Nana Akuffo Addo; An Exception or the Rule.

Re: Akufo-Addo’s Deficiency On EC Laws.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=266228, Posted February, 28. 2013, Ms Jackson [the writer] sought portray an adverse profile of Mr Akuffo Addo. Such personal attacks must not be condoned.


Hundreds of election officials employed to authenticate and sign a document, signifying that the right procedure has been followed failed to do so, right across the nation and Ms Jackson believes, that it is irrelevant. Why was a simple signing process, which takes no more than three seconds, not carried out by hundreds of election officials ? How was it possible, that hundreds of election officials, all at different polling stations, after spending an entire day, just to authenticate a singe document which would have taken no more than three seconds, decide [all together] to take a break just when they had to sign, leaving out the most crucial role for which they were employed on that day?


I would argue, that the only reason those documents were not signed by the election officials, is simply because they never saw it. Their signature do not appear on those documents, because it was impossible to replicate it.


That will explain the reason, efforts were made to get some signatures on some of these documents, to conform with the explanation, that the impressions of the signature only appeared on the top counterfoils, but were not carried through to the ones below. That excuse is untenable, because, the signature supposed to be that of party representatives and also on the same document, appeared on all the counterfoil copies. Unless of course, election officials are suggesting that the signature of party representatives were hammered onto the document.


In her submission, Ms Jackson claimed Mr Akuffo needed some instruction on Electoral Law, particularly on irregularities. According to Ms Jackson, 1. Irregularities on ballot material is irrelevant. 2. It was pointless for Mr Akuffo Addo to challenge those and other irregularities in court. Ms Jackson was circumspect with her data on the election figures, oblivious to the fact that she was inadvertently reeling off and enumerating one irregularity after another.

Irregularities and abnormalities are so “in season”, Mr Akuffo Addo is now an exception rather than the rule and that is according to Ms Jackson is the education Mr Akuffo Addo needs. She wants Mr Akuffo Addo to understand that challenging actions or issues which are irregular is simply not done. [Don’t ask me, I do not know where she is coming from].


Nothing, that Mr Akuffo Addo and his party are doing, makes them an exception. It must be a rule to seek the truth and an exception for those who seek to cover up wrong-doing or stop others from seeking the truth. It does not make a person, an “enemy of the sate” for representing the members of his party and using legitimate means, to challenge the outcome of an election.


The respondents, have not produced any satisfactory answers to the allegations raised, to make a call for a dismissal. It is undeniable and has been admitted in part, by the Electoral Commission, that there were irregularities; recorded in the tens of thousands at the last count and apparently still rising. Some of it has been put down as “simple mistakes“, while, others have been explained as “irrelevant“.


Nevertheless, it will not be sufficient for the NPP to show that there were irregularities. They will have to demonstrate, [clearly] how those irregularities translate into the claim of an election loss. Thousands of unauthenticated electoral papers, in an election, is highly irregular and constitute a legitimate ground for a challenge. There is also the possibility, that the obvious irregularities might just be a ruse or subterfuge, designed to draw attention from the actual machination that they are claiming. It takes some scheme to hoodwink eagle-eyed observers. …and there were many.


Ms Jackson claims, Mr Akuffo Addo rushed to the Supreme Court, with cases containing thousands of unsigned electoral sheets. [I will call that unauthenticated sheets]. She further claims, that all these unauthenticated sheets came from polling stations where Mr Mahama won.

How is it possible, for Ms Jackson, to ascertain from her stand point, that evidence being carried into court, contain only unauthenticated sheets from the polling stations where Mr Mahama won?


I recall a report, stating that the offices of the NPP and their legal teams were burgled and some evidence stolen. Now, if those evidence were sorted [as lawyers often do] and kept apart, and the evidence that the burglars made away with, were the sheets from the stations where the Mr Akuffo Addo won, then who, [in a matter of opinion] would be able to make a categorical statement without examination, that evidence is of a specific kind, just by looking at containers?


I am sure Ms Jackson has a perfectly legitimate explanation for her assertion.


There are no more questions for Ms Jackson at this time.


Jedd Rii Link: aabicoleridge@live.co.uk