SC Unanimously Affirms the Rights to Vote

Read Article

Comments (34)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (34)

Wiafe 12 years ago

The petition had no merit. The petitioners were relying on their sympathizers on the court to help them out. But the chief justice saw the train wreck and made sure she took herself out.

The petition had no merit. The petitioners were relying on their sympathizers on the court to help them out. But the chief justice saw the train wreck and made sure she took herself out.
Kwobia,Toronto 12 years ago

The NPP set up a gargantuan task for the SC by asking that more than 41/2 million votes be annulled to make Addo president.This was a non starter from the get go.

The NPP set up a gargantuan task for the SC by asking that more than 41/2 million votes be annulled to make Addo president.This was a non starter from the get go.
Sally, UK 12 years ago

NPP was asking the court to do what is unconstitutional even though they claim they have good lawyers

NPP was asking the court to do what is unconstitutional even though they claim they have good lawyers
BOY KOFI 12 years ago

Please do your Mathematics well.First of all the Supreme Court rejected all the 6 claims of irregularities filed by the petitioners.Let's see how the judges did it.
1.Duplicate of serial numbers. 9-0
2.Duplicate of polli ...
read full comment

Please do your Mathematics well.First of all the Supreme Court rejected all the 6 claims of irregularities filed by the petitioners.Let's see how the judges did it.
1.Duplicate of serial numbers. 9-0
2.Duplicate of polling statitions.9-0
3.Ghost names. 9-0
4.Over voting. 5-4
5.Verification. 5-4
6.Unsigned pink sheets of P/Os 5-4
Total = 42-12 points,difference of 30 points.
Therefore 42/12 will give you 7-2 majority and not 5-4 majority.Thank you.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

I should apologise for the mistake in the title. It should have been The Right and not The Rights.

BOY KOFI,I have never come across tabulation of court decision in the way you have done. After the Justices unanimously dis ...
read full comment

I should apologise for the mistake in the title. It should have been The Right and not The Rights.

BOY KOFI,I have never come across tabulation of court decision in the way you have done. After the Justices unanimously dismissed the three claims, the final decision rested on the three remaining claims. Because there was 5-4 majority on all the three claims, that settled the matter. The minority or majority votes on each area of the three issues became irrelevant. Your tabulation is wrong. Court decisions are not tabulated in the manner that you did. It was never and could not have been 7-2 majority but 5-4 and I still stand by that.
BOY KOFI 12 years ago

Please explain to me how you came to the 5-4 majority rule.You have 6 different categories of irregularities and you have 9 judges to determine the verdict.Are you telling me that 5 of the judges dismissed the petition and 4 ...
read full comment

Please explain to me how you came to the 5-4 majority rule.You have 6 different categories of irregularities and you have 9 judges to determine the verdict.Are you telling me that 5 of the judges dismissed the petition and 4 of them upheld it?No sir,this is not the case at all.If so,what will you say about about the 3 CATEGORIES where all the 9 judges dismissed?Are you now saying because 3 claims have been dismissed they don't form part of the judgement anymore?No sir,if we go by the votes of every individual judge on these 6 claims,we shall have 42 points for the dismissal and 12 points for a re-run.
The simple equation is that you divide all the points by 6,it will give you 7-2 majority or you subtract 42 by 12,this will also give you the difference of 30 points in favour of the respondents.I will never buy your 5-4 theory.Thank you.
Adams 12 years ago

Ghana is known for being pocket lawyers and enjoy oratorical mumbo-jumbo. It is making our neighbors in Africa leave us behind because we are thinking we are the best based on talk talk. We are a nation of no consequence. Jus ...
read full comment

Ghana is known for being pocket lawyers and enjoy oratorical mumbo-jumbo. It is making our neighbors in Africa leave us behind because we are thinking we are the best based on talk talk. We are a nation of no consequence. Just look at what the inarticulate Tsatsu is already saying about one of the justices.

This Tsatsu guy wants Ghana to start war, otherwise why is he talking such rubbish. He is opening the floodgate for others to start dissecting the Peppefours in the Supreme Court and blame the most nefarious Atubuga. Tsatsu must watch out and shut his mouth before running in front of the media, because he is laying the fire that can escalate to real frenzy in Ghana. He has no right to discuss the verdict so close to the event. The media houses MUST not entertain him, otherwise there is going to be a backlash against Atubuga in particular.
Marfo Nkansah 12 years ago

Boy Kofi thank you a million times for this clarification.!!!

