How the Supreme Court erred

Read Article

Comments (64)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (64)

william 12 years ago

Why not tell us what the petitioners complained about and what remedies they were seeking from the court?

Why not tell us what the petitioners complained about and what remedies they were seeking from the court?
Facebook lawyer 12 years ago

Next time NPP should send their case to Solicitor and Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, Mr Kwame Adofo for adjudication, period, case close. For now the case is over and Ghana is at peace with itse ...
read full comment

Next time NPP should send their case to Solicitor and Barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, Mr Kwame Adofo for adjudication, period, case close. For now the case is over and Ghana is at peace with itself. The fire is reigning in NPP camp now instead of entire Ghana. God is definitely not on NPP side "the battle is the Lord's"
Ekuma 12 years ago

Next time tell Bad wool mia , to fetch his evidence from the trumulized ANUS of pink shits . Nonsense .

They thought burning the markets will frighten the 9 judges to pronounce the arrogant evil dwarf 'KAPWEPWE as Ghana's ...
read full comment

Next time tell Bad wool mia , to fetch his evidence from the trumulized ANUS of pink shits . Nonsense .

They thought burning the markets will frighten the 9 judges to pronounce the arrogant evil dwarf 'KAPWEPWE as Ghana's President at all cost , even from the aromatic VAGINA of pink sheets. What NONSENSE and ' nkwasiasem' ? Nonsense
insight to the bone 12 years ago

There is no smoke without fire , many times our chiefs for 30 pieces of silver have betrayed the interests of the people . they not only take money but also actively promote the most toxic of ideas against the welfare of the ...
read full comment

There is no smoke without fire , many times our chiefs for 30 pieces of silver have betrayed the interests of the people . they not only take money but also actively promote the most toxic of ideas against the welfare of the people . We have had an ayigbe/pepeni revolution and now the wind changes and the Akan revolution will come to be whether through the ballot box or by war it will come to pass . let these pepeni and ayigbe feel what its like to see their women stripped naked and whipped in the streets by our frisky boys , let them see what its like for both the innocent and guilty without discrimination be accused corruption and thrown in jail , let them see what its like to have their eminent men manhandled and tortured so that a few years later they all die of stroke , heart attaches and stress, let them see what is like to watch their sons and daughters have to travel the 7 seas just to find a better future as at home pepeni and ayigbe revolutionaries will steal their businesses or deny them the chance . yes we now not only polarize but radicalize since liberals like mills are killed and nana rejected ,it is time for fearless righteous Akans like ken agyapong , ursula and sir john to be flag bearers . ndc you just continue your corrupt ways but soon we will have you , your wives , children , girlfriends pay the a very dear price for your greed . keep on bribing these chiefs we have the family heads and clans on our side , long live the republic of Akan
Nii 12 years ago

Dear Mr. Koramoah, you rather got it wrong. Since there were six areas of allegations, the cumulative effect of the justices' ruling on the issue of whether there was irregularity was that there was none. You cannot just take ...
read full comment

Dear Mr. Koramoah, you rather got it wrong. Since there were six areas of allegations, the cumulative effect of the justices' ruling on the issue of whether there was irregularity was that there was none. You cannot just take the fact that five justices said there were irregularities. Note that the five did not rule that there were irregularities based on all the pleadings of the petitioners. You can not just pick and choose from the petitioners pleadings. You must look at the cumulative effect of their pleadings. Since the cumulative effect of justices' ruling in 1) is NO then it means that the answer to issue 2) is also NO. This is what the justices said. Thank you.
GHANAMAN 12 years ago

THIS IS WHAT I CALLED BUKATA 419 JUDGEMENT. THANK GOODNESS THAT WE HAVE A JUST GOD WHO SIT HIGH AND LOOK LOW WHO THESE JUDGES WILL ANSWER TO ONE DAY. THE EVIL THAT MEN DO LIVES AFTER THEM. NONSENSE!

