We wrote yesterday that the court will be doing disservice to Ghana if it takes from a section of the population, just because of the tribes they belong to their right to vote and be voted into office. The court should not gi ... read full comment
We wrote yesterday that the court will be doing disservice to Ghana if it takes from a section of the population, just because of the tribes they belong to their right to vote and be voted into office. The court should not give worms teeth to bite.
Pinkblue 10 years ago
Good article......SC will not change outcome. It is done; check the USA and Bush elections,. Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya etc.
Good article......SC will not change outcome. It is done; check the USA and Bush elections,. Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya etc.
LONTO-BOY 10 years ago
Dr SAS, this is very perceptive analysis of the Elections Petition and the possible Supreme Court verdict. This is reasonably sensible analysis. There's a tremendous difference between having a 'brilliant case' and going abou ... read full comment
Dr SAS, this is very perceptive analysis of the Elections Petition and the possible Supreme Court verdict. This is reasonably sensible analysis. There's a tremendous difference between having a 'brilliant case' and going about the 'case brilliantly' in court.
There's no doubt that Ghana's 2012 General/Presidential Elections were fraught with irregularities. However, given the evidence and arguments of the NPP, led by Lawyer Addison, failed to establish any collusive relationship between the EC and NDC. And despite exposing the negligence and incompetence at the heart of the EC, I personally don't see the SC overturning President John Mahama's victory.
Again, NPP's case has weak 'evidential value'. Yes, there were widespread election fraud and irregularities. However, NPP's Counsel could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that each element of the gathered evidence directly inflated figures for President Mahama or manipulated by the EC in NDC's favour. And since NPP couldn't prove that the genuine basis of their evidence led to complete turn around in numerical advantage to President Mahama rather than suggest, then the Supreme Court will not have any justification to overturn President Mahama's victory.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Good morning my brother LONTO-BOY. I enjoyed reading Dr SAS's analysis and I could not agree with you both more. In fact, it's not only that Addison failed to prove any link of collusion between the EC and NDC/Mahama but he a ... read full comment
Good morning my brother LONTO-BOY. I enjoyed reading Dr SAS's analysis and I could not agree with you both more. In fact, it's not only that Addison failed to prove any link of collusion between the EC and NDC/Mahama but he also presented evidential materials that were questionable. That actually weakened NPP's claim.
I also agree with you that the 2012 presidential election was fraught with irregularities but as to whether they were due to incompetency from illiterates electoral officials or were deliberate, I cannot tell. The only good outcome from this petition, hopeful, are the lessons the EC, political parties and the electorate will learn from and improve the management and conduct of future elections. That is, if they will learn from this and improve the electoral system.
Yaw Ohemeng 10 years ago
Kofi, I disagree with Adjei-Sarfo's analysis and your endorsement. There are three grounds in law for mounting an election petition:
1) that the elections were not conducted in accordance with the rules and that not sticki ... read full comment
Kofi, I disagree with Adjei-Sarfo's analysis and your endorsement. There are three grounds in law for mounting an election petition:
1) that the elections were not conducted in accordance with the rules and that not sticking to the rules offered advanttage to another candidate. Such grounds call for scrutiny of the records produced from the elections. This includes errors commited due to the incompetence of the body that supervised the elections;
2) That there was collution, bribery, corruption or actions that prevented the elections from being free and fair; and
3) The candidate who was declared to have won was not qualified.
The Petitioners went to court on the first grounds.
If what you are claiming is correct, the court should have thrown out the matter the moment Dr Bawumia testified that they were not alleging collusion on the part of Mr, Mahama.
The two issues set to be determined by the courts by themselves indicate that the court accepted that violations, irregularities and malpractices are grounds for petitioning.
Kwaku Ananse 10 years ago
Petero - What you are not taking into account is the fact that the petitioners didn't proof the significance of the IMOV's effect on the outcome of the elections and it's statistical validity and basis to overturn the declare ... read full comment
Petero - What you are not taking into account is the fact that the petitioners didn't proof the significance of the IMOV's effect on the outcome of the elections and it's statistical validity and basis to overturn the declared results let alone declare the chief petitioner winner of the elections.
