SC verdict: Okudzeto’s “voodoo mathematics disappointing” – Amaliba

A Lawyer of the governing party’s legal team, Abraham Amaliba, has accused former Ghana Bar Association President, Sam Okudzeto, of dabbling in “voodoo” mathematics in respect of his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s verdict on the recently determined election petition case.

Mr. Okudzeto, in an interview with XYZ News on Thursday September 26, 2013, accused the presiding judge of the nine-member Supreme Court panel that heard the case, Justice William Atuguba of “misreading" the judgment of his other colleague Justices.

According to Sam Okudzeto, his analysis of the 588 pages of the judgment shows the decision went 5-4 in favour of the petitioners.

He, therefore, expressed surprise that the Court ruled in favour of the respondents in the case and validated President John Mahama’s election.

Mr. Okudzeto said he believes the Presiding Judge, Justice William Atuguba, gave a “wrong” analysis of the judgment.

Explaining his analysis of the judgment, Mr. Okudzeto said before the commencement of the substantive case, the Supreme Court set out only two issues for determination which were (1) Whether or not there are statutory violations in the nature of omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the Presidential Elections held on the 7th and 8th December 2012; and (2) Whether or not the said statutory violations, if any, affected the results of the elections.

He said Justices Atuguba, Adinyirah, Gbadegbe and Akoto-Bamfo, dismissed, unanimously, all the six grounds of infractions filed by the petitioners in the court and as such decided to sustain President Mahama as the duly elected president.

He noted, however, that Justices Ansah, Owusu and Anin-Yeboah were of the opinion that President Mahama wasn’t duly elected, as contained in their judgments.

This, according to him, meant that 4 judges had ruled for John Mahama, whilst 3 had ruled that John Mahama wasn’t duly elected.

“What happened to the other two? This is where the issue becomes dicey,” he noted.

Sam Okudzeto stated that Justice Dotse, in page 405 of the judgment, dismissed the claims of the petitioners with regards to the use duplicate serial numbers, voting without biometric verification, unknown polling stations and duplicate polling station results.

However, Justice Dotse, Sam Okudzeto noted, upheld the claims of the petitioners in the categories of no signatures of presiding officers as well as in over-voting and ordered a re-run of the elections in the affected polling stations.

Touching on Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s judgment where he dismissed all the claims of the petitioners, Sam Okudzeto stated that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld the petitioners’ claims of voting without biometric verification, and ordered a re-run of the election in the affected polling stations.

Thus, as per the issues set out by the court, Sam Okudzeto noted that it was clear from the judgment that 5 of the Supreme Court judges determined that the irregularities affected the elections whereas 4 of the judges noted that the irregularities did not.

This, in his opinion, established the fact that the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court judges went 5-4 in favour of the petitioners.

Mr. Amaliba has however told Radio XYZ News Analysis program "Strict Proof" that Sam Okudzeto has allowed politics to cloud his legal analysis and interpretation of the election petition verdict.

He described the analysis as “disappointing” and confrontational to the verdict delivered by the nine-member Supreme Court panel that heard the matter.