THIS IS WHAT I CALLED BUKATA 419 JUDGEMENT. THANK GOODNESS THAT WE HAVE A JUST GOD WHO SIT HIGH AND LOOK LOW WHO THESE JUDGES WILL ANSWER TO ONE DAY. THE EVIL THAT MEN DO LIVES AFTER THEM. NONSENSE!
Steve 12 years ago

Accept it GOD is not on your side .

Accept it GOD is not on your side .
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

No, my brother the way you are looking at it is wrong. The court set out the issues to be determined. The issues were to cumulatively look at the evidence and then vote according to the issues set for trail, otherwise what wa ...
read full comment

No, my brother the way you are looking at it is wrong. The court set out the issues to be determined. The issues were to cumulatively look at the evidence and then vote according to the issues set for trail, otherwise what was the utility of the issues set for trial?
Wiafe 12 years ago

Mr. Adofo--you got it all wrong. The whole freak show was about finding the "right" way to stop Mugo Yaro's patatpa. The petition was evil and clearly it was set out to create instability in the country.

So the whole c ...
read full comment

Mr. Adofo--you got it all wrong. The whole freak show was about finding the "right" way to stop Mugo Yaro's patatpa. The petition was evil and clearly it was set out to create instability in the country.

So the whole court case was just to find a "smooth" way to retire this short guy with "kokotii" ambitions.

The goal has been achieved--and the country will move forward. So don't lose any sleep over it. The short guy was stopped. He will be given some "kudi" to help his retirement--hopefully he (Akuffo) will share some of the booty with his followers.
kwame koramoah 12 years ago

Well that may well be so but in the jurisprudence we cannot let it go unanswered

Well that may well be so but in the jurisprudence we cannot let it go unanswered

MARK 12 years ago

You are right that the judges should have voted directly the 2 questions they set out to find answers to. it appears they did not. Instead they voted on what I call the "determining issues" which will crucially inform their a ...
read full comment

You are right that the judges should have voted directly the 2 questions they set out to find answers to. it appears they did not. Instead they voted on what I call the "determining issues" which will crucially inform their answers to the 2 questions. By voting 5:4 at worst in favor of respondents, and at best against the petitioners, on these "determing issues" there was no way the petitioners could have won. So legally I think you could ask the SC to re-vote appropriately. But the outcome, I'm afriad, would remain the same. What do you think?
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Ha ha haaa. I am in limbo as what the outcome would be. This is why we are doing this analysis, maybe the judges will help us answer.

Ha ha haaa. I am in limbo as what the outcome would be. This is why we are doing this analysis, maybe the judges will help us answer.
Nii 12 years ago

I feel you brother but I think the justices already answered and their verdict will be the same no matter how the question was asked. Remember that the petitioner is about the validity of Mahama's presidency. The verdict is c ...
read full comment

I feel you brother but I think the justices already answered and their verdict will be the same no matter how the question was asked. Remember that the petitioner is about the validity of Mahama's presidency. The verdict is clear; he was validly elected. But you have done well to identify these issue. I thought about what you wrote when the judgment was give and eventually realized that the justices were trying to avoid a situation where the petitioners will be demanding a review for each of their pleadings.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 12 years ago

Mr Adofo, you make some valid points. However, in my view if the Justices had taken your approach, perhaps, the outcome could have been the same (5-4) in favour of the respondents. In that scenario, the petitioners would have ...
read full comment

Mr Adofo, you make some valid points. However, in my view if the Justices had taken your approach, perhaps, the outcome could have been the same (5-4) in favour of the respondents. In that scenario, the petitioners would have felt more cheated and say that they made six claims and would have expected the Justices to decide on each claim separately. The Justices would have been accused of taking the easier option of just yes or no. What would have been your response, though I concur with your approach?
Nii 12 years ago

Thank you Kofi. If the justices had gone what the writer suggested you can imagine what the petitioners would have done. By addressing each of their pleadings, the justices avoid that confusion. Initially I was also looking a ...
read full comment