Boy Kofi thank you a million times for this clarification.!!!
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Kofi, you are right that the justices categorically rejected the petitioners' pleading for votes to be annuled. However let's not confuse NVNV with the issue of "biometric verification" which is only one part of the process.
...
read full comment

Kofi, you are right that the justices categorically rejected the petitioners' pleading for votes to be annuled. However let's not confuse NVNV with the issue of "biometric verification" which is only one part of the process.

If we seek to examine article 42 of the constitution, it is predicated on the fact that that 18+ year old IS A GHANAIAN (and of a sound mind). In other words, that person MUST first have been VERIFIED as such.

The issue to me in this landmark case was not that the voters were not VERIFIED, but that one element of verification which hitherto DID NOT EXIST but was introduced presumably to reduce fraud and to 'speed up the process' of verification and voting (relying on modern technology) was the point at issue.

I personally wholly disagree with those justices who voted in favour of the petitioners on the matter of BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION and therefore called for a "re-run" thus giving the petitioners (and future litigants) some vein hope that they can get away with such. That is where my Unknown-Unknown lies and I believe I have been proved right in that my fears have been realised (albeit in a minority of cases).

I for one believe those justices were wrong, for a simple reason, that even if they believed there was "non-biometric verification" in some cases, their decision should not have been based solely on that to order a re-run because as you have rightly pointed out, the "strength" given to biometric verification in the CI 75 is wrong and in my view too, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That small committee which put that together did not do a good job (with all due respect) and simply overlooked the fact that unlike human verification e.g. thumb print, machines are not human and CAN and DO also falter!!! Therefore to give BV such a pride of place in the verification process needs to be looked at again and the wording rephrased appropriately to be in proper alignment with constitutional article 42.

These are views coming from a non-legal person with a particular interest in our constitution and the rights and freedoms of the people.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Paul, I am not sure what sort of post petition postmortem NPP will do. But, was it not interesting that even the minority Justices who granted the claims of over voting, voting without biometric verification and unsigned pink ...
read full comment

Paul, I am not sure what sort of post petition postmortem NPP will do. But, was it not interesting that even the minority Justices who granted the claims of over voting, voting without biometric verification and unsigned pink sheets did not annual such votes outright and in so doing disenfranchise citizens but instead ordered a rerun in the areas affected. In effect, they did not grant the reliefs being sought by the petitioners in full.

I agree with you that the No Verification, No Vote" or CI 75 was unconstitutional and I will be surprised if the majority Justices who rejected this claim do not make such a pronouncement in their written decisions.

Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Kofi, it would be interesting to see what their detailed decisions were indeed. Kwaku Azar seems to already have some "details" for one of the justices and this has been posted on GLU. I wonder where and how he got this.

M ...
read full comment

Kofi, it would be interesting to see what their detailed decisions were indeed. Kwaku Azar seems to already have some "details" for one of the justices and this has been posted on GLU. I wonder where and how he got this.

My unknown-unknown seems to be playing out here and without trying to be insulting or disrespectful of any judge, I wonder if some may not have sought 'outside help' in drafting their arguments. This is of course hypothetical, but an unknown-unknown for me, which would relate to my strong argument about the justices being human after all. This is also borne out by the pattern of voting and decision-making. I think we need to call a spade a spade to be honest.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Paul, what is GLU? I do not visit that and is it possible to copy what Azar has posted.

I will ask him to send me a copy.

Paul, what is GLU? I do not visit that and is it possible to copy what Azar has posted.

I will ask him to send me a copy.
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

GLU is Ghana Leadership Union, a forum set up by Dr Kwaku A. Danso and which boasts the likes of Kwame Npianim, Raymond Atuguba, Kwaku Asare etc. as members. I was invited to join only two weeks ago and there is a lot of inte ...
read full comment

GLU is Ghana Leadership Union, a forum set up by Dr Kwaku A. Danso and which boasts the likes of Kwame Npianim, Raymond Atuguba, Kwaku Asare etc. as members. I was invited to join only two weeks ago and there is a lot of interesting intellectual debate and ideas for government put forward.

My only problem with it is that the same partisan emotions surface from time to time and it is an email system so has the tendency to flood your mail box with postings, some of which may not be of particular personal interest. They cover issues across the continent. Might be worth googling them or if you like, I can link you to them if you mail me at p.amuna@gmail.com
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Folks,here is Kwaku Azar's posting about Justice Yeboah's decision on biometric voting (or the lack thereof).

