Chairman Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo described Mr John Mahama’s petition calling for a repeat presidential election as incompetent, frivolous and boring.
He considered that the petition did not contain reasonable grounds for action and did not meet the test to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Former President John Mahama filed on the 30th. In December 2020, the Supreme Court asked for the results of the presidential elections to be invalidated and for the election between him and President Akufo-Addo to be restarted.
The ninth. In January 2021, the President also submitted his response to the election request to the Supreme Court.
The President, who is the second defendant, in his reply of 12 pages, denied all the allegations of material facts in the petition and rebutted them in a series of refutations, with the exception of those which were expressly admitted as if they had been set out in full.
In his general reply to the petition, President Akufo-Addo stated that it was incompetent, lacked substance and did not meet the legal criteria for a trial invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Article 64(1) of the Constitution.
The President stated that, after the results had been announced, copies had been posted at various polling stations, in accordance with the law on elections.
The second respondent argued that the request did not demonstrate that the validity of the elections held in 38,622 polling stations and 311 special polling stations had been affected and that none of the actions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 (above) had been carried out.
According to him, plaintiff devoted only the vast majority of the petition (30 out of 35 paragraphs) to weak and contradictory complaints about the statement of the election committee (first suspect) about the winner of the elections and the remaining five paragraphs to empty accusations of improper counting and counting of votes, which together amount to approximately 6,622 votes, a clearly insignificant amount that significantly influences the outcome of an election in which the second suspect won the plaintiff by more than 500,000 votes.
Although, according to the motions submitted, no candidate received more than 50% of the valid votes in the election and therefore wants a second vote with the submitter and the first respondent as candidates, the submitter does not indicate how many or what percentage of valid votes he should have received in the election, nor how many or what percentage of votes the second respondent should have received in the election to support the allegations and the motion for a second vote.
The Speaker went on to state that the absence of this extraordinarily material factual accusation and the failure to set it out in detail in the petition completely deprived the petitioner of any cause of action.
The second defendant in this case argued that the application was merely conclusive and based on the unfounded imagination of the applicant and that the material facts in the application did not support the cause of action and should therefore be dismissed as lack of competence.
It was also argued that the petitioner’s letter of appeal was on the whole of the award of the ballot and not on the validity of the ball itself, as the previous complaint under Article 64(1) of the Constitution of 1992 was insignificant, because of the apparent inconsistency with the award of the ballot award from 9 onwards. December 2020: election of the second respondent as president on 7 December. December 2020.
The second defendant argued that the deliberate omission or calculated refusal of the applicant to recognise these simple, logical and obvious points led to the applicant being wrongly asked to make a second choice on the basis of simple assumptions such as those set out in points 10, 15 and 16 of the application.
In a specific reply to paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the application, the second defendant argued that the applicant had no reason to rely on the declaration annexed to it as Annex A, since it was not a document drawn up by the EC pursuant to Article 63(9) of the Constitution.
The second accused added that the corrections to the error made by the first accused in his statement of 9 December 2020, attached as evidence A by the petitioner, fall within the competence of the EC and are not contrary to any law.
He added that the information provided by the EC on 10 October. The amendment of December 2020 provides for a correct calculation of the percentage of the votes received by Chairman Akufo-Addo on the basis of the votes validly cast and not on the basis of the total number of votes cast and shows that the second respondent received more than 50% of the votes validly cast, as required by Article 63(3) of the Constitution.
The second defendant added that the plaintiff continued to rely on the findings of the EC opinion of 9 October 1999. In December 2020, it was reaffirmed that the petition was unfounded.
He also argued that the Declaration of 9 December 2020, which is not a document recognised on the basis of Article 63(9) of the Constitution, could under no circumstances serve as a basis for appropriate measures in view of its alleged inaccuracies.
President Akufo-Addo further stated that the proof of the election was the statement of the result in all 38,622 polling stations and 311 special polling stations used for the election, which the petitioner did not unequivocally contest in his petition.
The second respondent disputed paragraph 13 of the petition and stated that a total of 100.3 per cent (100.3 0/0) of the votes were cast on the petition submitted by the first respondent on 9. December 2020 were received, which was due to an error of the first respondent who inadvertently counted the percentage of votes of the second respondent as 51.595% instead of 51.295% and that with the correct count based on the correct percentage of 51.295% received by the second respondent, the total percentage is 100%.
The President categorically rejected paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the petition and stated that the petitioner’s allegations were wrongly based on the innocent error of the first defendant who had exchanged the total number of votes cast for the total number of valid votes, whereas the different percentages received by each candidate on the ninth day of the petition had not been taken into account. December 2020.
The second defendant adds that the plaintiff therefore cannot make an extrapolation of all votes in South Tehran, because he has to base himself on facts and not on extrapolations and assumptions.
He stated that plaintiff’s persistent and bizarre assertion that he was entitled to all the votes of registered voters in Tehiman, when plaintiff knew that the actual results for that district had been stated shortly after the first defendant’s testimony in Schedule A, was not only malicious but also a deliberate attempt to mislead the Supreme Court.
It rejects the allegations of violation of Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the petition as incorrect and declares that the first accused held the elections in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant law.
The second respondent stated that the immediate action was a ruse and a confrontation on the part of the complainant, after he and many high-ranking members of his party, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), unhesitatingly claimed a clear victory in the elections, but that the results of the first respondent, confirmed by all known media in the country and by many independent local and international observers, were seriously exposed.
The second respondent stated that the behaviour of the applicant and other prominent members of the NDC, who declared an overwhelming victory with an alleged percentage of more than 51.0/0, went so far as to ask the Supreme Court to reopen the election in which the applicant and the first respondent were candidates, in an attempt to mislead the Ghanaian people.
Without conceding that plaintiff’s assertion that the first defendant abused his discretion could be properly considered by the court, the second defendant also argued that the motion failed to disclose certain specific provisions of the Public Election Rules 2020 (C.I. 127), the legal framework of the first defendant’s discretion that was violated by the first defendant.
President Akufo-Addo contested paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the petition and stated in response that the allegations contained therein had been misinterpreted because the alleged unconstitutionality of the statement or opinion on the ballot box did not object to the validity of the election of a person to the Presidency and that the Court had already ruled on the matter.
He pointed out that the petitioner did not contest the conduct of the elections themselves or their legality. This process is not an election petition and should be rejected in limousine.
Disclaimer : Ghana News is not responsible for the reports or opinions of the authors published on the site.
Send your messages to [secure email] and via WhatsApp at +1-508-812-0505.