"Revise the 2012 Election Results and Invalidate Mahama’s Victory and Award the 2012 Presidential Elections to Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (Option 2). The critics to this decision contend that Nana Addo will not be able to do much with the current make up of the legislature (Ghana’s Parliament). The critics are wrong for a number of reasons. First, there are about 38 cases of election petitions for the parliamentary filed by the NPP that are yet to be settled by the courts. Although these cases have not received as much coverage as the presidential petition, it is believed the courts will be emboldened to act on them expeditiously, once the presidential petition is settled. Second, to even entertain the critics’ argument is to agree that any future candidate or aspirant who wins the presidency and whose party fails to win the parliament should not be sworn in and that the incumbent President be allowed to continue in office because such win is “hollow" and no meaningful work could be done by the Executive branch. What a bizarre outcome this will be? In the US, there are cases, and they are many, in which, the incumbent President worked with the opposition party. Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama have worked in opposing members of their party in congress to formulate policies to the benefits of their nation. So the critics’ position to the decision to invalidate President Mahama’s victory should not be entertained as it is not based on any empirical evidence. Those who are arguing that it will be disruptive to change leadership are wrong on several fronts. A change in government through elections is not disruptive merely because the incumbent has been displaced. To accept this notion defeats the necessity to change party in power for nonperformance. But for the massive irregularities, improprieties and fraud, Nana Addo would have been declared and sworn in as the president of the Republic. Would we then consider such legitimate transfer of power disruptive? Should this be the argument, then there should be no elections? After all are elections not disruptive? Are changes in government not disruptive by itself? There cannot be peace without justice. We know better that justice and peace go together. So for those who are beating the drums for peace and still maintaining that changing of power via the powers of our laws is disruptive, let truth be told, our legal system will not deny prosecutors the opportunity to exhume a body for forensic evidence to convict a criminal simply because it is disruptive to the grave and messy, would you? Must we call acts to stop criminals from actions contrary to our settled laws disruptive? Why then must we agree to such simple minded arguments that application of our laws to acts or lack thereof of unscrupulous people in our society is disruptive? Must we proscribe such behavior to our budding democracy? No one will say doing the right thing to preserve our laws is disruptive and therefore if the Supreme Court deems it fit to act this way they must! The Supreme Court must act fairly, boldly, courageously, independently and ensure there is justice and peace and if the decision is unprecedented, then let it be. If unprecedented brings justice, then that is what Ghana needs at this time. The people of Ghana are not in any mood for compromises and face-saving solutions. They are ready for straight talk express approach; a radical approach that says enough is enough! No nuances, no tricks, no winding roads, just straight solutions! Yes, this decision by the Supreme Court will be “unprecedented”, and will send a clear message to the Electoral Commission (EC) and its Chairman, you cannot take the will of the Ghanaian people for granted through collusion and fraud. This is precisely why the petitioners are in court! We want to end business as usual! We want to let Ghanaians and the rest of the world know, in Ghana, the rule of law functions and the law is SUPREME!" _ Charles Kwaku Amoo-Asante
Posted on: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:24:40 +0000