....................
"I would have readily proceeded to grant the reliefs sought in its entirety but the ONLY ...
read full comment

Folks,here is Kwaku Azar's posting about Justice Yeboah's decision on biometric voting (or the lack thereof).

....................
"I would have readily proceeded to grant the reliefs sought in its entirety but the ONLY problem is that from the available evidence, the widespread violations, omission and malpractices appeared to be of such proportions that it would not be proper for me to declare the first petitioner as winner of the elections in controversy in terms of the reliefs sought.

I find the malpractices, omissions and violations enormous which rock the very foundation of free and fair elections as enshrined in our constitution which was itself breached through over-voting, lack of presiding officer's signature and lack of biometric verification which take its validity from Article 51 of the very constitution.

I would therefore grant the relief (I) in view of the evidence led and decline to grant relief (II). I, however, as consequential order, order the second respondent to organize an election to elect a president as I cannot rely on an election which was seriously fraught with all the malpractices, irregularities and statutory violations proved in this petition to declare the first petitioner as having been duly elected."

The foregoing, in my opinion, should have been the unanimous decision of the court as it upholds the rule of law as well as protects the citizens' right to vote."
Joe McDictionary 12 years ago

Kofi Attsa,
What does unanimous mean and in what context does the unanimous in your article title refer to. Is 5 -4 unanimous??

Kofi Attsa,
What does unanimous mean and in what context does the unanimous in your article title refer to. Is 5 -4 unanimous??
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Joe, I have reread the article and cannot find where I stated that there was 5-4 unanimous. I said 5-4 majority. The unanimous affirmation of the right to vote was from the fact, even the 4 Justices who annulled the votes reg ...
read full comment

Joe, I have reread the article and cannot find where I stated that there was 5-4 unanimous. I said 5-4 majority. The unanimous affirmation of the right to vote was from the fact, even the 4 Justices who annulled the votes regarding over voting, voting without biometric verification and the absence of signatures ordered a re-run of the polling stations affected. This means the voters affected were not disenfranchised but their votes were to be re-instated by the rerun and that was what I referred to as unanimous. I hope this is clear to you now.
696969 12 years ago

THE MOST DISGRACED PRESIDENT EVER LIVED- MR JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA. NOW READ

IT IS VERY VERY SAD AND DISAPPOINTING THAT THE JUDGES OF THE APEX OF LAW APPLICATION BODY(SUPREME COURT) WILL HAVE TO BASED THEIR JUDGEMENT ON WHOEV ...
read full comment

THE MOST DISGRACED PRESIDENT EVER LIVED- MR JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA. NOW READ

IT IS VERY VERY SAD AND DISAPPOINTING THAT THE JUDGES OF THE APEX OF LAW APPLICATION BODY(SUPREME COURT) WILL HAVE TO BASED THEIR JUDGEMENT ON WHOEVER PAYS MONEY TO THEM. CLEARLY THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT IF YOU ARE POOR YOU DON'T DESERVE JUSTICE.
AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR OF ANNOUNCING THE REAL WINNER OF 2012 GENERAL ELECTION, WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD THE INFORMATION THAT THE JUDGEMENT HAD GONE AGAINST HIM HE SENT HIS AGENTS TO MEET THE AGENTS OF THE JUDGES AND GIVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE 'BEGGARS'(JUDGES) TO TURN THE VERDICT IN HIS FAVOR. AFTER RECEIVING THE MONEY THREE OF THE JUDGES REJECTED THE MONEY BUT SIX ACCEPTED WITH CHIEF BRIBE RECEIVER WILLIAM ATUGUBA LEADING THE CREWS TO TAKE THE MONEY.

REASON TO CHANGE 1100 TO 1400

BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF THE MONEY THERE WAS SERIOUS DELIBERATION GOING ON AS TO HOW TO DECLARE THE VERDICT WITHOUT CAUSING ANY CONFUSION IN THE COUNTRY. ALL THE NINE JUDGES WERE/ARE WELL AWARE AND 100% CONVINCED THAT NANA ADDO DANKWA AKOFO-ADDO WON THE ELECTION WITH VAST MARGIN. BUT BECAUSE OF FEAR OF INTIMIDATION, THREAT, ''MANY WAYS TO KILL A CAT'' FROM RULING GOVERNMENT, THE VERDICT WOULD HAVE TO BE DIVERTED IN FAVOR OF THE LOSER OF THE ELECTION.

THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH

NOW I RAIN THESE CURSES UPON THE JUDGES AS WELL AS ALL THOSE INVOLVE IN THE BRIBE AND THEIR DESCENDANTS TO THE 7TH GENERATIONS IF THEY TOOK BRIBE BEFORE JUDGEMENT.
''4But you endure not patiently, nor fulfill the commandments of the Lord; but you transgress and calumniate his greatness; and malignant are the words in your polluted mouths against his Majesty.
5You withered in heart, no peace shall be to you!
6Therefore your days shall you curse, and the years of your lives shall perish; perpetual execration shall be multiplied, and you shall not obtain mercy

I HEREBY INVOKE THE WICKEDNESS AND ATROCITIES FROM AZAZYEL, ZAMYAZA AND Urakabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Saraknyal, Asael, Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal TO DEAL TREACHEROUSLY WITH ALL THOSE WHO PAID AS WELL AS THOSE WHO RECEIVED THE BRIBE BEFORE THE DECLARATION OF THE VERDICT. THEY HAVE OPENED THEIR DOORS TO GET YOU IN, BY ACCEPTING BRIBE AND DENY JUSTICE, TO DEAL WITH THEM ALL THE WICKED PLANS YOU RAINED UPON THE PEOPLE ON EARTH WHEN YOU WERE DENIED RETURN TO HEAVEN. TURN ALL YOUR ANGER TO THOSE WHO PAID THE BRIBE AND THOSE WHO RECEIVED IT WITHOUT IGNORING THE MESSENGERS WHO TOOK THE MONEY TO THE JUDGES OR THEIR AGENTS''
MR PRESIDENT JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AND YOUR GROUP, JUSTICE WILLIAM ATUGUBA AND YOUR COLLEAGUES IF YOU GOT INVOLVE IN ANY UNFAIR DEALINGS BEFORE JUDGEMENT FINGERS CROSSED AND AWAIT FOR YOUR GENERATIONAL INCURABLE CURSES
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

No doubt you could not even use a name but represented yourself with figures. My response to you is simple. For making such an unsubstantiated but very serious allegation, you in contempt of court. I am sure you were aware of ...
read full comment

No doubt you could not even use a name but represented yourself with figures. My response to you is simple. For making such an unsubstantiated but very serious allegation, you in contempt of court. I am sure you were aware of this and that is why you could not use even a false name.
pink sheet president 12 years ago

Thank you Kofi for your article,but leave that coward who goes by 696969.#He is a disgrace to society !

Thank you Kofi for your article,but leave that coward who goes by 696969.#He is a disgrace to society !
Jato Kaleo 12 years ago

GHANAIANS WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE ENFRANCHISED PRESIDENT MAHAHAMA SHOULD COMMISSION THE CONSTTUTIONAL COMMITTEE TO GET TO WORK RIGHT AWAY.

GHANAIANS WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE ENFRANCHISED PRESIDENT MAHAHAMA SHOULD COMMISSION THE CONSTTUTIONAL COMMITTEE TO GET TO WORK RIGHT AWAY.

KBK 12 years ago

Nice piece

Nice piece
pink sheet president 12 years ago

Kofi Atta,
I have not read any of your earlier articles for me to tag a political lineage to your personality.But from what i read here, you have been fair and open minded in your preaentation and opinion. May God help you t ...
read full comment

Kofi Atta,
I have not read any of your earlier articles for me to tag a political lineage to your personality.But from what i read here, you have been fair and open minded in your preaentation and opinion. May God help you to contribute meaninfully to the advancement of our country's democrasy.How i would have wishe people like Kwame Ahoofe and Rockson could also be useful to the average educated Ghanaian,but Hmmmmm !!!
Nyansasem 12 years ago

"Among the reliefs sought by the Petitioners was for the SC was an outright annulment of 4 million Ghanaians including those who “allegedly” voted without biometric verification and to deny them their constitutional right ...
read full comment

"Among the reliefs sought by the Petitioners was for the SC was an outright annulment of 4 million Ghanaians including those who “allegedly” voted without biometric verification and to deny them their constitutional right to vote"

I wonder where you read from the petition that NPP at all cost wanted the SC to ANNUL the votes of 4 million people and make Akufo the president of Ghana. This has been a propaganda from the rented press. I might be wrong though. Could you please link me where you read this from. You know it would be totally useless to debate on issues with false premise.

