Such balanced n intellectual piece. A lot to learn from it. We want more!!! ????
Such balanced n intellectual piece. A lot to learn from it. We want more!!! ????
Kojo T 10 years ago
Well done
Well done
ATO 10 years ago
SAMUEL OKUDZETO HAS DISGRACED HIMSELF FOREVER AND WILL BE RIDICULED BY FUTURE LAW STUDENTS WHO WILL STUDY THIS CASE
SAMUEL OKUDZETO HAS DISGRACED HIMSELF FOREVER AND WILL BE RIDICULED BY FUTURE LAW STUDENTS WHO WILL STUDY THIS CASE
Yaw Amofa 10 years ago
The problems NPP has had with Ghanaian election results is that, Ashanti region results are always first to be announced, and the margins of win are such that it easily gives them false hope of winning, but they forget that i ... read full comment
The problems NPP has had with Ghanaian election results is that, Ashanti region results are always first to be announced, and the margins of win are such that it easily gives them false hope of winning, but they forget that it is a nationwide vote. They should learn to win in all regions as JAK did.
Moree 10 years ago
Kofi, though your article is very well written and information, I tend to disagree with the conclusion you drew with Okudzeto's assertion. As you rightly pointed out in the concluding paragraphs of your article, the issues to ... read full comment
Kofi, though your article is very well written and information, I tend to disagree with the conclusion you drew with Okudzeto's assertion. As you rightly pointed out in the concluding paragraphs of your article, the issues to be determined were whether or not there were certain violations etc, and if so, did it affect the results. If you stick to these issues, how many justices found such violations? Was it 5 or 4? If you ignore your political lineage and try to be objective, there is no other conclusion than to realize that 5 justices found violations etc and only four did not. So draw your own conclusion now.
kululu 10 years ago
Ya! Moree, Kofi stated earlier that he isn't a lawyer. So he is only trying to construct a nice English for readers like him and myself to make the afternoon break worthwhile. Perhaps Mahama may recognise him and pick him for ... read full comment
Ya! Moree, Kofi stated earlier that he isn't a lawyer. So he is only trying to construct a nice English for readers like him and myself to make the afternoon break worthwhile. Perhaps Mahama may recognise him and pick him for an ambassadorial post or some deputy minister position
KThe investigator 10 years ago
You talk about whether there were violations as upheld by those justices, the question is did those justices explain to Ghanaians how those violations affected the outcome of the polls. Did those violations favour any partic ... read full comment
You talk about whether there were violations as upheld by those justices, the question is did those justices explain to Ghanaians how those violations affected the outcome of the polls. Did those violations favour any particular candidate for that matter? Were those presiding officers who caused the violations invited by the court to come and explain why they refused to sign those pink sheets as a constitutional obligation. Calling for a rerun was as useless an exercise to do, since it was not effect any change in the votes cast. If this petition had been laid before the elders in my village, they would have thrown it out within hours of wise deliberations.
Fiifi, Moree 10 years ago
That is why there is always chaos and bloodshed in your village because people think their grievances are ignored.
That is why there is always chaos and bloodshed in your village because people think their grievances are ignored.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Moree, Okudzeto claimed that the votes of Justices Doste and Baffoe-Bonnie made the judgement dicey and concluded that the final outcome should have been 5-4 in favour of the respondents. That is inaccurate because the nine J ... read full comment
Moree, Okudzeto claimed that the votes of Justices Doste and Baffoe-Bonnie made the judgement dicey and concluded that the final outcome should have been 5-4 in favour of the respondents. That is inaccurate because the nine Justices voted on every claim that was for determination. For this reason, one cannot conclude from the two Justices voting against some of the remaining three claims BUT on different claims that the overall effect should have been 5-4 in favour of the petitions. What the Justices did was to count the votes on each claim as I have done in the article. That is why Okudzeto was wrong. It was not simply, how many justices voted for and against the three claims but how many voted for and against each of the three.
Fiifi, Moree 10 years ago
There you are wrong again. What were the issues that the justices were to determine? So far as Dotse and Baffoe-Bonnie found some violations, it suggests that if you go by the issues set out by the justices themselves to dete ... read full comment
There you are wrong again. What were the issues that the justices were to determine? So far as Dotse and Baffoe-Bonnie found some violations, it suggests that if you go by the issues set out by the justices themselves to determine at the outset of the case, the two voted for the petitioners, simplicita. Do you agree or not?
You see, this is what give some credence to the corruptions rumours that some people are fueling in Ghana. The justices seemed to have been compeled to move away from the issues they set out themselves so that someone could be retained. How else could Baffoe-Bonnie say annuling votes from the areas where there were over-voting and/or voting without biometric verification wouldn't affect the result without a shred of evidence? Something went wrong and the truth will definately come out one day.
Paul Amuna 10 years ago
Rumour mongering, speculation, innuendo and the like are the dangerous precedents of anything that disturbs the peace. If as an educated person you harbour these thoughts and are prepared to convince yourself that your thinki ... read full comment
Rumour mongering, speculation, innuendo and the like are the dangerous precedents of anything that disturbs the peace. If as an educated person you harbour these thoughts and are prepared to convince yourself that your thinking is right, how do you expect the man and woman in the street to think and believe?
Are you suggesting that something untoward went on regarding the justices? And if you were to tow that line, you too where is your own EVIDENCE to support that? We need to be very careful what we say and how we get our point across. By all means believe what you wish to regarding the issues in this case and who you think won or should have won the case. After all we are all entitled to our views.
If you care to know, the chief justice of Indonesia has just been arrested on bribery charges relating to an election issue in that country. surely if you have any evidence of a similar occurrence in the case of Ghana, why don't you reveal it so that a similar action will be taken against any justice found to have fallen short?
