The Statistics of Atuguba's Petition

Read Article

Comments (41)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (41)

Kay 12 years ago

OUR GOD WILL BE OUR JUDGE.

OUR GOD WILL BE OUR JUDGE.
Yaw Amofa 12 years ago

You are saying this because you put your trust in the bullshit that Danquah Imbeciles aare peddling.

You are saying this because you put your trust in the bullshit that Danquah Imbeciles aare peddling.
Justin 12 years ago

I think all of these legal gymnastics by Sam Okudzeto are of no moment since Akuffo-Addo has already conceded. Nothing stops Sam Okudzeto and his ilk from going to the Supreme Court for a review if they genuinely believe that ...
read full comment

I think all of these legal gymnastics by Sam Okudzeto are of no moment since Akuffo-Addo has already conceded. Nothing stops Sam Okudzeto and his ilk from going to the Supreme Court for a review if they genuinely believe that Justice Atuguba was wrong in pronouncing judgment for John Mahama and the other respondents.
GAWUKO 12 years ago

Does pronouncement of innocence on one count negate quilt on other counts?

Does pronouncement of innocence on one count negate quilt on other counts?
Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

This is scant justice to Mr Sam Okudzeto’s observations. You have to consider the totality of the petitioner’s case, the reliefs they sought, the issues set out for trial and the final ruling before you can appreciate wha ...
read full comment

This is scant justice to Mr Sam Okudzeto’s observations. You have to consider the totality of the petitioner’s case, the reliefs they sought, the issues set out for trial and the final ruling before you can appreciate what he said.

The petitioners went to court alleging irregularities that they claimed affected the declaration of the 2012 elections. They categorically stated in their written submission that they were not fighting the case on categorisations but rather had set out in such manner to aid the court. They also said that each infraction on its own, if granted, was enough to overturn the election results, as declared. Taking cumulatively, it would show that Nana Akufo was rather validly elected.

They sought three reliefs if their claims are granted:

1. that John Mahama was not validly elected;

2. that Nana Akufo Addo was rather validly elected; and

3. any consequential orders the court may deem fit

The court then condensed the issues into the determination of two questions. It can be inferred from this action that the court deemed every infraction as an infraction and hence it lumped all of them together.

The first surprise from the ruling was that the issues set out for trial were ignored and the court rather ruled on the nature of the infractions. The second surprise was that it assumed that the infractions required cumulative effect before they can affect the results announced on 9th December. These are what have made the summary judgement by Justice Atuguba problematic.

When you read the judgements, five judges ruled for re-run of the elections in affected polling stations. Given that there was a significant number of pink sheets that contained all three statutory and constitutional infractions of no signature, no biometric verification and over-voting, even accepting the court’s voting pattern indicates that there were common polling stations between the five judges that were affected even by the disparate voting of the panel.

It goes even deeper than this. The five Judges granted or appeared to have granted the first relief that John Mahama was not validly elected. Otherwise they would not have ordered re-runs. In Ghana’s electoral laws, re-run is only ordered when the results declared are deemed to have been affected. That is if the court realised that John Mahama did not obtain the 50% plus one. Otherwise no purpose would be served with ordering them.

When you consider all these, which are by the way an academic exercise, since the petitioners were deceived into conceding, then questions can be raised about Justice Atuguba’s summary.
GENERAL DeGAULE 12 years ago

If you re run an election in an NDC stronghold polling station where the Presiding Officer failed to sign the pink sheet, what are the chances of the outcome been different to the previous election? Nil I'll say. And that wil ...
read full comment

If you re run an election in an NDC stronghold polling station where the Presiding Officer failed to sign the pink sheet, what are the chances of the outcome been different to the previous election? Nil I'll say. And that will pretty much be the case with respect to duplicated serial numbers of pink sheets and biometric verification where the machines will be guaranteed to work by hook or crook. Then the question is why re run the elections in the so called affected areas but not in Asokwa and the other 2,001 polling stations which the petitioners surreptitiously hid?

That is where the entire petition falls apart and the real scandal is that the Supreme Court of Ghana adjudicated on a case where the petitioners sought equitable relief but did not come to equity with clean hands.
Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

I don't know whether you were responding to my posting. The argument you are presenting here has been beaten to death whilst the petition subsisted.

