The case law quoted by the Respondents in the Ghana 2012 election petition hearing at the Supreme Court (English case of Medhurst v. Lough & Casquet (1901) 17 TLR 210) hit the petitioners so hard it was like a Mike Tyson blow that caught them clean on the jaw, and left them dazed and floundering like a fish out of water.

But as is typical of the NPP when they are caught pants down, they simply dismiss an issue they find damaging to their case/arguments rather than argue it merits. That in classical fashion was their reaction to the above referenced case law.

“THAT CASE IS COLO, ARCHAIC”, they screamed at the top of their voices to anyone who would care to listen.

What exactly is archaic about the case they will not specify, but from snippets of their spittle-filled ranting, one could discern it is sorely because of the date quoted – 1901.

So if it is time how, may I ask, does this nullify the relevance of the PRINCIPLES the case so eloquently state?

Let’s look at some stated principles.

The upward buoyant force exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces. So said Archimedes in 200 BC or thereabouts.

In simple layman’s language, this Principle, which bears the name of its founder, tells us that when the weight of water displaced by an object immersed in the water is less than the weight of the object, the object will sink. Otherwise the object will float, with the weight of the water displaced equal to the weight of the object.

It is this principle which today is used in building metal ships that float in water.

Jesus Christ also stated, “Do unto others what you wish them to do unto you”.

That was around two-thousand years ago, but this PRINCIPLE, which if observed by society, serves to enhance cordial interrelationships and peaceful co-existence, has been preached in churches all over the world right up till today and will continue to be preached till the end of time.

From science to religion to sociology, from archaeology to zoology, PRINCIPLES remain TIMELESS so long as they speak to eternal truths. What could be more truthful than this statement made by the English Judge.

It would be misdirecting punishment indeed for entitled voters who stayed in long queues to cast their votes, and whose vote had been counted, entered onto a declaration form and publicly declared to be deprived of the right to have those votes counted as a result of an act of omission by an electoral officer (not willfully done), over whose conduct the voters have no control.

What terrifies NPP petitioners and supporters is that although they may have shown there were acts of omissions by some electoral officers, in no instance have they stated, not even to mention proved, that such omissions were done willfully.

The case of the NPP is nailed firmly into the coffin with this declaration by the English judge of this important PRINCIPLE.

"No election is to be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission by the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise of the appropriate elections rules if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to the elections and that the act or omission did not affect the result…”

The function of the court in exercising this jurisdiction is not assisted by consideration of the standard of proof but, having regard to the consequences of declaring an election void, there must be a preponderance of evidence supporting any conclusion that the rule was affected.”

NPP, where is your preponderance of evidence?

DUPLICATED PINK SHEETS???

To think that these are the people who go strutting about that they are apostles of the rule of law.

kpakpogh@yahoo.com