Mind you they all agreed that there was no deliberate, collusive effort on the part of the EC and any of the parties to FAVOUR any candidate or party. Do you agree with at or not?
And if the violations were administrative errors on the part of EC officials, would you agree with me that in fact the person they did the disservice to was the original winner (the president) and not the loser (Nana Addo)? In other words, the one who stood to lose the most in this petition was the duly and properly elected president of Ghana, not the loser who sought to use the courts as his only leverage and hope to get into power.
Think what effect that would have had on the millions who truly, freely and willingly voted for him (the winner and president) were the ruling to favour the challenger.
Fiifi, Moree 10 years ago
you've already taken a stand that the winner won fairly and squarely so there is no point arguing with you. The only thing I want you to remember and try to answer for yourself is, why did the justices move away from the issu ... read full comment
you've already taken a stand that the winner won fairly and squarely so there is no point arguing with you. The only thing I want you to remember and try to answer for yourself is, why did the justices move away from the issues they set for themselves at the outset of the case?
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Fiifi, Moree, Okudzeto could never be spot on regarding how the nine Justices voted on the three issues. However, I believe I raised my concerns about the Justices not answering the two questions they set for themselves from ... read full comment
Fiifi, Moree, Okudzeto could never be spot on regarding how the nine Justices voted on the three issues. However, I believe I raised my concerns about the Justices not answering the two questions they set for themselves from the beginning. Let's even assume that the Justices posed the two questions at the end of the hearing and used them as the basis of their final decision. We still do not know what answers each Justices would have given to the two questions and could not have concluded that it would have been 5-4 in favour of the petitioners. It is obvious from the voting pattern that three would have answered yes and 4 going the opposite direction. It is not clear how Justices Doste and Baffo-Bonnie would have answered the two questions.
Fiifi, Moree 10 years ago
Kofi, from your own reading of the written judgements of the justices, how many of them found statutory violations, irregularities, malpractices, etc. with the election results as declared? Judge for yourself if the answer is ... read full comment
Kofi, from your own reading of the written judgements of the justices, how many of them found statutory violations, irregularities, malpractices, etc. with the election results as declared? Judge for yourself if the answer isn't 5. Dotes and Baffoe-Bonnie both found some of these violations. Add them to the three others and tell less than 5 justices found violations that answered the first issue they set out to determine. I rest my case here for the general public o judge for themselves.
Papa Yaw 10 years ago
Okeyi
Okeyi
Papa Yaw 10 years ago
How
How
Yaw Ohemeng 10 years ago
Kofi, I must commend you for being the first person, probably with sympathies towards the respondents, who has attempted to rebut Lawyer Okudzeto based on substance but not emotions. Even in this quest you failed to be non-em ... read full comment
Kofi, I must commend you for being the first person, probably with sympathies towards the respondents, who has attempted to rebut Lawyer Okudzeto based on substance but not emotions. Even in this quest you failed to be non-emotive in your description of Mr Okudzeto’s views as mischievous. If you, a non-lawyer, found it necessary to critique the four dissenting justices, and considered that non-mischievous, why do you label a presentation by a lawyer, who could easily qualify as a Supreme Court Judge, mischievous?
There are two things that you did not state in your article to form the bases of your conclusions. You never stated whether you listened to Mr Sam Okudzeto yourself or picked the story from the Press. You also did not state whether you have read all the 588-page judgement or that you relied on the summary by Justice Atuguba.
Mr Okudzeto’s presentation was wide-ranging and he covered the subject of your article relating to Article 63(3) as well. He also dwelt on the meaning of ‘shall’ in Article 49(3) and situated it in the context of Ghana’s electoral history.
His criticism of the statistics of the verdict was more of a question he posed as to how Justice Atuguba arrived at his summary. It is this which has generated much controversy but no one has bothered to take him on based on the substance. He was clear that four Justices ruled in favour of the Respondents. He was also clear that three Justices ruled in favour of the Petitioners. He then said the situation becomes dicey when you come to Justices Dotse and Baffoe-Bonnie. He said it was clear that Dotse, JSC upheld claims relating to over-voting and absence of presiding officers’ signatures. For Baffoe-Bonnie, JSC, he upheld both over-voting and voting without biometric verification. Rather curiously, however, and this is where Mr Okudzeto took the court to task, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said that some of the results with regards to over-voting had been successfully rebutted by the Respondents and that the residual was not enough to affect the overall results. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie held so without giving any numbers. This is what Mr Sam Okudzeto criticised that, without numbers, Justice Atuguba could not have concluded that the net effect was that the petition was dismissed. So he posed the question: why was it 5-4 in favour of the respondents and not the other way round?
If anyone is to take Mr Okudzeto on, at least the numbers involved (derived from Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s ruling) should be forthcoming. Without that, you have not touched on his argument at all and his presentation is not mischievous. You live in the UK and you know that the tabloid press even use more unpalatable language to describe court rulings and the heavens do not cave in. If we say we are building an open democratic society, such criticism of public institutions, however erroneous or odious, should be welcome. It is better than the culture of silence.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Yaw, I did say in the article that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie misdirected himself by claiming that the numbers involved were irrelevant without actually indicating the numbers involved.
I am still of the view that Okudzeto is w ... read full comment
Yaw, I did say in the article that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie misdirected himself by claiming that the numbers involved were irrelevant without actually indicating the numbers involved.
I am still of the view that Okudzeto is wrong because of the voting system adopted by the Justices. That is, they voted on every claim and tallied the votes for each. In the three claims each was 5-4 in favour of the respondents.