Let me join your argument though. First of all I agree with those who are ...
read full comment

I don't know whether you were responding to my posting. The argument you are presenting here has been beaten to death whilst the petition subsisted.

Let me join your argument though. First of all I agree with those who are calling for the establishment of a constitutional court and I will go further to say we need clear laws on election petitions.

In jurisdictions with electoral petition laws, two grounds are cited:

1) Either the elections were not substantially conducted in accordance with the laws governing the elections;

2) Where they were conducted in substantial accordance with the law, irregularities affected the numbers so as to affect the outcome.

The petitioners thus had the task of demonstrating either of these grounds. They claimed that with 'errors' in over 40% of the results, the elections were not conducted substantially in accordance with electoral laws. They went further to demonstrate that the numbers were affected.

Having done that, the burden should have shifted to the EC to demomnstrate that this was not the case. The EC was not estopped from bringing all the pink sheet originals, including that from Asokwa, to rebut the petioners' claims. In the process, they failed to do that. The SC, which should have endeavoured to make substantial inquiry into the elections, negligently backed the refusal by the EC to produce records.

So I agree with you that all records should have been scrutinised but the petitioners' only burden was to show that there were irregularities and that they had the capacity to affect the results, which they did.
GENERAL DeGAULE 12 years ago

The first thing you must support is a law which prohibits a party from declaring the results in its favour and having done so seek all manner of dubious means to substantiate its claim.

Then you must also support the conte ...
read full comment

The first thing you must support is a law which prohibits a party from declaring the results in its favour and having done so seek all manner of dubious means to substantiate its claim.

Then you must also support the contention that a party cannot insist on a postponement of the official declaration alleging electoral fraud and connivance of another party and the EC and I the end not have evidence to back the allegations.

The case of irregularities was more of a face saving and a refuge for the petitioners. Did serial numbers on pink sheets affect the outcome? Did the absence of signatures affect the outcome? Can blanks be read as zero and therefore imply over voting?
What the world expects is a free and fair election and not a perfect election. It can never be the case for the EC to demonstrate that all the pink sheets that the petitioners deliberately chose to ignore proved anything. The petitioners were asking the SC to review and set aside the decision of a public body. The hearing itself was a judicial review of the EC's declaration.
And the principle of equity was hardly explored and by no measure beaten to death as you suggest. The SC did not have the presence of mind to explore the bad faith of the petitioners all to placate Akuffo Addo.

The irregularities did not reveal willful misconduct or electoral fraud. Asking for a rerun was unlikely to affect the outcome as the only corrective measures would have been signatures, serial numbers and correct recording of the ballot.
Santo 12 years ago

Did the irregularities affect the outcome? Only if 4 million votes were annulled otherwise a re-run suggested by the Judges would have only confirmed the results.

Did the irregularities affect the outcome? Only if 4 million votes were annulled otherwise a re-run suggested by the Judges would have only confirmed the results.
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Your opinions are not necessary correct, and in this case I would say that they are flawed. Why did the petitioners argue against (and supported by the same SC ruling 6:3) the EC submitting in evidence biometric datar, voter ...
read full comment

Your opinions are not necessary correct, and in this case I would say that they are flawed. Why did the petitioners argue against (and supported by the same SC ruling 6:3) the EC submitting in evidence biometric datar, voter register data and pink sheets to buttress their argument that indeed, there were no infringements during the elections, but that the errors (or irregularities if you like) were mainly and purely administrative or clerical errors (probably inadvertent) which were not deliberate to disadvantage anyone.

Furthermore, as the justices ruled, these administrative lapses did not in fact affect the outcome of the vote. Can you tell us that Akufo Addo obtained more votes than Mahama but that he was not declared actual winner in spite of that?

Let's get real and factual and stop hiding behind legal arguments which though intellectually interesting, nonetheless fail to address the real issues in this case.

KING 12 years ago

General, ur reasoning is not reasonable enough.because re run as directed by some of de judges was not necessarily to overturn the results but to give meaning to the law and confirm the winner if the winner had truely won .no ...
read full comment

General, ur reasoning is not reasonable enough.because re run as directed by some of de judges was not necessarily to overturn the results but to give meaning to the law and confirm the winner if the winner had truely won .not this day light robbery.
GENERAL DeGAULE 12 years ago

Re run to give meaning to the law? I am lost for words.

