We are not in court for electoral reforms

Since the hearing of the election petition started at the Supreme Court, some characters have been going round saying that nothing will come out of the petition except electoral reforms.

That’s their opinion anyway but the fact is that the NPP through the petitioners are in Court to prove who was validly elected as President of Ghana and not to call for Electoral Reforms. Electoral Reforms can come as a token but it is not the reason the Petitioners are in Court.

During the December 2012 elections, candidates had series of meetings with the Electoral Commission and we were told among other things that nobody should be allowed to vote without going through Biometric Verification. We were further told that at any polling station where over-voting takes place by even one vote, the entire results of the affected polling station would be annulled.

The Electoral Commission also told us that no results on a pink sheet were to be accepted without the signature of the Presiding Officers. Pink sheets that had same serial numbers were to be annulled because every pink sheet had a unique serial number.

The Petitioners have evidence from 11,138 polling stations to prove that what the Electoral Commission preached against before the elections did occur. That’s the reason the NPP through its petitioners are in Court and not for Electoral Reforms.

What we have seen so far is that, the President whose election is in dispute at the Supreme Court through his lawyer told the Supreme Court that some of the constitutional and statutory violations that the petitioners submitted to the Supreme Court were “Administrative errors”. After five days of cross examination, Tony Lithur representing John Mahama was only able to point out 355 pink sheets he claimed were not supposed to be categorised under the various allegations the petitioners brought to court.

It must be noted that, Dr. Bawumia had explained that some of the pink sheets he is being cross-examined on are no longer being used in evidence by the petitioners so I personally wonder why precious time is been wasted on this!

From the evidence I have seen from the petitioners, there is no way this case will only end up bringing Electoral Reforms whilst ignoring the core issues before the Supreme Court. Our fledgling democracy should not be allowed to go this way at all.

At the time of typing this article, the Lawyer of the Electoral Commission had asked for the Supreme Court’s sitting of Thursday 25th April 2013 to be adjoined for “fatigue” reasons. It was reluctantly granted that sitting be adjourned to Monday.

What must also be mentioned here is that the Electoral Commission which had all the funding to conduct the elections freely and fairly claimed some of the “irregularities” were typographical errors and not violations during cross examination by their lawyer.

From what is coming out of the Supreme Court, there is no doubt at all that there is more to the case than Electoral Reforms. Speaking fine English is not the issue at all but the facts and figures.

I wish to conclude by suggesting to all those who have issues with the live broadcast of the election petition hearing to either tune to cartoons on other channels when live broadcast is being shown or shut up! We are enjoying it and want to watch everything to the last minute.

Cheers!

Akilu Sayibu

Email: Akilu Sayibu@live.uwe.ac.uk