Unfortunately, what Okudzeto did was to ask the question, how many of the nine Justices voted for and against the three claims and he got 5-4 in favour of the petitioners. That is misleading because Justices Doste and Baffoe-Bonnie voted in favour of the petitioners on different areas as I showed in the article.
Yaw Ohemeng 10 years ago
If you have made the same observation regarding Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, you probably should understand where Mr Okudzeto was coming from.
Besides the Court set two issues for determination on the basis that EVERY INFRACTION ... read full comment
If you have made the same observation regarding Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, you probably should understand where Mr Okudzeto was coming from.
Besides the Court set two issues for determination on the basis that EVERY INFRACTION is an INFRACTION: it did not matter the form if they were held to be present. It was therefore misleading for them to abandon those to take up an assumed claim by the petitioners. The petitioners themselves said they had broken the infractions down to 24 categories to aid the court and not fight the case based on categorisations. They also said that some of the sheets contained all the infractions. Why should the court re-state the matters to be determined differently for what they set out to do? It all boiled to Justice Atuguba's giveaway statement that the court was striving to sustain the results declared in the public interest. This was their position even before they saw a single piece of evidence. If that was the inclination of the court, why take the nation through a tension-filled eight months?
Paul Amuna 10 years ago
I simply cannot understand why Yaw insists on defending Okudjeto's position which apart from its weakness on intellectual grounds, is dangerous, misleading and quite frankly disgraceful, coming from a member of the bar of suc ... read full comment
I simply cannot understand why Yaw insists on defending Okudjeto's position which apart from its weakness on intellectual grounds, is dangerous, misleading and quite frankly disgraceful, coming from a member of the bar of such repute.
When will yaw accept that this so-called "academic exercise" on the part of the Danquah Institute and Okudjeto was flawed, biased and lacking in the sort of balance that you would need for any serious and credible academic and critical analysis of the SC judgment in this case.
The long and short of it is that the matter was concluded at the court and the verdict as called by the president of the court (his own error and all) was the correct consensus position of the justices despite their individual differences.
If we need to have an intellectual discourse, fine, but such discourse and the analysis and conclusions drawn have to be accurate, precise and based on the facts and not a re-invention.
Indeed you cannot get water out of a combination of nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon. That is simply not possible and it seems to me that was what Okudjeto was trying to do. You cannot defend that because it goes against the fundamental laws of matter and chemistry!
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Yaw, I only challenged Okudzeto on the 5-4 in favour of the petitioners but share his concerns about the deviation by the Justices regarding the two main issues they set out to find answers to. In fact, the failure of the Jus ... read full comment
Yaw, I only challenged Okudzeto on the 5-4 in favour of the petitioners but share his concerns about the deviation by the Justices regarding the two main issues they set out to find answers to. In fact, the failure of the Justices to answer the two main questions as they made the whole to believe from the onset was one of the two main issues for discussion but the Okudzeto 5-4 in favour of the petition was a coincidence that I took advantage of the time to air my views.
Nkobesie 10 years ago
Supports cannot let go of the fact that their side lost the case in court. Luckily for the good people of this country,Sam Okudzeto never made it to the bench! We all heard the 'venom' he spewed out him when he was invited to ... read full comment
Supports cannot let go of the fact that their side lost the case in court. Luckily for the good people of this country,Sam Okudzeto never made it to the bench! We all heard the 'venom' he spewed out him when he was invited to participate in peace-building forum in the days leaing up to the SC`s verdict. Is this an individual we should pay attention to?
Deliberately trying to stir up trouble is not the appropriate way to counter "the culture of silence", whatever that is supposed to mean,giving the fact that we have practised open govt in this country for more than two decades since 1992!
Sankofa 10 years ago
Yaw Ohemeng, the SC decision was based on each of the 6 issues of the petition.
There was a majority ruling against each single one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. Hence the SC unanimously threw out the petition. ... read full comment
Yaw Ohemeng, the SC decision was based on each of the 6 issues of the petition.
There was a majority ruling against each single one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. Hence the SC unanimously threw out the petition.
It is mischievous for Okudzeto to even suggest that 5 judges ruled in favour of the petitioners and 4 against. In fact, those judges who accepted the petitioners arguments on some of the issues did not grant the relief they were seeking namely to award the election to Nana Addo. Instead they ruled that the votes in affected areas be annulled and the election be re-run in those areas alone. Nana Addo and his petitioners did not seek that.
Paul Amuna 10 years ago
Kofi, I hope what you have started here would encourage academics and students to seek credible, neutral and critical reviews of this landmark case, away from all partisan biases and analysis for the future and to guide the t ... read full comment
Kofi, I hope what you have started here would encourage academics and students to seek credible, neutral and critical reviews of this landmark case, away from all partisan biases and analysis for the future and to guide the teaching of constitutional law and electoral law. I also hope in the process, that deductions made will guide aspects of our constitutional review of electoral law and processes for the better. Here are my own views in response to your though provoking questions:
1. Whether you rely on Article 63(3) of the Ghana constitution or Constitutional Instrument 75, the fact of the matter is that going by the original ballots and vote count, the president earned %50% plus 1. The petitioners did not dispute that anywhere in their arguments.
In applying CI 75, the petitioner sought the annulment of votes and their deduction (from both candidates) to arrive at a new 50% plus 1 and declare their candidate the winner. In their attempt to do this, they completely ignored some fundamental provisions of the constitution in respect of universal franchise and the 'denial of individuals with the vote (Article 42) which though not a primary subject of this particular article, you and I have argued it in the past as important in the overall scheme of things.
