Ghana cannot be errors!

AS TONY LITO SUGGESTS

Finally, the petition challenging the validity of the election H.E John

Mahama as president in the 2012 presidential election is being heard.

Courtesy the administrative directive of the Her Ladyship Justice Theodora

Georgina Wood, the Chief Justice, we are following proceedings live in our

homes, offices and even in our cars. Kudos to Her Ladyship! Atleast she has

shown that she has a listening ear to public appeal in that regard.

The Petitioners took two days to state their case in court. We are on the

fourth day of cross examination from the first respondent awaiting the

cross examination from the second and third respondents. It is interesting

really how long this respondent alone is going to take to cross examine.

Well the dons of the Law are at post so all we can do is to watch events as

they unfold. No wonder, the Justices of the Supreme Court have themselves

time and again expressed worry over how long this respondent alone is going

to take to cross examine in view of the fact that this petition must be

expeditiously dealt with.

Watching proceedings on TV, two things have become clear of what Tony Lito

seeks to do in his attempt to throw off petitioners’ case. Tony Lito

suggests that the figures Bawumia and his team worked with are conjectures.

In cases where he does not suggest conjectures, he postulates the

acceptance of “Administrative Errors” to form the basis of determining the

true will and aspirations of the people of the Republic of Ghana.

Interestingly, one of the main reasons advanced by opponents of the

presidential petition even before it was filed was that the issues it

raises based on which Petitioners intended to go to court were not new to

us in Ghana. I was ashamed and felt scandalized as a Ghanaian when I heard

that argument from very senior people in political circles, the academia

and even religious leaders. Today I am even more outraged that the same

suggestion has found its way in the Supreme Court of Ghana falling from the

lips of an official of the Law.

Are we in Ghana ready to accept any suggestion, regardless its source that

we have been choosing our leaders politically resulting from administrative

errors? That we make Laws, flout them and accept whatever results from

flouting them as the norm? That we appoint an overseer of elections and yet

we must be held responsible for the irresponsibility(ies) of the appointed

overseer? Are we ERRORS to produce leaders by ERRORS?

As far as I am concerned, the must watch cross examination is that of the

Electoral Commission who has the challenge of responding to the gravamen of

the Presidential Petition before the Supreme Court today. The gravamens of

the issues are Constitutional and Statutory non compliance, electoral

malpractices and voting irregularities. So we patiently wait that day.

I maintain that this petition, if for nothing at all, has done or will do

the following; Demystify Afari Djan and EC as though what they say cannot

be challenged; When the EC attempts to or actually subverts the will of the

people, we do not need to pick up arms to reverse it. The Courts offer a

better platform for redress; Exposed the weakness in our Constitution in

dealing with the challenge of the validity of the election of the president

incongruous as it may be where the very CJ who swears the president in may

have to head the bench that hears the contest of his election. An amendment

is thus imperative in that regard with timelines clearly given; Alerted

Political Parties and Political Activists to the possibility of arm/figure

twisting, hence more carefulness needed, going forward; Deepening our

confidence in the Elections thereby enhancing the frontiers of the

Democratic path we chose to travel since 1992. 3. Exposed the weakness in

our Constitution in dealing with the challenge of the validity of the

election of the president incongruous as it may be where the very CJ who

swears the president in may have to head the bench that hears the contest

of his election. An amendment is thus imperative in that regard with

timelines clearly given.

4. Alerted Political Parties and Political Activists to the possibility of

changing hands and figures therefore more carefulness would be needed going

forward.

5. It is deepening our confidence in the Electoral System thereby enhancing

the frontiers of the Democratic path we chose to travel since 1992.