Having said that, I also can't believe that those who supported Atuguba in his fight to trample the RIGHT of our freedom of speech have now turned 180 degrees to fight for the RIGHT to vote at ALL COST or by any means necessary. This to me, is very dangerous and disingenuous. The constitution has become a pick and choose for our politricks. And depending who is applying that law or constitution for his personal or party gains, we accept it obsequiously.

The same constitution that gives us the RIGHT to freedom of speech also gives the citizenry right to votes. Yet, you Kofi believes that the right for freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute, but the right to Vote should be absolute, even against EC's own laws and regulations. How could you eat your cake and demand it, Kofi. That is not fair and certainly, not logical.

Your argument then is, as a citizen of Ghana and above the age of 18, I can just walk into any polling and demand my voting rights. And if the EC officials did not allow me to vote, then it means the State has denied my right to vote because it is unconstitutional. This is how your argument sound. So then, may I ask what is the point of having the EC's rules and regulations to be eligible to vote or how votes could be rejected?

Seriously, I was not expecting anything different from what they had given. Not that they are right, but for the sake of Ghana as I keep on telling you. As I predicted, if the petition is rejected, we would have peace but if sustained, we won't have peace, and I have been proved right. There was no way, the violent foot-soldiers of NDC were going to let it go. Yet, still we were made to believe Akufo was the violent type.

My prayer now is to see Mahama becoming aggressive and arresting corruption that has engulfed his administration, so that the people will have faith in the administration and contribute their quota in the development of the country. I would not mind if he would use all Northerners in his administration as he has started doing, but he would have himself to be blamed if he would continue with people like Agambire and the rest in SADA, GYEEDA, etc scandal.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Nyansasem, you used to be subjective in your comments on my articles util one day I asked "what do you want from me"? Thereafter, you became objective with your comments. Now you have gone back to wear your old subjective hat ...
read full comment

Nyansasem, you used to be subjective in your comments on my articles util one day I asked "what do you want from me"? Thereafter, you became objective with your comments. Now you have gone back to wear your old subjective hat.

Could you tell me where in the article did I say or use the words, "at all cost"? Those are your words and not mine.

I do not know if you were being sarcastic by asking where did the petitioners ask for 4 million votes to be annulled so that Nana Ado could be president. Indeed, the main objective of the petition was for the annulment of over 4 million votes and the declaration of Nana Addo as winner of the 2012 presidential election. That was not in doubt and I am sure every Ghanaian who observed the hearing could affirm that. If you are unsure, then the best answer to your question would be to rephrase your question to "what did the petitioners seek from the Supreme Court"?

Yes, I still believe that freedom of speech is not absolute. However, I also expressed my concern over the way citizens were tried for contempt of court and jailed by the SC. I have never stated anywhere in my articles since December 9, 2012 that the right to vote is absolute. Absolute rights are unqualified. The right to vote are qualified and one must meet the requirement set under the qualification/s.

Could you kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth and stop accusing me of what I have not said or done in my articles. I do not take kindly to such character assassination.
Nyansasem 12 years ago

Kofi, why do you always personalize issues? Let it known to you that you did not "change" me and you can't change me. Get that right. My response to articles are based on the objectivity of the writer. Here is case, you are q ...
read full comment

Kofi, why do you always personalize issues? Let it known to you that you did not "change" me and you can't change me. Get that right. My response to articles are based on the objectivity of the writer. Here is case, you are quick to draw your conclusion, even without the overall report from SC. Yet, you have the temerity to accuse someone of being subjective while you find yourself as the only objective person.

You always think you are right and objective and someone is subjective because the person does not agree with you and that is your problem, not mine. You always want people to come under your article saying "well done" "thank you" and if you don't see that, and see any divergent views, it means that person is subjective and against you. What kind of mentality is that with some of you writers here? What makes you think that you are ALWAYS right and OBJECTIVE and someone is not? Tell me.