With respect of the rulings of the justices and their arguments in support of their various positions, I find it hard to understand the basis of ordering a re-run ONLY in the areas where the petitioner focused their petition.
Surely the two narrowed areas for consideration of the petition in terms of violations etc. and their impact on the outcome of the elections cannot be said to have affected ONLY the areas chosen by the petitioners? A more reasonable, fair, appropriate and constitutionally sound thing to do if the dissenting justices were seriously seeking the truth would have been to argue that ".. therefore for the sake of clarity and to determine the import of the said violations was to ask the independent auditor to examine ALL pink sheets in the presidential poll to establish how widespread such violations were, and to make their rulings / recommendations on that basis.
This is particularly of importance in respect of the two justices who sought not to order a re-run in those "affected" polling stations, but to seek to deduct votes and then went on to recalculate the share of the votes, declaring Nana Addo the winner of the polls. It is the work of such justices which allow people like Mr Sam Okudjeto to have the confidence to do the type of weak, porous and quite unhelpful analysis that is the subject of this article of yours.
It is my considered view that if the dissenting justices seriously wanted to uphold our constitution and to seek to demonstrate fairness, honesty and integrity, they should have argued strongly that the widespread nature of the violations etc. affecting a broader range of constituencies than the ones presented by the petitioners WARRANTED a re-run of the entire presidential poll.
Much as I personally would have disagreed with them, I would have respect their decision and believed them to be true patriots seeking truth and justice both in spirit and in law. That they failed to do so in my view is an abrogation of their responsibilities. You have also wondered how they came to their decisions having failed in their arguments to convince you of the basis of their rulings.
They have failed all of us and it goes to the heart of my own unknown-unknowns when you raised the subject some time back, using Donald Rumsfeld's analogy. To answer your worry, my unknown-unknown here is that the rulings in these cases and the reasons given were not based on the law (though they would like us to believe otherwise) but their own personal (and probably preferred)considerations, make that whatever you will of it.
Just as those who argue in the opposite direction would say that the four justices who constantly voted against ALL the petitioners' case were doing the same, I happen to believe that those justices who voted in favour of the respondents were more in tune with the sense of what I personally have thought all along should have been the way to proceed (but these are just my own opinions based on my understanding of the constitutional provisions and electoral laws and their associated instruments).
2. I would also suggest that lawyers, constitutional experts and students alike read each ruling very carefully and in some detail. When you read the rulings of particularly the two dissenting justices who constantly voted in favour of the petition, and those two who actually did some sums and decided to reallocate votes and in their ruling recommended Nana Addo be declared winner (with a revised 50% plus) of the polls, quite apart from the illogical basis of basing their calculations of violations and limiting their analysis and conclusions ONLY to the polling stations and pink sheets presented by the petitioners, they essentially restated what the petitioners had stated in their own petition, including the calculations and the basis of their analyses.
This is not only shocking to me. but could be a very dangerous precedent for the future. To me, this is an unknown unknown. In other words, how and why did they come to this very position and what motivated them to do so? Is this their understanding of the law and the constitution and how they interpret it int his case?
Why did they not undertake a wider analysis of the data which after all is available, and why did they have to do the calculation themselves and not ask that an INDEPENDENT body undertake such analysis to buttress their point about significant violations which affected the results. And were that to be the case (which it is not in my view), what authority do they have as justices to redo the calculations and declare Akufo Addo the winner of the polls?
Wouldn't the sound thing to do have been to say that the violations were so widespread, the only fair thing to do was to order a rerun of the presidential poll? What authority did those justices have (according to our constitution) to deduct votes and to reallocate votes - a function ONLY of the electoral commission? How could they be allowed to get away with such extreme and ridiculous arguments?
3. It is these issues that I hope REAL academics worth their salt would scrutinise and provide balanced and solid arguments on, not the childish and foolish arguments advanced by people like Sam Okudjeto.
We need critical analysis of all the justices' rulings. We need balanced panels to examine these in some detail in academic seminars and workshops. I would even suggest a conference with invitations to include international constitutional and legal experts to examine Ghana's supreme court ruling on the 2012 presidential elections.
That would be a more credible and serious approach to an ACADEMIC EXERCISE, not the partisan, biased, weak and childish process organised by the Danquah Institute who in my opinion are not worth taking seriously anymore; and where ONLY individuals with a particular political leaning and "academic views" formed the panel to provide some "intellectual insights" on the ruling.
4. By the way Kofi, I have a different take on Article 57 (5) as it relates to the president being summoned to court in this election petition case: You notice that the article refers to CIVIL or CRIMINAL prosecution and NOT to CONSTITUTIONAL reasons for taking the president to court.
As you know, a president can be "impeached" on the basis of constitutional violations and other related abuse of his office etc. and I would argue that since the electoral petition was at the heart of examining and testing our constitution, then it was right and proper that he was brought to court as a respondent since he stood to gain from something that bothers on our constitution, and for which he was a party i.e. as a presidential candidate.
This summons is NOT an affront on his person, his office or his own performance, but an investigation of the process by which he got into that office. I don't believe we disagree on this, but I only commented on it because you were using it as an analogy in respect of the interpretation of the word "SHALL" by the justices in their interpretation of CI 75.
Whatever the case, I agree with you that at least some of the justices may not have done any particular good to our constitution and there is a need for proper and detailed intellectual scrutiny, discourse and new thinking to help with the teaching of law, political science, journalism and issues around electoral processes which will go far beyond our shores and influence similar issues elsewhere in Africa and other continents.
By the way, evidence that our recent elections are already having an effect can be seen in Guinea where the opposition refused to endorse the elections even before the votes were counted and accused the other side of massive fraud in the polls.
