ENIGMA...!!! O. CONCLUSION On 28th December 2012, the Petitioners filed this petition, challenging the validity of the election of 1st respondent, John Dramani Mahama, as President of the Republic. They sought two main reliefs, a declaration that John Dramani Mahama was not validly elected President of the Republic, and that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st petitioner, rather, was validly elected President. Petitioners also prayed for such consequential orders as to this Honourable Court may seem meet. The petitioners grounded their reliefs on widespread violations, malpractices and irregularities apparent on the face of the pink sheets, the primary record of the election results. These infractions took the form of over-voting; voting without biometric verification; the absence of signatures by of the presiding officers on the pink sheets; the use of pink sheets with the same serial numbers for the same or different polling stations; the use of the same polling station code for different polling stations or the same polling station, with different results; and the unlawful conduct of the election at twenty-two (22) locations, which were not part of the list of 2,602 polling stations created by the 2nd respondent for the conduct of the election. The issues set down by this Honourable Court were two, namely: 1. whether or not there were violations, omission, malpractices and irregularities; and 2. whether or not these violations, malpractices and irregularities affected the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. To prosecute their case, the petitioners filed and relied on 10,119 pink sheets, which spoke to the nature of the violations, malpractices and irregularities grounding the petition. The respondents, on the other hand, failed or refused to file any pink sheet, except the 17 pink sheets 2nd respondent was compelled to tender in evidence on the penultimate day of the end of the trial, in an attempt to rebut damning evidence led against it. This was so, even though 2nd respondent is the body constitutionally mandated to conduct public elections and referenda, including this petition, and notwithstanding the fact that it is the official custodian of the pink sheets in the election. Undoubtedly, the petitioners bore the burden of proving the allegations of violations, malpractices and irregularities grounding the petition and demonstrating that these infractions, in fact, had a material effect on the outcome of the presidential election. It is the respectful submission of the petitioners that, at the close of trial, the petitioners had, through the 10,119 pink sheets they are relying on, succeeded in producing a mountain of evidence, sufficient to discharge the burden of proof that the law placed on them and to obtain a decision in their favour. This evidence is documentary and manifest on the primary record of the election, the pink sheets. Beyond reliance on inconsequential reports of election observers, the respondents, in effect, tendered no evidence of substance of their own. They all sought to whittle down and reduce the number of pink sheet exhibits petitioners had filed on technical grounds of defects in the labelling of the pink sheet exhibits. They seized the slightest occasion to hurl baseless attacks of criminality, forgery, the manufacturing and smuggling of pink sheets into evidence, even though unsubstantiated, on petitioners. It is the humble submission of petitioners that, at the close of trial, the evidence adduced by petitioners remained unchallenged in all material effects. The Chairman of the 2nd respondent, who was the returning officer of the presidential election, with respect, cut an unconvincing figure with his bundle of evasive, inconsistent and contradictory answers during cross-examination. His credibility by the end of the trial was all but gone. “Elections are at the heart of democracy. They are the instrument for the people to choose leaders and hold them accountable. At the same time, elections are a core public function upon which all other government responsibilities depend. If elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk...” Courtesy of covering letter co-authored by former US President Jimmy Carter and former US Secretary of State, James A. Baker, in the report titled: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN US ELECTIONS-REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM (September, 2005). These insightful observations about the vital importance of elections as a critical touchstone of democracy and accountability assume their full significance, when account is taken of the fact that this petition is the first of its kind in our history as a people. The decision that this Honourable Court will finally arrive at will have fundamental and far-reaching consequences for the future of future of democracy in this country. It will either affirm the commitment of citizens to our democratic journey and bolster their confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law, or undermine their belief in political and legal institutions of the nation. It is the respectful submission of petitioners that what all citizens expect from the highest court of the land is the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and the law and their application to the evidence adduced in this trial without fear or favour, as the judicial oath of the learned justices of this Honourable Court requires of them. Some fifty-one (51) years ago, this country was on the threshold of making history in the now infamous case of Re Akoto. The hopes and aspirations of the country were in the hands of the three justices of the Supreme Court, as it was then constituted, either to pronounce a judgment that would strengthen the democratic foundations of Ghana’s political system and ensure accountability of public official and institutions, thereby placing constitutional, democratic limits to executive power, or to succumb to the politics of raison d’état, irrespective of the injunction of the Constitution and the law. It is not in dispute today that the decision of the Korsah Court had far-reaching and unedifying consequences for our people’s march towards a better future of respect for rights, democratic development and the accountability of leadership to the people. There is consensus today that had that court risen to the occasion that history made it a handmaid of, the history of Ghana in the last fifty years would have been radically different and its development greatly enhanced. Today, the people of Ghana once more stand at the threshold of history, not only for Ghana but the rest of Africa. Whether we succeed as a people lies in the hearts and minds of the honourable justices of this Court. We pray for Ghana that this Court will find the wisdom and fortitude to arrive at a decision based solely on the evidence adduced before it over the last six months and the faithful and scrupulous application of the Constitution and the law thereto in order to meet the legitimate expectations of Ghanaians of the highest court of the land and enshrine the abiding principles of the rule of law and accountability in the body politic. This way, your lordships would have answered the call to which history beckons Ghana’s judiciary and give meaning to the immortal words inscribed in the nation’s coat of arms, Freedom and Justice. The petitioners have shown by the sheer depth and weight of the evidence adduced at trial and the force of legal arguments advanced in this address that there were, indeed, substantial constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the 2012 presidential election and that these violations, malpractices and irregularities had a material effect on the results of the election as declared by 2nd respondent. It is accordingly the respectful submission of petitioners that a case worthy of the all reliefs that they seek has been made out. The Constitution insists that only valid votes be taken into account in the determination of the validity of the election of the President of the Republic. That is the clear teaching of article 63(3). The consequence is that if the invalid votes, totalling 2,622,551, attributed to the 1st respondent are taken out of the votes declared for him of 5,574,761, the total valid votes 1st respondent, in fact and in law, obtained is 2,952,210, representing 41.79% of the valid votes cast in the 2012 election. The declaration made on 9th December, 2012 by the 2nd respondent and set out in the Constitutional Instrument of the President Elect Instrument, 2012 (C.I. 80), made under the hand of the Chairman of 2nd respondent, was, therefore, made wrongfully and this Court is respectfully invited to hold that his election was invalid and to set aside same as null and void. In the premise, this Honourable Court is respectfully invited to hold that the 1st petitioner, having obtained 4,0157,12 valid votes cast, as a result of the annulment of 1,233,186 invalid votes from the figure of 5,248,898 declared for him by the 2nd respondent, resulting in 1st petitioner obtaining 56.85% of the valid votes cast, should be declared by this Honourable Court as the winner of the 2012 presidential election. In addition, the Court is hereby respectfully invited to make such other consequential orders as it may deem meet. This Address is filed in both electronic and hard copy pursuant to Rule 69B of C. I. 74.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:53:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015