This is my last exchange with you on this website, but I need to explain myself, in case you did not get it. This is what I wrote:

"I wonder where you read from the petition that NPP at all cost wanted the SC to ANNUL the votes of 4 million people and make Akufo the president of Ghana"

My question to you now is, where did I say that it was you who wrote the "at all cost,?" Where, Kofi? Do you know anything about inference or implication in writing? If I had wanted to say that you said something, I would have put that in quotation marks or write that you said, so and so. Here I was asking you where you got that impression from NPP petition that they wanted the votes to be cancelled at all cost and their right to vote denied. Instead of putting your thoughts together and answer that, your partisan analysis reflect itself in your face and came back throwing tantrums. With such a temper at your race relationship board? Did any of your members disagree with you before?

This is what you wrote and that was the basis of my question.

"Among the reliefs sought by the Petitioners was for the SC was an outright annulment of 4 million Ghanaians including those who “allegedly” voted without biometric verification and to deny them their constitutional right to vote"

It is not true that every Ghanaian believes that Addo wanted some votes to be cancelled and their constitutional rights denied. That is propaganda by you and NDC members who can't accept the fact that Nana Addo used his constitutional rights to challenge the election results. That is a lie and you know it but you will keep on regurgitating it because it suits your agenda; support NDC in every way.

NPP went to court to correct the wrongs that happened during the election. They choose to use their constitutional rights and sought a petition from the SC judges. It was left with the supreme court judges to do whatever they see fit and not the NPP or Nana Addo.

They know that SC judges can't make a President and so what is the basis of this lies that they wanted to deny some people their rights to vote. I believe what they had hope for at best is to seek re-election in some polling station and not an outright annulment of what you and your NDC members keep on saying. There was nowhere they wanted to disenfranchise any person in our society. It is pure bogus, lies and propaganda.

Now you can start your tantrums and your fool soldiers will come and pat your shoulders as you want. That is all you want from your write-ups and not any intellectual debate articles. I have been here for while, I have disagree with Danny, Sarpong, Okoampa, Dr SAS, Nii and many others but none had threw a tantrum like what you have done. Go on and enjoy your praises from the foot-soldier of NDC - "yes sir" "well done" "that was brilliant" etc... I pray that you get 100 bloggers coming to praise you all the time...
Nyansasem 12 years ago

Over to you, Kofi. I want your opinion on Tsatsu insinuating that Justice Anim is bias. The same Tsatsu who had audacity to insult people in front of the judges while Atuguba laughs.

Lead Counsel for the governing National ...
read full comment

Over to you, Kofi. I want your opinion on Tsatsu insinuating that Justice Anim is bias. The same Tsatsu who had audacity to insult people in front of the judges while Atuguba laughs.

Lead Counsel for the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the just-ended election petition case, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, has accused Justice Anim Yeboah, one of the nine Supreme Court Judges that heard the matter, of allowing his political affiliations to cloud his judgment.

Mr. Tsikata said Justice Anim-Yeboah consistently took an opposing stance against the NDC’s arguments and position as far as the case was concerned, from the onset.

According to him, he was not really surprised by Justice Anim Yeboah’s persistent and consistent opposition to the stance of the NDC because he was appointed to the Supreme Court by former President John Agyekum Kufuor of the New Patriotic Party (NPP).

Mr. Tsikata expressed his concerns when he spoke on TV3’s Hot Issues programme on Saturday August 31, 2013.

Asked by the host, Kwesi Pratt Jr., if he was surprised that three of the nine Judges consistently voted against the respondents in three of the six pleadings of the petitioners as far as the final verdict of the case pronounced on Thursday August 29, 2013 was concerned, Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata said: “I’ll tell you very frankly that it didn’t surprise me that Justice Anim Yeboah was consistently in that group”.

“I mean he has been consistently against even the NDC being joined as a party and consistently in Court, I mean, it was quite clear that he was taking positions against everything that was put forward from our side, I mean, there was a very consistent way”, Mr. Tsikata observed.

He noted that: “…Again I think that we all understand that the judiciary is made up of human beings. They have their own political ambitions and in his [Justice Anim Yeboah] case, he was appointed as a Judge by President Kufuor. He probably still has a certain loyalty to the cause of [Mr. Kufuor]”.

Responding to a question about whether a Judge’s political affiliation should matter when taking decisions on issues before the court, Mr. Tsikata said: “It should not, but I’m giving you a frank example in a situation where it seems to me like somebody like that [Justice Anim Yeboah] really did not take up what I will call a truly balanced judicial posture in relation to the matters that were before him and I say that very frankly, but I believe that that is an observation that one can make and we do recognise as Lawyers and as Law teachers particularly, we do recognise the ways in which sometimes decisions are affected by some of these personal prejudices and positions”.

