Will less than half of total Pink Sheet do the Trick

Read Comments Comments (14)

• Mensah 12 years ago

  Good one.... prove it NPP (NATIONAL PINKSHIT PARTY)

  Good one.... prove it NPP (NATIONAL PINKSHIT PARTY)

  reply
• SIMPLE LOGIC 12 years ago

  "What if analysis of the remaining 16,000 polling stations discloses that 4 million of Nana Akuffo Addo’s votes could also be annulled citing the same irregularities as perceived by them in their analysis of 10,119 pink she ...
  read full comment

  "What if analysis of the remaining 16,000 polling stations discloses that 4 million of Nana Akuffo Addo’s votes could also be annulled citing the same irregularities as perceived by them in their analysis of 10,119 pink sheets?"
  
  The answer to your question is: YES. So what should be done to Afari Gyan and the EC who organised the elections in all the 26,000 polling stations.
  
  And remember that Akuffo Addo did not run the election in the 16,000 polling stations you question about.
  
  Tsikata brought this issue when questioning Bawumia during the trial but quickly stopped when he realised that he was rather proving the case for the Akuffo Addo.

  reply
• Kwobia ( Toronto ) 12 years ago

  My contention is why the NPP not want the contents of the biometric machines revealed in court?The answer:NPP has been running away from the truth.

  My contention is why the NPP not want the contents of the biometric machines revealed in court?The answer:NPP has been running away from the truth.

  reply
• Michael 12 years ago

  Your argument is unintelligent, because if the respondents had full knowledge of other malpractices in petitioners stronghold s what prevented them from bringing it up at the initial stages?. in my opinion, the EC connived wi ...
  read full comment

  Your argument is unintelligent, because if the respondents had full knowledge of other malpractices in petitioners stronghold s what prevented them from bringing it up at the initial stages?. in my opinion, the EC connived with NDC to rig the election period.

  reply
• Unus Yahaya u/w/r 12 years ago

  We should always look up and not down when talking about National issues. Remember the petitioners used the 10,119 pink sheets, probably,that was what they lay hands on. What then prevented the E C as well as the other partie ...
  read full comment

  We should always look up and not down when talking about National issues. Remember the petitioners used the 10,119 pink sheets, probably,that was what they lay hands on. What then prevented the E C as well as the other parties from providing their P/S to prove their case if they even have any. Have you forgotten what befell the E C boss when he made biggest mistake of life and of the century by tendering in evidence the infamous 17 P/S?.What are you talking about? .Put your reasoning cup if even you have any. God is alive .

  reply
• Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

  Of all the arguments as to why the petition may fall, this one is the weakest. Ordinarily one should not comment on a case pending before the courts but since some of you persist in misleading the public, we shall also join i ...
  read full comment

  Of all the arguments as to why the petition may fall, this one is the weakest. Ordinarily one should not comment on a case pending before the courts but since some of you persist in misleading the public, we shall also join in the discussions to put some things in the right perspective.
  John Mahama was pronounced to have beaten Nana Addo by about 325,000 votes. If the differential of any annulled votes is more than half of this number, the material effect on the election results is established. Therefore the claim of showing infractions in only 10,119 out of 26,002 polling stations does not even come in.
  
  Secondly one has to make recourse to electoral laws. If the petitioners are able to show that the conduct of the 2012 elections was substantially not in accordance with the rules governing the elections (i.e. presiding officers not signing, over-voting, no biometric verification), that alone in itself, in some jurisdictions has been enough to void elections. In this case, the material effect is not even addressed. The Court may well hold that infractions in about 40% of polling stations cross the threshold of substantial non-compliance. On the hand if the court were to decide that the non-compliance was not substantial, then it has to look at the effects of the infractions on the declared results. This is where the numbers come in. All the respondents have admitted the errors. They have not corrected these and neither have they shown that, when corrected, they have no effect on the declaration.
  
  More critically, the burden of proof is not on the petitioners once they have averred a negative. That is once they are claiming that the elections were not held in accordance with the rules and shown evidence in 10,119 polling stations to back their claim, the burden shifts onto the respondents to prove the positive – to show that the elections were conducted in accordance with the rules. The EC, especially, should have shown by the records that it holds that the errors it has admitted made no impact. It should have corrected these errors and demonstrated that the impact on all 26,002 polling stations was not sufficient to overturn the results. In reality, it failed to file any pink sheets. So on what basis is the court to believe any assertions it has made?
  
  The NDC and John Mahama could have taken up the task of doing similar if they were confident of their case that the errors made no material impact. They also failed to carry out any analysis of the impact of the errors on polling station results. They have also not given the court any basis to side with them.
  
  To me, the petitioners at least provided evidence of the infractions and also showed their impact on the results. They have done sufficient analysis to show that Akufo Addo got the majority of the valid votes (i.e. if the courts sides with them that the infractions have been proven). They do not have to analyse all 26,002 pink sheets to meet this threshold.
  