Thank you Kofi. If the justices had gone what the writer suggested you can imagine what the petitioners would have done. By addressing each of their pleadings, the justices avoid that confusion. Initially I was also looking at it from the writer's view but I realized that would have led to more confusion. That is why I am saying the cumulative effect is the same. By a majority vote it is no to 1) and no to 2). Thank you.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Well Nii, you see in law we identify an issue for determination and resolve the issue in the end. The judges did otherwise which suggest that they themselves got confused by what was before them. It does not make sense to ide ...
read full comment

Well Nii, you see in law we identify an issue for determination and resolve the issue in the end. The judges did otherwise which suggest that they themselves got confused by what was before them. It does not make sense to identify an issue but then rule on evidence without addressing the issue. This judgement is not complete in law.
Nii 12 years ago

My brother you can urge the petitioners to go for a review but I doubt the results will be any different. Remember that half of ALL the petitioners' pleadings were dismissed unanimously.

My brother you can urge the petitioners to go for a review but I doubt the results will be any different. Remember that half of ALL the petitioners' pleadings were dismissed unanimously.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Well, Kofi it may well have been the case, however in law when you identify an issue and you rule on other things not in issue, that is an ERROR. plainly simple. Whether or not the result would have been the same is not to th ...
read full comment

Well, Kofi it may well have been the case, however in law when you identify an issue and you rule on other things not in issue, that is an ERROR. plainly simple. Whether or not the result would have been the same is not to the point. The judges simply got it wrong and in most cases review should be sought.
Nii 12 years ago

MARK thank so much. This is exactly my point. Either way you look at it the result will be the same. It is unfortunate the justices did not answer the two questions directly. But I agree wih what Kofi Ata has written below be ...
read full comment

MARK thank so much. This is exactly my point. Either way you look at it the result will be the same. It is unfortunate the justices did not answer the two questions directly. But I agree wih what Kofi Ata has written below because if the justices had ruled on the two the petitioners would have cried foul. The petitioners would have demanded to know the answer to each of their pleadings. So somehow the justices chose between the lesser of two evils to communicate their ruling ie. against the petitioners.
kwame koramoah 12 years ago

Nii, please read judgement. Nowhere did the judges answered the questions in the terms you put it. Some stated the issues but in the end they did not answer the issues they themselves set for trial. This is the problem. In la ...
read full comment

Nii, please read judgement. Nowhere did the judges answered the questions in the terms you put it. Some stated the issues but in the end they did not answer the issues they themselves set for trial. This is the problem. In law you identify the issue, you state the law, and apply the law to the set of facts and conclude. The issues were set out clearly by the judges, but please point to anywhere in the judgement where they told us what their answers were

NPP - Disillusioned Desperadoes 12 years ago

Hey Mr Adofo with reference to your... "In law you identify the issue, you state the law, and apply the law to the set of facts and conclude. The issues were set out clearly by the judges, but please point to anywhere in the ...
read full comment

Hey Mr Adofo with reference to your... "In law you identify the issue, you state the law, and apply the law to the set of facts and conclude. The issues were set out clearly by the judges, but please point to anywhere in the judgement where they told us what their answers were.." you had better go and get copies of the original versions of the rulings by each of the justices.

I believe the judges complied with what you have set out "supra"...(hahahaaaaa) I've picked some legalese...!!!
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Ha ha haaa. I have read the entire judgement and I have set out in the article where the respective judges so held.

Ha ha haaa. I have read the entire judgement and I have set out in the article where the respective judges so held.
Nii 12 years ago

My brother I agree with you on that but like I said the effect will be the same. See the response of MARK and Kofi Ata above. Personally I was of same opinion as you but after reading the judgement I saw that the justices avo ...
read full comment

My brother I agree with you on that but like I said the effect will be the same. See the response of MARK and Kofi Ata above. Personally I was of same opinion as you but after reading the judgement I saw that the justices avoid a situation where the petitioners will say they made six pleadings and will like to know the effect of each. Even if they had voted on 1) and 2) the result will still be 5-4 in favor of the respondents. There are two ways you can interpret the judgment; i. By a majority decision the justices voted against the petitioners for both 1) and 2) hence it was NO and NO. ii. If we go with your argument (even though it is the weaker of the two) then it will be YES to 1) but NO to 2). Either way the justices cumulative effect will be vote against the petitioners' pleadings. The difficulty with your position is that you picked and chose only the ones that agreed with both 1) and 2). However you need to consider the fact that half of the petitioners' pleading was unanimously dismissed. For the other half the majority still ruled against making it difficult to sustain your argument. I hope this clarifies why I said you are wrong in your permutation. Thank you for the civil discussion.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

