You are here: HomeWallOpinionsArticles2013 03 06Article 266571

Opinions of Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Columnist: Adofo, Rockson

The Supreme Court to Redeem herself

... of seeming Connivance with....if…

From the whisperings of some top placed NDC bigwigs in government, as amplified by their relations and fortunately or unfortunately intercepted by me, I can smell a rat. Some of their relations over here in London are going out with puffed out chests proclaiming that the Supreme Court will deliver verdict in favour of President John Dramani Mahama based on their sure source of information as passed on to them. They have been assured and asked not to lose any sleep over the writ filed at the Supreme Court on an alleged perpetuation of irregularities, fraud and rigging of election 2012 in favour of John Dramani Mahama.

They claim that regardless of the evidence (their quantity, quality and credibility) to be submitted by Nana Akuffo-Addo, Dr. Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey (petitioners or plaintiffs), the Supreme Court will still overlook it to rule in favour of President John Dramani Mahama, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan and the NDC (defendants). Their confidence in the claim they are making with authority lies in:

1. Their certainly unfailing but absolutely credible source of information 2. President Mahama has already been both declared by the Electoral Commissioner, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, as the President-elect, and sworn in by the Chief Justice as the elected President of the Republic of Ghana. 3. The Supreme Court's mandatory quest to ensure peace reigns supreme; they will never dare invalidate the election 2012 results and declaration. They can neither rule in favour of Nana Akuffo-Addo nor declare a run-off between Nana Akuffo-Addo and President Mahama regardless of the volume and credibility of Nana's evidence to submit or submitted. 4. President Mahama has already been recognised by foreign governments or leaders such as America, the United Kingdom, France, Nigeria, etc., as the President of Ghana. 5. International election observers including Ecowas have declared Ghana's election 2012 as free and fair 6. No country or government will support any agitations by Nana Akuffo-Addo and Co. with all NPP sympathisers inclusive, when the Supreme Court rules against them, because no country will support them

Based on the above stated reasons, the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly empowered to throw out the petition filed with them against the plaintiffs, or rule in favour of John Mahama in the end, the relations of the said bigwigs have been assured of.

As usual, I have discussed the current development with my White legal minds as I do not want to leave anything to chance. They advise as following:

A. The fact that John Mahama has been sworn in as the President of Ghana does not in anyway negate, or supersede, the nation's Constitutional provision that encourages any citizen doubting the credibility of the election results that brought him to power to seek redress in court.

B. The fact that John Mahama has been recognized and congratulated by his foreign peers (presidents) does not in anyway legitimise his presidency if actually the election was rigged in his favour as alleged

C. The fact that foreign observers and the Ecowas representatives that attended the supervision of the election are declaring it free and fair does not necessarily or obligatorily mean fraudulent acts did not take place, if indeed such occurrences happened as alleged

D. The only sure way to prove whether or not the election was rigged is by the provision of credible evidence by the petitioners.

E. The Supreme Court should not pronounce judgment based on the prevailing circumstantial/indirect evidence e.g. the recognition of John Mahama by foreign presidents, he has already been sworn in or observers have declared the election as free and fair (Indirect evidence is evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute)

F. The Supreme Court must decide the case on the hard evidence presented before them but not on any wishful thinking premise.

G. John Mahama cannot avail himself of the Constitutional immunity that bars any citizen from suing a sitting President. His ascension to the presidency through what may be dubious means is what is being challenged and when he is found guilty, he will be obliged to step down.

H. For the sake of clarity and to remove any misconception of connivance between the Supreme Court and the defendants to judging in favour of the defendants in spite of provided credible evidence as alleged, though the court is not obliged, it SHOULD TELECAST the hearing proceedings of the case LIVE. This will exonerate the Supreme Court from any would-be alleged blame of collusion with either the defendants or the plaintiffs.

Failure to dispense justice fairly but corruptibly, based on one's parochial interest can set Ghana alight. Ghana is not different from any of the African States that have gone on rampage in the event of election malpractices, misunderstandings and riggings in favour of one candidate.

Rwanda, Kenya and Zimbabwe have all had their bad consequential experiences with electoral fraud. I hope Ghana does not want to descend down that path. This does not mean that the NDC can connive with the Supreme Court as deduced from their own recent declarations to deny Ghanaians justice. If they are willing to test the waters, they can go ahead. If they are stupidly ready to play with fire knowing that it can burn them, then "the road is your face" ("okwan ne wa nim") as we jovially used to say. It means they can continue with their plans if they so desire regardless of the inherent dangers.

I wish what the relations of the NDC bigwigs are saying were not true but if they are, I am afraid Ghana is sitting on a ticking time bomb. All that we require is nothing but JUSTICE. Let there be JUSTICE, the Supreme Court judges please. If the evidence is credible, say so, but if they are not, also say so. That is all that we want. To aid and abet crime as suggested by the roving NDC ambassadors to further add insults to injuries will hopefully ignite the unquenchable anger of all discerning Ghanaians.

The onus is upon the Supreme Court to redeem her and the judiciary of the public ridicule, perception of corruption of which they are awash. Whether or not they are corrupt, I am yet to establish.

Gone are the days when Ghanaians fond of saying leave it to Providence reigned supreme ("Fa ma Nyame").

May the generational curse of God and the swift as thunderbolt punishment by the gods come heavily to bear upon whichever party in the ongoing election 2012 fraud case, will deliberately seek to twist the truth to ensure INJUSTICE, rather than JUSTICE, reigns supreme? AMEN.

A word to the wise is enough.

Rockson Adofo