My fear and worry is that we could see this happen in Ghana at the next elections, unless among other things, all the dissenting voices, nay sayers and those foolishly fomenting doubt such as Okudjeto and their media surrogates continue to seek to do what they do, and politicians refuse to see our independent electoral commission for what it is, and to support it in the improvement of its functions and service to all of us and our democracy.
THE AUDITOR 10 years ago
Kofi, this time I beg to differ. It is not the place of a Supreme Court judge to pronounce himself on the whole election, beyond the issues laid out for adjudication.
The pink sheets brought to court were selective and th ... read full comment
Kofi, this time I beg to differ. It is not the place of a Supreme Court judge to pronounce himself on the whole election, beyond the issues laid out for adjudication.
The pink sheets brought to court were selective and there was no way of ascertaining that 50% plus one would not be achieved if an audit of the universe of polling stations is properly carried out.. BESIDES THE SC OR A JUDGE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE OF THE EC. ADMINISTRATIVELY, THE EC HAD DETERMINED THAT IF ANY INFRACTION WAS LIKELY TO IMPACT THE OVERALL OUTCOME, THERE WOULD BE RERUN IN THOSE OFFENDING POLLING STATIONS.
This, in my view is the crux of the matter and provided succor to the dissenting judges who given the nature of the woolly numbers, were not in a position to determine whether the president fell short of the winning mark.
Perhaps, the overall decision was more political than first meets the eye. The wordings in many of these judgments implied that they had foreknowledge of whether the individual judge was siding with majority or the minority on each issue. So, if was a judge and I want to provide a face saving avenue for the petitioners, I would agree to annul, knowing fully well that it had no effect overall.
The most important point many of us are missing is that the three consistent judges on the minority never agreed to add or subtract votes. So when the word should not be annul but rather cancel election at the polling stations concerned. So, there is in fact a unanimity 9-0 not to annul votes anywhere.
Perhaps, this is the main takeaway in this landmark case!!
NPP Disillusioned Desperadoes 10 years ago
Even in my opinion as a legal lay person, this matter will never end in any convincing acceptable conclusion even if 'super' academics (individuals/experts/specialists well-versed in legal, constitutional, electoral and rela ... read full comment
Even in my opinion as a legal lay person, this matter will never end in any convincing acceptable conclusion even if 'super' academics (individuals/experts/specialists well-versed in legal, constitutional, electoral and related matters) applied their brains over any period of time.
Why this assertion?
1. This petition was premised on selective data. Data was taken from predomonantly locations that favoured Mahama.
2. The international community (independent)observers had concluded that the elections, were overwhelmingly conducted fairly without any reports of a voter being refused the right to cast their vote (which were correctly counted in full view of the public at the polling stations without any protesttaions from and party rep).
3. Would it have been doing moral (or even constitutional)justice to the electorate to cancel/annul votes they had genuinely cast just because of negligence (?) mischief(?)irresponsibility (?) of the presiding officers not appending their signatures?
4. Palpably BAD FAITH, dishonesty, and selfish motives propelled the NPP execs to petition the Supreme Court. Why didint NPP simply ask for a recount of all votes (assuming it was feasible - affordable- for the national purse).
5. NPP was seeking perfection in an imperfect world. Unattainable!!
Better organisation next time around! Just wait patiently for 2016 and hope NPP will learn from its numerous mistakes (overconfidence, lookingdown on and insulting whole non-Akan/Twi speaking communities before, during and after the elections.
Vuvuzela 10 years ago
As concisely as you have put it, these are my views, too. There is no need for lengthy dissection and analyses of a wasteful petition, which from the start, sprung out of premises abandoned one after the other as a matter of ... read full comment
As concisely as you have put it, these are my views, too. There is no need for lengthy dissection and analyses of a wasteful petition, which from the start, sprung out of premises abandoned one after the other as a matter of course.
Looking at facts, it seems as though NPP had a preconceived scheme to arrive at the decision of going to court in event winning the presidential election eludes them, so initial subterfuges like reckless inattention or deliberate refusal to sign the IN-famous pink sheets were put in place.
G. K. Berko 10 years ago
I, ultimately, see a common end to the assessment you and Kofi made. That is, the Justices ruled for the Respondents, Period!
I also thought that Sam Okudzeto was disingenuous and playing to his crowd. But if we were to ... read full comment
I, ultimately, see a common end to the assessment you and Kofi made. That is, the Justices ruled for the Respondents, Period!
I also thought that Sam Okudzeto was disingenuous and playing to his crowd. But if we were to finickly dissect the case, the general protest of the Election results, we ought to consider the fact that similar errors, as the Petitioners presented, could have occurred in their strongholds to the disadvantage of the Respondents. But the Petitioners only selected their evidence from the NDC strongholds.
So, assuming the case was appealed and the NDC requested for reviewing the Results in the areas where the NPP won, how would the dissenting Justices rule?
It is to prevent that protracted review that, at worst, the dissenting Justices should have suggested a total annulment and re-run of the Elections, if they truly believed the errors were significant in deciding the winner.
We should let the case retire into the annals of Judicial History and only revisited for lessons to improve our electoral process.
What Okudzeto et al. are doing is simply placating their disappointed supporters to retain the latter's support for future Elections.
However, in doing so, they are recklessly setting their followers up for rejecting the verdict. Tarzan and Arthur Kennedy ought to be heeded by the NPP.
Long Live Ghana!!!
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Paul, your addition enriches the debate. There were many issues that for time and space I decided to leave out of the article. For example, why did the Justices write individual decisions instead of one of them writing the ma ... read full comment
Paul, your addition enriches the debate. There were many issues that for time and space I decided to leave out of the article. For example, why did the Justices write individual decisions instead of one of them writing the majority decision and another the minority decision? I believe the controversy over the judgement is due to the fact that each of the nine had to write their own judgement. Yes, this judgement will be debated for years to come.