No, that is not correct. Please read the decision again and you would find that the majority ruled that there were violations, irrgularities, omissions that affected the outcome. They only differed in their consequential orde ...
read full comment

No, that is not correct. Please read the decision again and you would find that the majority ruled that there were violations, irrgularities, omissions that affected the outcome. They only differed in their consequential orders. This means the answers to the issues it set itself would have been different if they themselves did not err.
Nii 12 years ago

How did you arrive at that decision? Read all my explanations posted here and you will see how I arrive at my decision.

How did you arrive at that decision? Read all my explanations posted here and you will see how I arrive at my decision.
Yaw Amofa 12 years ago

Yes, so this imbecilic writer knows better than the nine justices huh? Would he have written this shit if the verdict had gone petitioners' way? All of you are empty barrels.

Yes, so this imbecilic writer knows better than the nine justices huh? Would he have written this shit if the verdict had gone petitioners' way? All of you are empty barrels.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Yaw, I dont think it is necessary when you result to insults. All it does is to stop others from contributing to the debate. Please let us look at the issues and stop the inslts.

Yaw, I dont think it is necessary when you result to insults. All it does is to stop others from contributing to the debate. Please let us look at the issues and stop the inslts.
Osabarima Darko 12 years ago

Sir, once you are quite learned, you know that, universally, if returning officers fail to sign the pink sheets, the vote of the people are still valid, and can therefore not be discarded. If both Afari Gyan and Bawumiah, adm ...
read full comment

Sir, once you are quite learned, you know that, universally, if returning officers fail to sign the pink sheets, the vote of the people are still valid, and can therefore not be discarded. If both Afari Gyan and Bawumiah, admitted "Irregularities", but not "Fraud", then this means, the petitioners have no case over here, based upon the premise of their own petition. Whether there were over-voting or not, how could you have determined that, all excess votes, culminated to benefit one particular party? Voting without biometric verification, is ruled out, because Ghana is a developing country, and the mere fact of using these machines for the very first time, one can not rule out, certain percentage of errors. Do you, Koramoah want to tell me that, there were over-voting in all the regions, and including the Volta Region, where 25 out of 26 seats, went to Mahamah, and there wasn't any excesses in the Ashanti Region, the stronghold of NPP, where NDC increased its seats, from 1 to 4, and won, except on 1, all the 11 seats in the Upper West Region too? The petitioners, would have had a strong case if all the flag bearers of all the parties, had joined in the petition. How many of the parliamentary challenges,now pending at courts, could also clear, in the foreseeable future, in favour of petitioners. In such a unitary state, with parliamentary democracy, in a uni-camera chamber, where the NDC, has more MPs(35?)than NPP,(1) how could the SC, technically unseat Mahamah, and declare Nana?, (2)How could Bills be passing the house, without an Accord, and that of power-sharing? Koramoah, could you come in please?
4 Year Old 12 years ago

The Supreme Court got it right.

The Supreme Court got it right.
kwame koramoah 12 years ago

My brother, I don't know all the answers to the questions as to who won what and at what strongholds. What I am commenting on is that after reading the judgement of the court, the court simply got it wrong in not answering th ...
read full comment

My brother, I don't know all the answers to the questions as to who won what and at what strongholds. What I am commenting on is that after reading the judgement of the court, the court simply got it wrong in not answering the questions, it set itself to answer, and that is an error. That is what we are meant to do. please read the judgement with your eye keenly looking for answers whether you will find it in there.