Do you really think the SC will set a precedence of overturning election results based purely on incoherent and widespread irregularities?? Can you even begin to envision the consequences?? Then, even the results of a rerun will be contested in court.
OSUO ABRUBUOR 10 years ago
I am sorry but widespread election fraud has not been proven.
Irregularities and incompetence... yes but then how does this differ from any other Ghanaian institution? Even the SC could not get the handover of the pink she ... read full comment
I am sorry but widespread election fraud has not been proven.
Irregularities and incompetence... yes but then how does this differ from any other Ghanaian institution? Even the SC could not get the handover of the pink sheets right!
The absurdity of the NPP argument was that if an error of say 5 votes was found at a polling station, all the votes at that station had to be annulled and since the only stations they questioned were where Mahama won, well, that would result in a first round win for Akuffo Addo then, wouldn't it?
If the leadership of the NPP weren't so blinkered, they would not be bothering the SC to sort out the obvious.
GOLD COAST MAN 10 years ago
We need to understand that there are administrative errors in every elections, if you go back into Kuffour's era pink sheets you will find those errors, even in an advance country like America errors were found. When you obs ... read full comment
We need to understand that there are administrative errors in every elections, if you go back into Kuffour's era pink sheets you will find those errors, even in an advance country like America errors were found. When you observe carefully you will realize that Nddison was struggling to go around the errors and make a claim which in my opinion failed woefully. To be fair I strongly believe that president Mahama won the elections clean.
ghanaba 10 years ago
A defeatist's argument
A defeatist's argument
Pocket Lawyer 10 years ago
Why are we prejudging the case when it is still in court? Is this analysis bordering on contempt? What if there is sufficient proof that the evasive Afari Djan received incentives in order to rig, manipulate the outcome and d ... read full comment
Why are we prejudging the case when it is still in court? Is this analysis bordering on contempt? What if there is sufficient proof that the evasive Afari Djan received incentives in order to rig, manipulate the outcome and deliberately contributed to the bloated register? Just like the rented press, it depends which side your bread is buttered. The stability of the nation should be considered. In addition, this case will be decided on the balance of probabilities. All those incentives given to people to go and vote should be made illegal in the future.
Honesty-the best policy! 10 years ago
"What if there is sufficient proof..." But that is exactly what Dr. sarfo is saying. There wasn't enough proof. Indeed, the 2nd petitioner admitted during cross-examination by Tsatsu that there was no evidence that the 1st re ... read full comment
"What if there is sufficient proof..." But that is exactly what Dr. sarfo is saying. There wasn't enough proof. Indeed, the 2nd petitioner admitted during cross-examination by Tsatsu that there was no evidence that the 1st respondent engaged in any fraud or malpractice. He indicated that the President was cited because he was a beneficiary.
Dziko Kwame 10 years ago
I am also learning little bits of LAW now.
How I wished that my father was alive to follow these proceedings. He liked "I put it to you that....".
Dr Adjei Sarfo has just very brilliantly educated folks like me.
Man ... read full comment
I am also learning little bits of LAW now.
How I wished that my father was alive to follow these proceedings. He liked "I put it to you that....".
Dr Adjei Sarfo has just very brilliantly educated folks like me.
Many thanks and long live mother Ghana
CASE CLEARLY DEFINED FROM THE BEGINNI 10 years ago
'In determining the magnitude of any rigging, the court must review the entire record of the elections from all four corners of the country and determine that no rigging occurred in the areas where Akufo Addo won, and that al ... read full comment
'In determining the magnitude of any rigging, the court must review the entire record of the elections from all four corners of the country and determine that no rigging occurred in the areas where Akufo Addo won, and that all the rigging occurred in the areas where Mahama won.' ... You're damn wrong! The case as it is, is clearly defined based on the 6 categories of irregularities and ON EVEIDENCE ON THE FACE OF THE 11,138 PINK SHEETS. Clear guidelines were given whereby the three parties were asked to submit their cases in the form of affidavit, an opportunity the NDC failed to utilize fully. The NDC could have used that chance to argue that other locations supposedly being the NPP strongholds be also be looked into. The NDC failed to do that and know that it is not the responsibility of the NPP to do that. The NPP, as smart as they are, selected those locations that they knew it will go in their favour. That's how smart the NPP are. So you're damn wrong from the point you made that statement that ... all four corners of the country must be reviewed to determine whether no rigging occurred in the areas where Akufo Addo won. It wasn't part of the case submitted by the NPP. However, within the grace period of 21 days, the NDC could have also made a submission to contest the areas won by Akufo-Addo, but as dummy as they are, they didn't do it. I am just a Statistician and this is simple reasoning. The case was clearly re-defined by the Justices from the very outset.