  However, as all have been pleading, let us leave issues to the court to decide. The court might see things differently from all the noise we are making.

  reply
• KAKABO 12 years ago

  Sometimes I find it very difficult to read some of the postings on this SC case. My reason is that even the comments that come from the so called elite in society are very difficult to understand when put into the crucible of ...
  read full comment

  Sometimes I find it very difficult to read some of the postings on this SC case. My reason is that even the comments that come from the so called elite in society are very difficult to understand when put into the crucible of vigorous analysis with an example being this piece my Mensah. One would have thought that the writer would have asked himself the following questions before venturing to put his view in the public domain.The questions are:
  What prevented the EC from coming out with the entire 22000+ pink sheets in their custody to show that the infractions that occurred only affected an insignificant number of the total pink sheets?
  Why could Afari Gyan and the EC not show by figures, their position that the infractions though occurred but did not affect the final outcome.
  How can you say that infractions that had affected almost 40% + of the entire pink sheets or poling stations in an election did not impact on the results and the declaration of the winner, when we all know that the difference between the two candidates could be altered by figures on just 5% of the total pink sheets in question.Is this mathematically possible?
  Like all of us are saying, let us wait for the SC to come out with their verdict. As somebody said, figures no lie.

  reply
• kaketonti 12 years ago

  They have to proof that presidential election could be won with (2)two out of (10) ten regions not forgetting parliamentary.Failure to read and adhere to Electoral Rules does not accede to "YOU AND I WERE NOT THERE"

  They have to proof that presidential election could be won with (2)two out of (10) ten regions not forgetting parliamentary.Failure to read and adhere to Electoral Rules does not accede to "YOU AND I WERE NOT THERE"

  reply
• BOY KOFI 12 years ago

  Elections are not about "ifs",they are about realities on the ground not on the face of pink sheets.It is misleading to say that "all the respondents have admitted the errors".This is not true,my friend.The petitioners have c ...
  read full comment

  Elections are not about "ifs",they are about realities on the ground not on the face of pink sheets.It is misleading to say that "all the respondents have admitted the errors".This is not true,my friend.The petitioners have claimed 4 major irregularities.1.Over voting.2.Voting without Biometric Verification.3.Unsigned pink sheets by POs.4.Duplication of serial numbers.Now listen carefully,it's only the number 3,the unsigned pink sheets that the EC has admitted partly and he has explained that it does not affect the valid votes of the elections.The Supreme Court will rule on the constitution provisions here.Again let me make it clear,pink sheets are not complete evidence,they are records that has to be proven.We are not dealing with land dispute,this is a constitutional affair.In my opinion,the petitioners have not proven beyond doubt with concrete proofs of what actually happened.Do you remember Bawumia saying "you and I were not there."Do you rememeber how KPMG exposed the anomalies in the evidence?Evidence with anomalies cannot hold in Supreme Court,that's clear.The court will never side with this selective analysis.We are talking about presidential élections,you must be joking to think that the SC will not analyse all the 26002 pink sheets.That is exactly what Dr Afari Gyan did to know that Prez Mahama won the élections.The petitioners cannot introduce their own electoral laws to make Nana Addo president.Are the petitioners trying to rig the election now for Nana Addo?This is complete folly.Thank you.

  reply
• ASEM 12 years ago

  EC SHOULD HAVE FILED FOR THEIR DEFENCE
  1. ALL THE PINK SHEETS
  2. ALL THE BIOMETRIC MACHINES
  3. ALL THE BIOMETRIC REPORTS
  4. ALL THE VOTERS REGISTERS
  
  THEY DID NOT FILE ANY COUNTER DOCUMENT TO CHALLENGE THE PETITION AS ...
  read full comment

  EC SHOULD HAVE FILED FOR THEIR DEFENCE
  1. ALL THE PINK SHEETS
  2. ALL THE BIOMETRIC MACHINES
  3. ALL THE BIOMETRIC REPORTS
  4. ALL THE VOTERS REGISTERS
  
  THEY DID NOT FILE ANY COUNTER DOCUMENT TO CHALLENGE THE PETITION AS THEY REALISE THAT THE PETITIONERS DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FAKE.
  THEY RATHER SOUGHT COMFORT IN WHITTLING DOWN THE NUMBER OF PINK SHEETS IN EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF CHALLENGING THE EVIDENCE ON THE PINK SHEETS.
  TOO LATE

  reply
• BOY KOFI 12 years ago

  They are records and must be proven to be true on the ground of concrete proofs.Do you remember what happened to the pink sheets when KPMG put them under strict scrutiny?Please stop counting on the pink sheets,they are dead o ...
  read full comment

  They are records and must be proven to be true on the ground of concrete proofs.Do you remember what happened to the pink sheets when KPMG put them under strict scrutiny?Please stop counting on the pink sheets,they are dead on arrival.Thank you.

  reply
• Tops 12 years ago

  Don't forget that the burden of proof was on the Petitioners not the respondents. The EC did not have any burden to file anything.

  Don't forget that the burden of proof was on the Petitioners not the respondents. The EC did not have any burden to file anything.

  reply
• STUPID NPP 12 years ago

  National Pinksheet party. A group of idiots parading as politicians. They have warped brains and reason like the elephant. They have nothing better in them.

  National Pinksheet party. A group of idiots parading as politicians. They have warped brains and reason like the elephant. They have nothing better in them.

  reply
• chigri wagadugu 12 years ago

  NPP provided what to support their case-

  NPP provided what to support their case-

  reply