Osabarima Darko 12 years ago

Sir, once you are quite learned, you know that, universally, if returning officers fail to sign the pink sheets, the vote of the people are still valid, and can therefore not be discarded. If both Afari Gyan and Bawumiah, adm ...
read full comment

Sir, once you are quite learned, you know that, universally, if returning officers fail to sign the pink sheets, the vote of the people are still valid, and can therefore not be discarded. If both Afari Gyan and Bawumiah, admitted "Irregularities", but not "Fraud", then this means, the petitioners have no case over here, based upon the premise of their own petition. Whether there were over-voting or not, how could you have determined that, all excess votes, culminated to benefit one particular party? Voting without biometric verification, is ruled out, because Ghana is a developing country, and the mere fact of using these machines for the very first time, one can not rule out, certain percentage of errors. Do you, Koramoah want to tell me that, there were over-voting in all the regions, and including the Volta Region, where 25 out of 26 seats, went to Mahamah, and there wasn't any excesses in the Ashanti Region, the stronghold of NPP, where NDC increased its seats, from 1 to 4, and won, except on 1, all the 11 seats in the Upper West Region too? The petitioners, would have had a strong case if all the flag bearers of all the parties, had joined in the petition. How many of the parliamentary challenges,now pending at courts, could also clear, in the foreseeable future, in favour of petitioners. In such a unitary state, with parliamentary democracy, in a uni-camera chamber, where the NDC, has more MPs(35?)than NPP,(1) how could the SC, technically unseat Mahamah, and declare Nana?, (2)How could Bills be passing the house, without an Accord, and that of power-sharing? Koramoah, could you come in please?
Observer 12 years ago

Justice Atuguba was afraid of NDC violence and therefore misled his fellow panel members. Corrupt judgement

Justice Atuguba was afraid of NDC violence and therefore misled his fellow panel members. Corrupt judgement
Roger 12 years ago

The question is, can anyone beat Mayweather? What a fight1

The question is, can anyone beat Mayweather? What a fight1
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Nana Yaw III 12 years ago

Massa, Justice Dotse, whose written judgement is so boring that I had to muster a lot of patience, curiosity and courage to read to the end wrote, among other isuues, the following:

"SETTLING OF MEMORANDUM OF ISSUES AND P ...
read full comment

Massa, Justice Dotse, whose written judgement is so boring that I had to muster a lot of patience, curiosity and courage to read to the end wrote, among other isuues, the following:

"SETTLING OF MEMORANDUM OF ISSUES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT DATED 2ND APRIL 2013

Following the inability of counsel for the parties in the case to file and agree upon a memorandum of issues as directed by the Court, the Court on the 2nd day of April, 2013 settled the memorandum of issues based on the
pleadings filed before the Court.

These are:
1. Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices
and irregularities of the Presidential Election held on the 7th and 8th December, 2012
2. Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities, if any affected the outcome of the results of the
elections."

The case above deals with an agreement on a MOMORANDUM OF ISSUES and has absolutely nothing to do with a YES or NO vote at the end of the case.

The problem with Kwame Adofo is that he preferred to quote just a portion of a whole to suit his myopic deductions. He misled you.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Roger 12 years ago

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law ...
read full comment

Kwame, you couldn't be more right. This was all fixed before it began. Atuguba's incoherent, rambling written judgment of mostly irrelevant references was neither because he has no command of the English language and the law nor because he was stupid. It was designed to confuse. Equally so was voting on individual evidence than the two clear issues they set up for themselves to decide. This was all designed by Atuguba his NDC paymasters and other NDC judges on the bench to end in a desired decision. Unfortunately, the other good judges unsuspectingly went along with them to produce the most corrupt decision ever that Mugabe's Supreme Court would envy. You just hit the nail where it belongs. If the right thing were done we would probably have had a different outcome. After all, ALL the judges do not have to find for ALL the alleged irregularities for them to be SUFFICIENT to affect the results of the election.
Kojo KOMININI 12 years ago

TWO SCENARIOS ARISES!