Opanin 10 years ago
I also disagree with the writer that most likely the judges will look beyond the petitioners area of coverage and see what happened in other areas of the country. That will mean the judges scouting for other evidence to add t ... read full comment
I also disagree with the writer that most likely the judges will look beyond the petitioners area of coverage and see what happened in other areas of the country. That will mean the judges scouting for other evidence to add to what has been presented to them. They could have asked the respondents if they also had evidence suggesting that there were irregularities or malpractices or violations in areas known as NPP strongholds. They never filed any such evidence, perhaps because the petitioners were right or perhaps they could have ended up adding more evidence of violations and irregularities to the list already complied by the petitioners.
On the question of national cohesion any timid decision by the judges will rather achieve the opposite. The judges already know the mood of the country and the expectation on them from all sides of the political spectrum. To make a judgement based on the fact that the country needs to move on will be a travesty. I do not think that the judges will opt for this route because they fear that the peace in the country will be disturbed. If Mahama can be a president, Akufo Addo can also be a president and the verdict must just inform Ghanaians who won the December 2012 elections. Heavens will never fall. And may I ask, if there is a civil war in Ghana, who will be fighting who? It will never happen.
On why the petitioners did not allude to any possible collusion between the NDC and the Electoral Commission to rig the election, simply they could not have said this in court because it would not have been easy for them to use the evidence before them to make that conclusion. The respondents claimed those irregularities and malpractices were clerical and administrative errors and not calculated rigging. How could the petitioners have proved collusion between the NDC/Mahama and the EC?
It is the first time in our history that this election challenge is happening and let's hope our judges will give a sound judgement that will give a real meaning to what is referred to as the rule of law.
NAA4U 10 years ago
HOW CAN IRREGULARITY OCCUR IN AREAS WHERE JOHN MAHAMA WON? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY?
NDC DID NOT BRING IN THOSE PINK SHEETS FROM THE NPP STRONGHOLDS BECAUSE THEY KNOW ERRORS CANNOT NULLIFY RESULTS.
ASSUMING, THER ... read full comment
HOW CAN IRREGULARITY OCCUR IN AREAS WHERE JOHN MAHAMA WON? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY?
NDC DID NOT BRING IN THOSE PINK SHEETS FROM THE NPP STRONGHOLDS BECAUSE THEY KNOW ERRORS CANNOT NULLIFY RESULTS.
ASSUMING, THERE WERE SUBSTANTIVE IRREGULARITIES IN THE 11,138 PINK SHEETS, THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED?
DIDNT YOU HEAR AFARI GYAN SAID HE WILLL NOT DO SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE LAW? THIS MEANS HE WILL APPLY THE COURT RULING ON ALL THE ELECTIONS FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE COUNTRY. THIS IS WHAT NPP DO NOT WANT TO HEAR BUT THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
MAN 10 years ago
One ,ay not agree with the article but one could see the reasons ascribed by the writer. These are people you could learn a lot from. More of your views on this forum would benefit readers.
One ,ay not agree with the article but one could see the reasons ascribed by the writer. These are people you could learn a lot from. More of your views on this forum would benefit readers.
