presiding officer failed to appear, it did not admit of any argument, on a literal interpretation of the said article, that there had been a breach and therefore the results ought to be nullified.

“However, it has been held in a long line of decisions that a strict, narrow, technical and legalistic approach to interpretation of the Constitution, the embodiment of our hopes and aspirations, must be avoided.

“Was it the intention of the framers of the Constitution that persons who have exercised their rights under art. 42 by going through the electoral procedures, registered as voters, had their names on the register, participated in the election by casting their votes which have been publicly counted, recorded and announced, should have such votes not ‘counted’ on account of the sins of one public officer?

“We have freely chosen the democratic form of governance in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. Under that system each citizen must be afforded a genuine opportunity, through the conduct of free and fair elections, to determine who his leaders or representatives should be.

“An election being a process as opposed to it being an event, where all the stages have been gone through and therefore the elections could be said to have been substantially held in accordance with the regulations, to nullify the results on this ground per se, would amount to putting in the power of some unscrupulous presiding officer in some polling station to nullify the solemn act of the whole constituency by his single act of omission.”

She said since the Constitution required that both the Presiding Officers and polling agents sign, looking at their duties, and obviously the reason for signatures in terms of the credibility of the process, “a purposive interpretation would not defeat the objectives of Article 49(3), in that even though the Presiding Officer had failed to sign, the polling agent’s signature, to my mind, is a bold declaration for the integrity of the whole electoral process.”

Comments:

This article has 16 comments, give your comment
Shipping & Clearing
Your SHIPPING, CUSTOMS CLEARING partner
NOBODY 7 years ago

Most of Aplanke Bawumia's speeches are laced with serial lies and deceptions, not to mention dubious figures that Bawumia's pinksheet calculator keeps spitting out.

Most of Aplanke Bawumia's speeches are laced with serial lies and deceptions, not to mention dubious figures that Bawumia's pinksheet calculator keeps spitting out.

Video: Major highlights of Dr. Bawumia's lecture on Ghana's economy

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 (14)

Read Comments Comments (14)