Ebo Mends, New York 10 years ago
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count sever ... read full comment
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count several decisions with separate justifications. Since I am not a lawyer (a la Kofi Ata)I wonder which of the numerous basis (bases?) used by their separate decisions will be cited in future. Do we accept all the majority decisons, the 5-4 especially as the correct interpretations of the reliefs dismissed by the SC or the individual reasons given by the Justices. In a very polorized political society like ours, with some very crude instincts,
(pardon the expression), clarity is very, very important. As things stand now, any Tom, Dick and Harry can cite nine different reasons/justifications/basis to support their arguments on this petition. I know that even minority decisions very often are also cited to back up legal arguments. But is it not the majority decision that is enforced because that becomes the accepted law?
I had mentioned elsewhere that there were 5 Justices on the SC who wanted a re-run of some sort, unfortunately, as you also stated in your piece here, the 5 could not agree on one particular relief upon which a re-run should be based. How Justices Baffoe-Bonney and Dotse "swerved" each other in different directions was just amazing.
The other question is, would there have been a re-run if one of the reliefs sought had garnered the 5 votes required to make it a mjority? If the argument is that each relief was separate and standing on its own, how could a 5-4 decision for a re-run would not have triggered a re-run?. I leave that to the better legal brains - perhaps Dr. Yaw Ohemeng and Mr. Paul Amuna could take a crack at this. And what do you think, Kofi?
zakuus 10 years ago
Hi kofi, I dislike it when you said lawyer okudgeto 'fooled' his audience. If such an academic exercise is reduced to fooolishness, I wonder what this your equally articulated academic analysis SHALL be refered to.
Hi kofi, I dislike it when you said lawyer okudgeto 'fooled' his audience. If such an academic exercise is reduced to fooolishness, I wonder what this your equally articulated academic analysis SHALL be refered to.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
zakuus, the statement "Okudzeto fooled his audience" means he deceived them and not reducing the academic exercise to foolishness.I respect him even if I disagreed with his views on this matter and would not insult him for ex ... read full comment
zakuus, the statement "Okudzeto fooled his audience" means he deceived them and not reducing the academic exercise to foolishness.I respect him even if I disagreed with his views on this matter and would not insult him for expressing his views.
Kobena 10 years ago
ofi,
At least one of the dissenting justices, Anin-Yeboah had this to say, "I would therefore grant the relief (i) in view of the evidence led and decline to grant relief (ii). I, however, as consequential order, order the s ... read full comment
ofi,
At least one of the dissenting justices, Anin-Yeboah had this to say, "I would therefore grant the relief (i) in view of the evidence led and decline to grant relief (ii). I, however, as consequential order, order the second respondent to organize an election to elect a president as I cannot rely on an election which was seriously fraught with all the malpractices, irregularities and statutory violations proved in this petition to declare the first petitioner as having been duly elected."
So not all of them asked for "re-run at the affected polling stations", as your article seems to imply. I suspect those who asked for re-run at the affected polling stations deduced that the results that were declared at those stations clearly did not make sense, with the "clerical and trasnpositional errors".
Secondly, the nine justices let themselves and the people of Ghana down rather badly, by not pointing out Justice Atuguba's arithmetical error there and then, if indeed they all sat down and agreed on what he was to read to the whole world.
Thirdly, they goofed very badly by not sticking to their own ruling about i)infractions and, ii) whether those infractions affected the results of the elections. I did not listen to Mr Okudjeto's speech, but I think that was part of his concern.
I guess that can pass of in law but certainly in Chemistry you cannot prepare sulphuric acid in the lab and test for sodium hydroxide!
Yaw Ohemeng 10 years ago
I will even state your last bit on Sulphuric acid even better. You cannot prepare sulphuric acid and test for hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen. That you cannot test for the constituent elements!
I will even state your last bit on Sulphuric acid even better. You cannot prepare sulphuric acid and test for hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen. That you cannot test for the constituent elements!
Kobena 10 years ago
Thanks, Yaw,
You put it even better. We need to begin to demand that our elected and appointed state officials do things properly. The kind of incompetence and sloppiness we see in EVERY aspect of our national life do not be ... read full comment
Thanks, Yaw,
You put it even better. We need to begin to demand that our elected and appointed state officials do things properly. The kind of incompetence and sloppiness we see in EVERY aspect of our national life do not belong to the 21st century!
Whatever 10 years ago
I agree with the last of half of the article but the first half is problematic. The Justices of the Supreme Court from the onset set up jurisdiction covering 11,000 polling station so how could they have given a sweeping verd ... read full comment
I agree with the last of half of the article but the first half is problematic. The Justices of the Supreme Court from the onset set up jurisdiction covering 11,000 polling station so how could they have given a sweeping verdict which affects polling stations outside that jurisdiction? On what basis? It is not for the supreme court to declare someone presidents so the factor of 50%+1 is a non-starter in any consideration. The Court can only uphold or set aside what is presented before them so the dissenting Justices were on target not to have overstepped its jurisdiction to order a rerun of the whole presidential votes.
Ebo Mends, New York 10 years ago
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count severa ... read full comment
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count several decisions with separate justifications. Since I am not a lawyer (a la Kofi Ata)I wonder which of the numerous basis (bases?) used by their separate decisions will be cited in future. Do we accept all the majority decisons, the 5-4 especially as the correct interpretations of the reliefs dismissed by the SC or the individual reasons given by the Justices. In a very polorized political society like ours, with some very crude instincts,
(pardon the expression), clarity is very, very important. As things stand now, any Tom, Dick and Harry can cite nine different reasons/justifications/basis to support their arguments on this petition. I know that even minority decisions very often are also cited to back up legal arguments. But is it not the majority decision that is enforced because that becomes the accepted law?