KOO 10 years ago
If we want Ghana to move forward,then the truth must prevail.Ghana cannot be built by allowing wrongdoers to have their way.The court has limited the contentious issues to a few areas and therefore for this writer to come up ... read full comment
If we want Ghana to move forward,then the truth must prevail.Ghana cannot be built by allowing wrongdoers to have their way.The court has limited the contentious issues to a few areas and therefore for this writer to come up with this summary is just not correct.People just wish that the final decisions on this sort of court cases have gone to the incumbents and therefore it will repeat itself also in Ghana.What a funny argument.
THE AUDITOR 10 years ago
DR. SAS, Kofi Ata, et all, we need to change the character of debate on this platform in order to educate Ghanaians. Congratulations!
As a lay man as far as the law is concerned, I was particularly interested in your analy ... read full comment
DR. SAS, Kofi Ata, et all, we need to change the character of debate on this platform in order to educate Ghanaians. Congratulations!
As a lay man as far as the law is concerned, I was particularly interested in your analysis of how jurisprudence elsewhere tended to be respectful of 'agency interpretations' of the law under which they execute their mandate. In short, the SC is not meant to second guess the work of the EC or come in to 'correct' their activities post factum!
In this regard, it is instructive that the EC Chairman had explained from the onset that there are always irregularities in every election. He said for example if a polling station does not open for business by a stipulated time, that in itself constitutes a statutory violation.
He continued to explain that in their profession the key issue was to determine if any such violation or irregularity operated tothe disadvantage of or injure one or more of the contestants. To me, this is the crux of the matter. Even before we can get to evaluate the evidential value of what was presented to the judges, for the sc to go outside the operational understanding of the electoral statutes by the EC, would be more than damaging to the institutional infrastructure of an infant democracy. This is particularly potentially destructive in a situation where systematic fraud, collution, or deliberate malfeasance have not been asserted or proven, let alone any duty of preponderance established.
The judges were keen to hear from Dr. Afari-Djan as to his operational definition of over-voting. He explained that in a biometric environment, he would have to investigate the entries on the pink sheet, reconcile them with the voter register as well as the bvd machines before coming to such a conclusion. It was only after the facts are so established , that remedial measures could be considered. If the Court were to take a contrary view, ie agree with petitioners that 'on the face of the pink sheet' evidence was adequate, no electoral authority anywhere can ever declare results without auditing all "pink sheets". In other words the SC will henceforth become the EC as all our elections will have to end up in the court.
So, Dr. SAS, you went rather too far in my view. This case never crossed the common sense barrier. The nearest the petitioners got anywhere close was when they tried to ambush the court into believing that there were more than a duplicate serial number on some pink sheets in some five instances. Given the EC's explanation of how duplicate serial numbers were generated, proof of existence of even five instances of more than two serial numbers will surely lead some of us to smell a rat. Sadly, it is the discovery of duplicate serial numbers that led the petitioners into what is turning out to be a wild goose chase. The concept of annulment of votes in a court room rather than at a polling station must be repugnant to any constitution. Even more stinking alarming is the possibility that such annulment can be partially or selectively applied just because respondents did not file affidavits to compete and demonstrate that their annulments could exceed those of the petitioners. You don't need to be a lawyer to see the cuckooland in such an argument!!
We continue to keep our fingers crossed and hope that justice is done at the end of it all. The country may as yet benefit from this landmark case. Whatever lessons to be learnt in the long term, some of us will always wish that the hypes, hysteria and vilification of hard won reputations had not been so prominent prior to seeking judicial intervention.. Win or lose, that must be the biggest lesson of all for Ghanaians going forward.
Okonko Palm 10 years ago
Dr SAS's analysis is spot on.One important point is that the EC is a public body with a constitutional mandate to hold elections and to declare the results.Whatever the SC decision, the EC will be the institution which will i ... read full comment
Dr SAS's analysis is spot on.One important point is that the EC is a public body with a constitutional mandate to hold elections and to declare the results.Whatever the SC decision, the EC will be the institution which will implement it.
It is important to bear in mind that this is a petition based on judicial review of a public body and therefore the SC is limited as to what it can do.The court may not have the authority to give the petitioners the remedy they seek.At best the court will set aside the decision of the EC and order it to rerun the elections using literate officials.