Adducing further anecdotal evidence to support his allegations against Justice Anim Yeboah, Mr. Tsikata recalled that: “I gave you an example in relation to my own case. Again Justice Anim Yeboah, he sat in the court of appeal. He gave a decision. Its in the reports - you can go and read it – in which, you know, against the position that I had taken, that the IFC, International Finance Corporation – is not immune from the jurisdiction of the Courts of Ghana. He gave a decision asserting an immunity and in asserting it, all he relied on was the statement of the immunity of the International Monetary Fund, a different organisation".

"I mean its in black and white. He read, you know, an article from a statute which is about the International Monetary Fund and he read it to apply to International Finance Corporation. I mean you don’t do that but he did, in my case, and again in that case, there was no doubt in my mind about his political convictions being the driver of the decision,” Mr. Tsikata noted.

According to him, “…I think we need to uncover them in order to correct them also, because Judges should not, indeed, let political partisanship be the determinant of positions they take”.
Adams 12 years ago

This Tsatsu guy wants Ghana to start war, otherwise why is he talking such rubbish. He is opening the floodgate for others to start dissecting the Peppefours in the Supreme Court and blame the most nefarious Atubuga. Tsatsu m ...
read full comment

This Tsatsu guy wants Ghana to start war, otherwise why is he talking such rubbish. He is opening the floodgate for others to start dissecting the Peppefours in the Supreme Court and blame the most nefarious Atubuga. Tsatsu must watch out and shut his mouth before running in front of the media, because he is laying the fire that can escalate to real frenzy in Ghana. He has no right to discuss the verdict so close to the event. The media houses MUST not entertain him, otherwise there is going to be a backlash against Atubuga in particular.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Nyansasem, the said report was the first item I read when I logged onto Ghanaweb after diner. In fact, I was unaware that you had asked for my views on what Tsatsu said. But on reading your comment on that report, I found it ...
read full comment

Nyansasem, the said report was the first item I read when I logged onto Ghanaweb after diner. In fact, I was unaware that you had asked for my views on what Tsatsu said. But on reading your comment on that report, I found it disappointing and responded (unknown that you actually wanted my comment). I refer you to it. If I was aware at the time that you wanted my views I would have given more details as per your comment herein but I think what I said was enough.
Dr Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

Kofi, you have jumped the gun in the same way that you thought I had. I do not see the ruling as upholding the right to vote at all costs. You have only looked at one article in the Constitution. The Constitution only talks a ...
read full comment

Kofi, you have jumped the gun in the same way that you thought I had. I do not see the ruling as upholding the right to vote at all costs. You have only looked at one article in the Constitution. The Constitution only talks about the right to be registered to vote and also give the EC the power to bring out other laws through CI's to regulate elections. Till the time that the SC declare CI 75 as unconstitutional, that is what governed the elections. I do not think that it would be proper to hold a law to be retrospectively unconstitutional. Otherwise we had an illegal election and its declaration could not have stood.

I agree that all the dissenting Justices wanted the elections re-run. That does not mean that if the infractions had been discovered on the day of the elections, they could not have been annulled.

Courts have been known to order fresh elections because the Judiciary had always felt uncomfortable to intrude into elections; hence their preference for fresh elections. To me that is also the fairer way.

I know you work in a capacity that is allied to the Judicial system in one way or the other. I think you might be familiar with divorce cases in the UK. The women always ask for everything that the law permits - maintenance payments, lump sums, etc. but the courts tend to grant only those that are fair and realistic.

I wrote an article in December 2012, after the petition was filed, and concluded then that I would be more comfortable with a re-run in affected areas to annulment of votes. My reason was that election of a President should be one decided by the Ghanaian collective rather than by the courts. I thought the Justices felt the same way and that curtailing of voting rights was not the deciding factor. It was to make the eventual President acceptable to the Ghanaian electorate.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Dr Ohemeng, I will not argue with you over me also jumping the gun. Yes, I might have though I thought I could review that aspect of the verdict before the written reasons are known but you are right.

Regarding CI 75, I am ...
read full comment

Dr Ohemeng, I will not argue with you over me also jumping the gun. Yes, I might have though I thought I could review that aspect of the verdict before the written reasons are known but you are right.

Regarding CI 75, I am not sure if the words "No Verification, No Vote" were contained in it. I believe the words used were "shall go through verification process". That is constitutional but NVNV in my view is unconstitutional.