I had mentioned elsewhere that there were 5 Justices on the SC who wanted a re-run of some sort, unfortunately, as you also stated in your piece here, the 5 could not agree on one particular relief upon which a re-run should be based. How Justices Baffoe-Bonney and Dotse "swerved" each other in different directions was just amazing.
The other question is, would there have been a re-run if one of the reliefs sought had garnered the 5 votes required to make it a mjority? If the argument is that each relief was separate and standing on its own, how could a 5-4 decision for a re-run would not have triggered a re-run?. I leave that to the better legal brains - perhaps Dr. Yaw Ohemeng and Mr. Paul Amuna could take a crack at this. And what do you think, Kofi?
Wiafe 10 years ago
The justices all had to "danced around" to please their political masters--especially with Kuffour's diabolical packing of the court
The verdict was "political" and they "couched" their statements with legalese to confuse ... read full comment
The justices all had to "danced around" to please their political masters--especially with Kuffour's diabolical packing of the court
The verdict was "political" and they "couched" their statements with legalese to confuse the citizens.
The petition was bogus--but they couldn't dismiss it out-right because it will negatively impact the NPP justices--so they created the freak show hearing as way to give themselves an out.
That's why the Chief Justice took her herself out--and appointed Atuguba to be the one to "bell the cat".
So you guys can analyze all you want--but it was a political decision and one that was deemed best not to cause mayhem.
Akuffo Addo is a wicked son who must not be allowed to run for any national office. His ambitions almost wrecked the nation--we should thank the SC court for managing to "handle" the "hot potato" to cool down tensions.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago
Ebo, no one knows how the nine Justices would have answered the two questions they set out from the beginning of the hearing if they had used that format at the end of the hearing. From the voting patterns of the nine, I can ... read full comment
Ebo, no one knows how the nine Justices would have answered the two questions they set out from the beginning of the hearing if they had used that format at the end of the hearing. From the voting patterns of the nine, I can guess that 4 would have answered no to both questions and 3 would have answered yes to both. That leaves Justices Doste and Baffoe-Bonnie who I am unable to guess how they would have answered the two questions. Even if this format was used, Okudzeto could not concluded that the final outcome would have been 5-4 in favour of the petitioners.
Jay 10 years ago
Another brilliant analysis from a non partisan analyst . Love your portion on Efo Sam. The guy was completely confused and out of order and sounded so disingenuous that my respect for him reduced by a whooping 50 percent. Sa ... read full comment
Another brilliant analysis from a non partisan analyst . Love your portion on Efo Sam. The guy was completely confused and out of order and sounded so disingenuous that my respect for him reduced by a whooping 50 percent. Sam has an attitude of dropping how long he has been around in ROtary and at the Bar to befuddle his audience. This is an old trick from an old fox that did not wash this time.
manyidohama 10 years ago
Five of the judges were of the view that there were violations. Can you count?
Five of the judges were of the view that there were violations. Can you count?
Ebo Mends, New York 10 years ago
Manyidohama, Please tell me on which of the six reliefs did they all 5 vote together? May be it is you who cannot count.
Manyidohama, Please tell me on which of the six reliefs did they all 5 vote together? May be it is you who cannot count.
Sankofa 10 years ago
Kofi Ata, if the judges had ordered a run-off between Mahama and Nana Addo, it would have meant an annullment of all votes cast. This would have been a bigger infringement of the right to vote enshrined in the constitution.
... read full comment
Kofi Ata, if the judges had ordered a run-off between Mahama and Nana Addo, it would have meant an annullment of all votes cast. This would have been a bigger infringement of the right to vote enshrined in the constitution.
Justice Atuguba made it absolutely clear that the constitution ensured that the right to vote was not to be violated.
Such balanced n intellectual piece. A lot to learn from it. We want more!!! ????
Well done
SAMUEL OKUDZETO HAS DISGRACED HIMSELF FOREVER AND WILL BE RIDICULED BY FUTURE LAW STUDENTS WHO WILL STUDY THIS CASE
The problems NPP has had with Ghanaian election results is that, Ashanti region results are always first to be announced, and the margins of win are such that it easily gives them false hope of winning, but they forget that i ...
read full comment
Kofi, though your article is very well written and information, I tend to disagree with the conclusion you drew with Okudzeto's assertion. As you rightly pointed out in the concluding paragraphs of your article, the issues to ...
read full comment
Ya! Moree, Kofi stated earlier that he isn't a lawyer. So he is only trying to construct a nice English for readers like him and myself to make the afternoon break worthwhile. Perhaps Mahama may recognise him and pick him for ...
read full comment
You talk about whether there were violations as upheld by those justices, the question is did those justices explain to Ghanaians how those violations affected the outcome of the polls. Did those violations favour any partic ...
read full comment
That is why there is always chaos and bloodshed in your village because people think their grievances are ignored.