TWO SCENARIOS ARISES!
BOY KOFI 12 years ago

We are in a Modern Democratic Ghana,everybody is free to his opinion but the fact of the matter is that the game is over.The Supreme Court judges have saved Ghana and we thank God for that.You can agree or disagree with the v ...
read full comment

We are in a Modern Democratic Ghana,everybody is free to his opinion but the fact of the matter is that the game is over.The Supreme Court judges have saved Ghana and we thank God for that.You can agree or disagree with the verdict and that's the law.Thank you.
Papa Yaw 12 years ago

True

True
ghanaba 12 years ago

The verdict by the JSC could be likened to the old poem "The Three Blind men who visited the Zoo" Asem be ba dabi.

The verdict by the JSC could be likened to the old poem "The Three Blind men who visited the Zoo" Asem be ba dabi.
Ekuma 12 years ago

Next time, NPP shd fetch their evidence from the VAGINA of Pink Sheets , for that will be sweet and aromatic , but not from the smelling face of Pink Sheets. Nonsense

Next time, NPP shd fetch their evidence from the VAGINA of Pink Sheets , for that will be sweet and aromatic , but not from the smelling face of Pink Sheets. Nonsense
Nana Yaw III 12 years ago

Mr. Barrister,

If the Judges reduced the whole case to:
"(1) Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the presidential election held on the 7th and 8th December, 2 ...
read full comment

Mr. Barrister,

If the Judges reduced the whole case to:
"(1) Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the presidential election held on the 7th and 8th December, 2012?

(2) Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election?"

and required only YES and NO as answers to resolve the case, then there was no need to use 80 DAYS to find the answers.

Fortunately all 9 Justices have more common sense than your reasoning, and did not restrict their work to your myopic analysis.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Nana Yaw, so what do you say was the reasons why the court set out the issues to be the only 2? Are you curious at all?

Nana Yaw, so what do you say was the reasons why the court set out the issues to be the only 2? Are you curious at all?
okukuseku 12 years ago

The so called yes votes only reccommended a re-run in the polling stations affected. What if the results of the re-run when justapoxed on the total national collation does not result in outright winner? Mind you, re-run would ...
read full comment

The so called yes votes only reccommended a re-run in the polling stations affected. What if the results of the re-run when justapoxed on the total national collation does not result in outright winner? Mind you, re-run would have to involve the other parties.So we go for a run off? A gutter joke? God save Ghana.
Whatever 12 years ago

Against the spirit of the constitution which is much more important than the letter thereof,
innocent Ghanaians or voters cannot incur punishment on behalf of electoral officers who fail in the performance of their public du ...
read full comment

Against the spirit of the constitution which is much more important than the letter thereof,
innocent Ghanaians or voters cannot incur punishment on behalf of electoral officers who fail in the performance of their public duty. So voters votes cannot be cancelled on those scores. That is the wisdom in the ruling. It was a Clean ruling
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Well, your statement is putting your personal feelings to what would have happened. That was not in issue. The issues were as set out by the court, which sadly the court misled itself in committing an error.

Well, your statement is putting your personal feelings to what would have happened. That was not in issue. The issues were as set out by the court, which sadly the court misled itself in committing an error.
Ekuma 12 years ago

Kwame Adofo, pls don't be stupid. If the judges had voted they way u wished , wouldn't u have also said they did not consider the details of over voting , unsigned pink sheets, bla bla, bla. ? Nonsense .

U are just a fool ...
read full comment

Kwame Adofo, pls don't be stupid. If the judges had voted they way u wished , wouldn't u have also said they did not consider the details of over voting , unsigned pink sheets, bla bla, bla. ? Nonsense .

U are just a foolish sore loser bewitched by an evil dwarf 'KAPWEPWE' who wants to be President at all cost , even from the ANUS of PINK SHITS . ' . Nonsense . 'Nkwasiasem ara kwa kwa'

next time ask ur foolish and untrained poling agents to give way to LITERATEs .don't bribe PO's when u see u are losing. Non' signing of PINK SHITS will not trumulize any voter as u wish. Foolish man.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Ekuma,maybe you should take the time, the effort and write your opinion and stop insults. It does not advance any cause whatsoever.

