The Respondents Say ..But the Observers Say ...
? Much as the Supreme Court is tight-lipped about her decision on Election 2012, the respondents with their agents and assigns have vociferously gone public with their own verdict. They are proclaiming over the mountains and in the valleys that they have already won the case based on the following reasons:
? ? 1. No Ghanaian was called by the Lead Counsel for the petitioners to prove that he/she voted twice at Election 2012 hence, there was no issue of over-vote.
? 2. The NPP polling station agents never contested any issue of electorates casting their votes without being verified biometrically. Therefore, the petitioners’ allegation and argument of voters voting without being verified biometrically is baseless.
? 3. Presiding Officers not filling in certain spaces on the pink sheets and also not signing them have no affect on the veracity and desirability of the declared Election 2012 results.
? 4. The duplication to quadruplicating of serial numbers of pink sheets are irrelevant as they do not affect the results declared by the Electoral Commission.
? 5. The Supreme Court must throw out the petition filed by the NPP leadership for lack of credible evidence. The petition simply amounts to waste of any sensible Ghanaian’s time.
? 6. The 1992 Constitution bars anyone from taking a sitting President to Court for whatever reason ? ? ? However, the public as observers say:
? ? 1. Over-votes did occur in some polling stations as could be ascertained from the face of the pink sheets by the figures filled into some boxes. Moreover, people bearing witness to issues of over-votes did submit their written affidavits as obligatorily requested by the Supreme Court
? ? 2. There were instances of people casting their votes without submitting to biometric verification. Then Presidential-candidate John Mahama did not go through biometric verification himself. He also ordered the Electoral Commission to allow people to vote without biometric verification which, the Commission budged.
? 3. Failure by Presiding Officers to fill in certain boxes which were mandatory, prior to opening the ballot box to count the ballots violates the governing electoral statutes.
? 4. The duplication, let alone the quadruplicating of pink sheets indicate that the Electoral Commission printed four sets of the pink sheets. This fact alone, renders the entire electoral process fraudulent. The Electoral Commission had probably intended to use the surplus pink sheets bearing same serial numbers to cover up her tracks. In the event of the Commission needing to use some of the pink sheets to alter the results of certain polling stations for their record keeping, they could fish through the extra sets for a pink sheet bearing similar serial number as that known already to the public to do the trick.
? 5. The Supreme Court has to decide the case in favour of the Petitioners. This is because the argument they put forward, supported by the voluminous credible pink sheets evidence and the demeanour of Dr Afari Gyan and Johnson Asiedu Nketiah at their cross-examinations give credence to instituting the petition in the first place.
? 6. The I992 Constitution allows for taking the Electoral Commission with whomever the Commission steals election for to Court.
? ? From the above, the observers as a non-commissioned jury have decided the case in favour of the petitioners (Nana Akufo Addo, Dr Bawumia and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey). The jury’s decision is perfectly in line with God’s purpose for Nana Akufo Addo as revealed to Kofi Basoah in a dream of which, I have been advertising. ? ? Rockson Adofo