Moree, Okudzeto claimed that the votes of Justices Doste and Baffoe-Bonnie made the judgement dicey and concluded that the final outcome should have been 5-4 in favour of the respondents. That is inaccurate because the nine J ...
read full comment
There you are wrong again. What were the issues that the justices were to determine? So far as Dotse and Baffoe-Bonnie found some violations, it suggests that if you go by the issues set out by the justices themselves to dete ...
read full comment
Rumour mongering, speculation, innuendo and the like are the dangerous precedents of anything that disturbs the peace. If as an educated person you harbour these thoughts and are prepared to convince yourself that your thinki ...
read full comment
you've already taken a stand that the winner won fairly and squarely so there is no point arguing with you. The only thing I want you to remember and try to answer for yourself is, why did the justices move away from the issu ...
read full comment
Fiifi, Moree, Okudzeto could never be spot on regarding how the nine Justices voted on the three issues. However, I believe I raised my concerns about the Justices not answering the two questions they set for themselves from ...
read full comment
Kofi, from your own reading of the written judgements of the justices, how many of them found statutory violations, irregularities, malpractices, etc. with the election results as declared? Judge for yourself if the answer is ...
read full comment
Okeyi
How
Kofi, I must commend you for being the first person, probably with sympathies towards the respondents, who has attempted to rebut Lawyer Okudzeto based on substance but not emotions. Even in this quest you failed to be non-em ...
read full comment
Yaw, I did say in the article that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie misdirected himself by claiming that the numbers involved were irrelevant without actually indicating the numbers involved.
I am still of the view that Okudzeto is w ...
read full comment
If you have made the same observation regarding Justice Baffoe-Bonnie, you probably should understand where Mr Okudzeto was coming from.
Besides the Court set two issues for determination on the basis that EVERY INFRACTION ...
read full comment
I simply cannot understand why Yaw insists on defending Okudjeto's position which apart from its weakness on intellectual grounds, is dangerous, misleading and quite frankly disgraceful, coming from a member of the bar of suc ...
read full comment
Yaw, I only challenged Okudzeto on the 5-4 in favour of the petitioners but share his concerns about the deviation by the Justices regarding the two main issues they set out to find answers to. In fact, the failure of the Jus ...
read full comment
Supports cannot let go of the fact that their side lost the case in court. Luckily for the good people of this country,Sam Okudzeto never made it to the bench! We all heard the 'venom' he spewed out him when he was invited to ...
read full comment
Yaw Ohemeng, the SC decision was based on each of the 6 issues of the petition.
There was a majority ruling against each single one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. Hence the SC unanimously threw out the petition. ...
read full comment
Kofi, I hope what you have started here would encourage academics and students to seek credible, neutral and critical reviews of this landmark case, away from all partisan biases and analysis for the future and to guide the t ...
read full comment
Kofi, this time I beg to differ. It is not the place of a Supreme Court judge to pronounce himself on the whole election, beyond the issues laid out for adjudication.
The pink sheets brought to court were selective and th ...
read full comment
Even in my opinion as a legal lay person, this matter will never end in any convincing acceptable conclusion even if 'super' academics (individuals/experts/specialists well-versed in legal, constitutional, electoral and rela ...
read full comment
As concisely as you have put it, these are my views, too. There is no need for lengthy dissection and analyses of a wasteful petition, which from the start, sprung out of premises abandoned one after the other as a matter of ...
read full comment
I, ultimately, see a common end to the assessment you and Kofi made. That is, the Justices ruled for the Respondents, Period!
I also thought that Sam Okudzeto was disingenuous and playing to his crowd. But if we were to ...
read full comment
Paul, your addition enriches the debate. There were many issues that for time and space I decided to leave out of the article. For example, why did the Justices write individual decisions instead of one of them writing the ma ...
read full comment
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count sever ...
read full comment
Hi kofi, I dislike it when you said lawyer okudgeto 'fooled' his audience. If such an academic exercise is reduced to fooolishness, I wonder what this your equally articulated academic analysis SHALL be refered to.
zakuus, the statement "Okudzeto fooled his audience" means he deceived them and not reducing the academic exercise to foolishness.I respect him even if I disagreed with his views on this matter and would not insult him for ex ...
read full comment
ofi,
At least one of the dissenting justices, Anin-Yeboah had this to say, "I would therefore grant the relief (i) in view of the evidence led and decline to grant relief (ii). I, however, as consequential order, order the s ...
read full comment
I will even state your last bit on Sulphuric acid even better. You cannot prepare sulphuric acid and test for hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen. That you cannot test for the constituent elements!
Thanks, Yaw,
You put it even better. We need to begin to demand that our elected and appointed state officials do things properly. The kind of incompetence and sloppiness we see in EVERY aspect of our national life do not be ...
read full comment
I agree with the last of half of the article but the first half is problematic. The Justices of the Supreme Court from the onset set up jurisdiction covering 11,000 polling station so how could they have given a sweeping verd ...
read full comment
Massa Kofi (Full Credit LONTO-BOY)I could not agree more with your comment on the lack of clarity from the Justices re: not writing at least two clear judgements - Majority and Minority. As things stand now I can count severa ...
read full comment
The justices all had to "danced around" to please their political masters--especially with Kuffour's diabolical packing of the court
The verdict was "political" and they "couched" their statements with legalese to confuse ...
read full comment
Ebo, no one knows how the nine Justices would have answered the two questions they set out from the beginning of the hearing if they had used that format at the end of the hearing. From the voting patterns of the nine, I can ...
read full comment
Another brilliant analysis from a non partisan analyst . Love your portion on Efo Sam. The guy was completely confused and out of order and sounded so disingenuous that my respect for him reduced by a whooping 50 percent. Sa ...
read full comment
Five of the judges were of the view that there were violations. Can you count?
Manyidohama, Please tell me on which of the six reliefs did they all 5 vote together? May be it is you who cannot count.
Kofi Ata, if the judges had ordered a run-off between Mahama and Nana Addo, it would have meant an annullment of all votes cast. This would have been a bigger infringement of the right to vote enshrined in the constitution.
...
read full comment