Ekuma,maybe you should take the time, the effort and write your opinion and stop insults. It does not advance any cause whatsoever.
Umslopogaas 12 years ago

HOGWASH!! Oh!., these so-called jungle/bush/tribal monkeys lawyers always, always find something to howl about to justify their tribalism.

Umslopogaas

HOGWASH!! Oh!., these so-called jungle/bush/tribal monkeys lawyers always, always find something to howl about to justify their tribalism.

Umslopogaas
BOY KOFI 12 years ago

There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court verdict.Ofcourse,the losers may always disagree with it but that is how justice works.Mind you,if you disagree with the verdict,it does not make your opinion the best verdict beca ...
read full comment

There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court verdict.Ofcourse,the losers may always disagree with it but that is how justice works.Mind you,if you disagree with the verdict,it does not make your opinion the best verdict because many people will also disagree with your opinion.The laws in our country have been interpreted by the Supreme Court judges and ofcourse you do not expect the losers to agree with the verdict. As for me,I am happy the stupid petition is over and we have our peace of mind now.We all prayed that God gives the judges wisdom to rule the case without fear and favour so they have just done that.Thank you.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

Exactly, but where the judges get it wrong we hope you accept that we need to tell it if we feel they are wrong. Next time it may not be on election but maybe on your liberty. Do you say we should let it pass even if they get ...
read full comment

Exactly, but where the judges get it wrong we hope you accept that we need to tell it if we feel they are wrong. Next time it may not be on election but maybe on your liberty. Do you say we should let it pass even if they get it wrong?
Kobena 12 years ago

Kwame,
I am not a lawyer, but I also felt right from the beginning that the court had boxed itself into a corner by crtsallising the case into two issues. Unfortunately, it then went off tangent and came up with results that ...
read full comment

Kwame,
I am not a lawyer, but I also felt right from the beginning that the court had boxed itself into a corner by crtsallising the case into two issues. Unfortunately, it then went off tangent and came up with results that had nothing to do with the objectives it had set for itself.

The fact that nearly all of the judges either called for reforms of the Electoral Commission or else castigated it means that a majority agreed with the fact that there had been violations and irregularities, as even Dr Afari-Djan himself admitted under oath.

At the end of the day, the ruling had nothing to do with justice, but the peace of Ghana. And of course there was no money even to re-run the election at those polling stations where infractions occurred, as nearly all the judges agreed on!
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

May well be the case but I am only concerned about the legality of the rulling.

May well be the case but I am only concerned about the legality of the rulling.
Whatever 12 years ago

The ruling wasn't 5-4. It was 9-0, 9-0, 7-2, 6-3 and the rest were the same except in only one which came to 5-4. Even in those instances were the supreme court held that there were irregularities which was admittedly against ...
read full comment

The ruling wasn't 5-4. It was 9-0, 9-0, 7-2, 6-3 and the rest were the same except in only one which came to 5-4. Even in those instances were the supreme court held that there were irregularities which was admittedly against the letter of the constitution, when matched up against the spirit of the constitution, it collapsed completely and the reason is that innocent people or voters cannot incur the punishment on behalf of electoral officers who fail in the performance of their public duty. So voters votes cannot be cancelled on those scores. That is the wisdom in the ruling. It was Clean
John Anamse 12 years ago

I am sure it is your kind of ideas which is driving Gabby crazy and making him come to a hazy conclusion that the Petitioners rather won the case on a 5-4 majority. Please re-think as this is uningenious.

In the first case ...
read full comment

I am sure it is your kind of ideas which is driving Gabby crazy and making him come to a hazy conclusion that the Petitioners rather won the case on a 5-4 majority. Please re-think as this is uningenious.

In the first case the SC set the matters to be determined as whether or not there was malpractices, etc and whether or not the malpractices, etc affects the election results. But please note that they did not specify the manner in which they were going to do so. In so far as they had referred to the malpractices, etc in the plural, it could be interpreted that they were not just referring to a single malpractice but rather a series of malpractices. It should not therefore be wrong if they decided to apply the matters to be determined to each malpractice as they did. You will note that they all applied the same principle of voting without any of them applying your after thought principle.

