For the ?rst time in the history of Ghana article 94 of our constitution was invoked after the 2012 Election. The ?ag bearer and his running mate and the chairman of oh the NPP petitioned the Apex Court of Ghana to determine the validity and legality of the declaration of John Mahama as president.
Ghana has gone through six elections in this 4th republic. Professor Adu Boahene disputed both the 2002 and 2006 elections. Professor Mills conceded the 2004 elections even though the NDC had serious reservations about the election results. In all this, none of the loosing parties invoked article 94 until now. As far as I am concern, this could be a very dangerous president depending on the ruling of the Supreme Court.
The petitioners have argued that they should be commended for petitioning the court and not calling the supporters onto the street. What they do not release is that their initial reaction and ?rst option was to go on rampage vandalising properties and beaten up supporters of the ruling NDC as well as some journalist. Ghana is a democratic country where the rule of law reign supreme.The basic responsibility of every citizen is to be law abiding and civil.
The due process of law allows for citizens to seek redress in court, and the courts are where justice is sort and delivered. So what the petitioners have done,is just discharging their basic responsibilities. This is what normal people do. We all follow the due process of law as citizens, so asking to be commended for following due process of law and discharging your basic responsibility is laughable.
We have witness the trial of the case in the supreme court for the past six to seven months. The petitioners and the NPP south to discredit the election of John Dramani Mahama. It has been argued that the whole 2012 election petition has been a waste of time and has as matter of fact has set the country back. Invested both local and international have adopted a wait and see attitude. Productivity has slowed down and the country's output has dropped with people glued to their television watching the court proceedings for the past eight months.
The petitioners have argued the following - That there were constitutional violation, malpractice, and irregularities during the 2012 elections. - Their claims were that there were over voting even though they did not prove that in court. - That people voted without going through the Biometric Veri?cation, yet they not provide the name of a single person nor an af?davit from anybody who voted without going through biometric veri?cation in court. The petitioners are asking the court to annul about 2.5 million votes because of duplicate serial members on pink sheets, even though those pink sheets are clearly identi?ed by their unique Polling station codes and names. Perhaps the only genuine case the petitioners made was the case of unsigned pink sheets by the presiding of?cers. Their demand that a million plus votes should be annulled as a result of this is a call that the Supreme Court judges have to rule on.
Election are won based on votes cast and countered. The petitioners are shamelessly trying to win an election by dis-counting votes. If the petitioners genuinely believe the won the election as they claim, they will have ask for a re-count of the votes and not be asking for a dis-count of votes the bulk of which belongs to the winner of the election HIs excellency John Dramani Hahama.
This whole election petition con?rm the 'win the election at all cost' attitude adopted by the petitioners before the 2012 election. Ko? Kwakye London