I dO not share your view that if NVNV is ruled unconstitutional then the whole election would be illegal. It was legal up to when the ruling was given and would only affect only citizens who were denied the right to vote because they could not be identified by the Biometric Verification Machine and not the totality of all the votes.

You have a point on the re-run and I will agree with you that until we read the reasons given by the Justices for the re-run as well as why they annulled those votes, my conclusion that the rerun is a defacto unconstitutional ruling of the NVNV edict remains speculative.

I have a second article critical of how the petitioners went about with the three claims that were unanimously rejected by the Justices. Hope to read your views on my criticisms. It should appear probably tomorrow. The title is very provocative ("Were Akufo-Addo, Bawumia and Obestebi Lamptey Clueless"?). I hope readers will not focus their attention on the title but the contents and be objective in their comments rather than be partisan.

Kwaku 12 years ago

If it not too late, could you send SC ruling on Ghanaians with citizenship of other countries to bokyi2001@yahoo.com

If it not too late, could you send SC ruling on Ghanaians with citizenship of other countries to bokyi2001@yahoo.com
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Kofi, Here’s more from Justice Yeboah which Kwaku Azar has let out:
“… I have noticed that all the pink sheets captured in the data were in the KPMG report which was accepted by the court as the official record of pink ...
read full comment

Kofi, Here’s more from Justice Yeboah which Kwaku Azar has let out:
“… I have noticed that all the pink sheets captured in the data were in the KPMG report which was accepted by the court as the official record of pink sheets to be considered by this court which had also taken care of pink sheets not legible as well as others that suffer from other deformities.

On the several pink sheets that fell within the category of No Signature, the invalid votes, which were declared as annulled by me, would be 659,814 out of which the first petitioners’ annulled votes would come to 170,940 whereas that of the first respondents would come to 382,088. It does appear that this would reduce the first petitioner’s valid votes to 5,077,958 whereas that of the first respondent’s would come up to 5,192,673. It must be pointed out that other contestants obtained insignificant numbers.

However, neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent would obtain fifty per cent plus as required under the constitution as the first petitioner’s percentage votes would be 48.68% whereas that of the first respondent would be 49.78% of the total valid votes cast.

As regards over-voting the first petitioner’s votes after annulment of the invalid votes would be 5,040,176 forming a 48.88% of valid votes whereas that of the first respondent would be 5,112,667 making a percentage of 49.59% of the valid votes cast.

On no biometric verification, the invalid votes to be annulled against that of the first petitioner would be 221,678 leaving his valid votes to 5,027,220 and making a percentage of the total valid votes cast stand at 49.14% in percentage terms, whereas the first respondent’s total annulled votes would come up to 526,416 leaving him with 5,048,345 and a percentage of 49.35% of the valid votes cast…

See my own comments below – My unknown-unknown is truly playing out here and I think the respondents were right to be worried!!!
P Amuna’s take
“Would you say this is a just and reasonable way to adjudicate in this
matter? I beg to differ and it tells me this parituclar judge was
simply going with what the petitioners had presented and ignoring
basic fundamentals. ~If this judge believes that lack of signatures on
pink sheets is enough to annul votes then God truly help us.

This in my view (and with all due respect) is a very poor judgment and
wrong in my opinion. It goes against the grain of the constitution
surely!!! Let's leave partisan interests aside (I don't belong to
either party), and let us think of precedents which will be cheap
fodder for litigation in the future. This is a very poor judgment
indeed in my view.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Paul, thanks a lot. They make interesting reading but I will reserve my comment until I have read the written reason/s in their entirety so I can make more informed comments.

Paul, thanks a lot. They make interesting reading but I will reserve my comment until I have read the written reason/s in their entirety so I can make more informed comments.
JC 12 years ago

YES! IT MEANS THERE IS NO NEED FOR ELECTORAL LAWS! DANGEROUS RULING! DISHONEST SC JUDGES. TOTAL DISREGARD FOR C.Is. WHAT A COURT!

YES! IT MEANS THERE IS NO NEED FOR ELECTORAL LAWS! DANGEROUS RULING! DISHONEST SC JUDGES. TOTAL DISREGARD FOR C.Is. WHAT A COURT!

34 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

SC Unanimously Affirms the Rights to Vote

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (34)

Read Comments Comments (34)