Secondly, the petitoners set out their case to be determined on a violation by violation basis. The Respondents also tackled their defence in the same manner. The addresses of both Petitioners and Respondeds also followed suit. And so why will you be expecting my Lords the Justices to deviate.

The Petitioners even made it abundantly clear that even if any one of their categories of errors was with held, they will win the case. And so why this clueless after thought.
Kwame Koramoah 12 years ago

John, so what was the point in settling the issue to be just two?

John, so what was the point in settling the issue to be just two?
C.Y. ANDY-K 12 years ago

It is indeed a fine argument and I agree that strange things did indeed happened in the unraveling of the case in court and in the decisions of the SC. To me, as I've been saying, it is the monumental failure of the NDC and M ...
read full comment

It is indeed a fine argument and I agree that strange things did indeed happened in the unraveling of the case in court and in the decisions of the SC. To me, as I've been saying, it is the monumental failure of the NDC and Mahama defence teams to pursue a legal challenge to the case, and the failure of the SC justices to put them on track to do so, which led to the case taking so long and the delving into irrelevancies through all that show-boating instead of legal arguments.

If indeed a legal challenge had been properly mounted, the case would have been argued differently by the defence team, taken much shorter time, and I believe the decisions of the Justices too would have been different, 9-0, in favour of the respondents! I still believe it was a frivolous case which shouldn't have gone to court.

You see, they could all have agreed on Yes for 1) but all No to 2)!

2) Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election?

That's the crux of the case and the yardstick applied in previous precedents.

On absence of presiding officers signatures, can anyone really argue that infringement of that const'nal requirement, a priori, affected the votes cast for the respective candidates? Something (not signing) that happened after the fact (voting)? Lawyer Akpalu of Harvard succinctly pointed out in his article posted a couple of days ago, and I quote:

"Contrary to the reasoning of the learned Justices, not all constitutional violations lead to a pre-determined result. Since they cited copiously to other jurisdictions, they could perhaps have addressed themselves to the “
harmless constitutional error” doctrine developed in the US beginning with the 1967 case of Chapman v. California. The gravamen of the harmless error doctrine is that the courts will not nullify a decision – even in the face of
a constitutional violation – if the error caused by the violation is
harmless.

If the learned Justices had addressed their minds to this doctrine or
principle, which is also applicable in several constitutional regimes, their proper attention should have been focused on the effect of the non-signature of the Presiding Officers, especially as to whether or not, it, in fact, affected the results of the election. Instead, the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the absence of the Presiding Officer’s signature on the pink sheet became the sole focus without any serious examination of the
larger election context and the constitutional rights of the electorate."
Unquote.

My point of departure is that it was rather the failure of the respondents' lawyers to make that argument that left the room opened for some justices to fail to take into account the "harmless const'nal error doctrine" and indulged themselves in some Cartesian, mechanistic logic only fit for amusement. After all, that's one way Constitutions change without necessarily changing wordings or formal amendments, i.e., judicial interpretation.

The same argument can be made for voting without barometric verification, which is even not a const'nal requirement and actually violates the const'nal provision for the right to vote. Yet, we didn't get any argument from the EC lawyer at all arguing such a defence except the lame duck insistence by Afari-Gyan that everybody voted by NVBNV and no evidence from print outs to show for it, just as the EC, bizarrely, could not produce original pick sheets proving that they were signed! Lawyers from respondents 1 and 3 also didn't do a good there with the exception of Tsatsu's late "retroactive punishment" argument touching on the issue, thereby allowing Justice Paul to grant that relief.

Over-voting? I won't even touch on that! Bizarre defence, bizarre decisions by some Justices!

Well, it was a pantomime of a circus by developing people and what else do we expect? Some are presuming that the Justices know all the precedents and doctrines to handle this issue. They obviously didn't!

Andy-K

64 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

How the Supreme Court erred

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 (64)

Read Comments Comments (64)