As much as efforts have been made to determine irregularities it must be made clear that without the mens rea crime could not have been committed.That is the difference between errors defined as innocent mistake and irregularities defined as intentional mistakes come in.
If the petitioners had abandoned collusion between the ec and President Mahama then I think it will be difficult for them to have the reliefs they are seeking.
NAA4U 10 years ago
I LIKE THE ANALYSIS MADE IN THIS ARTICLE AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE JUDGES WILL DO.
GIVEN THAT THE PETITIONERS WOEFULLY FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE WOEFUL FAILURE IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM ... read full comment
I LIKE THE ANALYSIS MADE IN THIS ARTICLE AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE JUDGES WILL DO.
GIVEN THAT THE PETITIONERS WOEFULLY FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE WOEFUL FAILURE IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM AS THEY CLAIM.
THE JUDGES IN THEIR VERDICT WILL ADMIT ALL THE IRREGULARITIES AND BRING A BIG BUT WHICH WILL MARK THE END THAT THE ELECTION RESULTS AS DECLARED CANNOT BE ANNULLED. THE EVIDENCE IS SUBSTANTIVE ENOUGH AND IT IS ALSO NOT WEIGHTY ENOUGH
Obuabasa 10 years ago
What a bunch of crap! The concept of mens rea has no application in civil matters. How about actus reus? What the judges have to find, in pursuit of justice, is to determine from all the evidence whether the Petitioners hav ... read full comment
What a bunch of crap! The concept of mens rea has no application in civil matters. How about actus reus? What the judges have to find, in pursuit of justice, is to determine from all the evidence whether the Petitioners have been able to meet their burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. In my opinion, Petitioner's evidence is overwhelming and convincing. You agree or not!
Okonko Palm 10 years ago
The petitioners were trying to define crime in their petition.What they managed to show is the actus reus or the acts but they could not show any intent or mens rea which could buttress the petitioners claim of deliberate an ... read full comment
The petitioners were trying to define crime in their petition.What they managed to show is the actus reus or the acts but they could not show any intent or mens rea which could buttress the petitioners claim of deliberate and intentional manipulation to favor the respondents.
The argument therefore is limited to errors and clerical and administrative mistakes and problems with arithmetic.However such arguments must be linked either subjectively or objective with those errors and to show how it benefited the respondents
In administrative reviews the concept of natural justice plays a very important part in decision making.To selectively point to some areas and ask the court to declare you the president based on those limited areas will amount to a travesty and a breach of natural justice.If intent or mens rea was not part of the petition case then what do you link the irregularities with.Are you saying that the petitioners believed that they were genuine mistakes all right but they must benefit the petitioners all the same.
Odonkoshie 10 years ago
This is a most objective piece of article of the subject matter published on the ghanaweb. Thank you Doc!
This is a most objective piece of article of the subject matter published on the ghanaweb. Thank you Doc!
Mankind 10 years ago
Samuel, if you critically observe the Pink Slips that the NPP exhibited to the SC the sampling represented the 4-corners of Ghana. The Sampling also attested to the fact that there were intentional and systematic rigging by t ... read full comment
Samuel, if you critically observe the Pink Slips that the NPP exhibited to the SC the sampling represented the 4-corners of Ghana. The Sampling also attested to the fact that there were intentional and systematic rigging by the EC in favour of Mahamah. The truth is the truth ! the mood of the citizens should not be a good ground to tell the Law like it is!! The chairman of the EC admitted before the whole world that there were massive omissions, fraud and statutory irregularities in the discharge of his duties and obligations to the people of Ghana. In the nation where you live, WHERE DOES THE BUS STOP??
what a brilliant article. i salute you.
We wrote yesterday that the court will be doing disservice to Ghana if it takes from a section of the population, just because of the tribes they belong to their right to vote and be voted into office. The court should not gi ...
read full comment
Good article......SC will not change outcome. It is done; check the USA and Bush elections,. Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya etc.
Dr SAS, this is very perceptive analysis of the Elections Petition and the possible Supreme Court verdict. This is reasonably sensible analysis. There's a tremendous difference between having a 'brilliant case' and going abou ...
read full comment
Good morning my brother LONTO-BOY. I enjoyed reading Dr SAS's analysis and I could not agree with you both more. In fact, it's not only that Addison failed to prove any link of collusion between the EC and NDC/Mahama but he a ...
read full comment
Kofi, I disagree with Adjei-Sarfo's analysis and your endorsement. There are three grounds in law for mounting an election petition:
1) that the elections were not conducted in accordance with the rules and that not sticki ...
read full comment
Petero - What you are not taking into account is the fact that the petitioners didn't proof the significance of the IMOV's effect on the outcome of the elections and it's statistical validity and basis to overturn the declare ...
read full comment
I am sorry but widespread election fraud has not been proven.
Irregularities and incompetence... yes but then how does this differ from any other Ghanaian institution? Even the SC could not get the handover of the pink she ...
read full comment
We need to understand that there are administrative errors in every elections, if you go back into Kuffour's era pink sheets you will find those errors, even in an advance country like America errors were found. When you obs ...
read full comment
A defeatist's argument
Why are we prejudging the case when it is still in court? Is this analysis bordering on contempt? What if there is sufficient proof that the evasive Afari Djan received incentives in order to rig, manipulate the outcome and d ...
read full comment
"What if there is sufficient proof..." But that is exactly what Dr. sarfo is saying. There wasn't enough proof. Indeed, the 2nd petitioner admitted during cross-examination by Tsatsu that there was no evidence that the 1st re ...
read full comment
I am also learning little bits of LAW now.
How I wished that my father was alive to follow these proceedings. He liked "I put it to you that....".
Dr Adjei Sarfo has just very brilliantly educated folks like me.
Man ...
read full comment
'In determining the magnitude of any rigging, the court must review the entire record of the elections from all four corners of the country and determine that no rigging occurred in the areas where Akufo Addo won, and that al ...
read full comment
I also disagree with the writer that most likely the judges will look beyond the petitioners area of coverage and see what happened in other areas of the country. That will mean the judges scouting for other evidence to add t ...
read full comment
HOW CAN IRREGULARITY OCCUR IN AREAS WHERE JOHN MAHAMA WON? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY?
NDC DID NOT BRING IN THOSE PINK SHEETS FROM THE NPP STRONGHOLDS BECAUSE THEY KNOW ERRORS CANNOT NULLIFY RESULTS.
ASSUMING, THER ...
read full comment
One ,ay not agree with the article but one could see the reasons ascribed by the writer. These are people you could learn a lot from. More of your views on this forum would benefit readers.
If we want Ghana to move forward,then the truth must prevail.Ghana cannot be built by allowing wrongdoers to have their way.The court has limited the contentious issues to a few areas and therefore for this writer to come up ...
read full comment
DR. SAS, Kofi Ata, et all, we need to change the character of debate on this platform in order to educate Ghanaians. Congratulations!
As a lay man as far as the law is concerned, I was particularly interested in your analy ...
read full comment
Dr SAS's analysis is spot on.One important point is that the EC is a public body with a constitutional mandate to hold elections and to declare the results.Whatever the SC decision, the EC will be the institution which will i ...
read full comment
I LIKE THE ANALYSIS MADE IN THIS ARTICLE AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE JUDGES WILL DO.
GIVEN THAT THE PETITIONERS WOEFULLY FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE WOEFUL FAILURE IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM ...
read full comment
What a bunch of crap! The concept of mens rea has no application in civil matters. How about actus reus? What the judges have to find, in pursuit of justice, is to determine from all the evidence whether the Petitioners hav ...
read full comment
The petitioners were trying to define crime in their petition.What they managed to show is the actus reus or the acts but they could not show any intent or mens rea which could buttress the petitioners claim of deliberate an ...
read full comment
This is a most objective piece of article of the subject matter published on the ghanaweb. Thank you Doc!
Samuel, if you critically observe the Pink Slips that the NPP exhibited to the SC the sampling represented the 4-corners of Ghana. The Sampling also attested to the fact that there were intentional and systematic rigging by t ...
read full comment