Re run to give meaning to the law? I am lost for words.
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Yaw, why or why did the petitioners not ask for a simple reconciliation of biometric data, voter register data and the ballots cast which would have answered all three reliefs they asked for, taken less time and frankly saved ...
read full comment

Yaw, why or why did the petitioners not ask for a simple reconciliation of biometric data, voter register data and the ballots cast which would have answered all three reliefs they asked for, taken less time and frankly saved the nation the needless long time used in court and the amount of money it cost / economic losses?

Would you say that the approach they used was the right one, or that it was really meant to seek the truth and advance our democracy and electoral processes in any way?

So you see nothing wrong with their relief sought - to annul votes in areas where they believed there were electoral infringements after the fact - How do you answer the question that having been verified and voted properly without committing any crime, that voters (and their votes so cast) would be set aside and eliminated so that there will be a recount to elect someone they have not voted for?

Why did the petitioners not ask that where any such infringements were detected, there should be a re-run?

Do you realise that even in their ruling, those justices who sided with the petitioners (except Anim Yeboah and another justice that is, who called for annulment, deduction of votes and who declared Akufo Addo winner on that basis) only went so far as to ask for a RE-RUN in the polling stations affected? Even that in my view was a wrong ruling because what they should have asked for, to put the matter to bed was to recall all voter registers, biometric data and to match those with the votes cast so as not to disenfranchise any voter. That would have been the most reasonable thing to do but they failed in their ruling. They are human after all, so one can understand that they were relying on their own interpretation of the letter of the law - fair enough.

But what is the basis of Okudjeto's analysis and arguments? How do you reconcile that with the fundamental constitutional provisions and all that we have been arguing all along regarding simply checking the electoral data?

And somehow you want us to take Okudjeto seriously? or to accept your argument on the matter? You must be joking!!!
Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

Paul, I do not know if you have followed some of my writings on the petition. I have always said that the petition took too long and that all that was required was a scrutiny of all electoral records.

However the Rules of ...
read full comment

Paul, I do not know if you have followed some of my writings on the petition. I have always said that the petition took too long and that all that was required was a scrutiny of all electoral records.

However the Rules of Court committee had set out what goes into a petition and the reliefs that should be sought. The petitioners had to stick to these. The third relief of asking for orders which the court deemed fit is meant to cover re-count, opening ballot boxes, etc.

The petitioners objected to the tendering of the biometric data because the court had earlier refused their application for same to be produced by the EC ahead of the hearing. To do justice to a petition, the court should have granted that application for all parties to inspect. Maybe producing the records upfront might have led to a withdrawal of the petition, if your scenario holds. But the EC defending their not having to produce the records, contrary to CI 15, prepared by the same EC, would have made any petitioner suspicous of a later production when its witness in chief had completed his evidence. Some of the judges recognised the shortfall in their ruling and this should be fixed for next time.

We should not take it that because the NPP were the petitioners this time, and the NDC is in power, nothing needs fixing. We are going to have very close elections for the foreseable futuer unless the minor parties are able to up their game to attract more voters from one of the major parties. In this scenario 'errors' or 'irregularities' in a small number of polling stations can result in future petitions. We should therefore strive to clarify our electoral laws to help all.
Nii Ashitey 12 years ago

Yaw, the consistent stance of those making alternative argument to yours is that those administrative errors did not adversely affect the result of the election so the exercise was an exercise in futility.To suggest that thes ...
read full comment

Yaw, the consistent stance of those making alternative argument to yours is that those administrative errors did not adversely affect the result of the election so the exercise was an exercise in futility.To suggest that these errors could have impacted adversely on the results contrary to the evidence puts you in same difficulties as Okudjeto.When you stretch allegiance too far what you end up with is contradiction which should normally shame an intellectual like you.
Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

Nii, you are questioning my stance based on what others have said by labelling 'irregularities' as 'administrative errors'? What demonstration have they given that these were errors that did not affect numbers?

I consider ...
read full comment

Nii, you are questioning my stance based on what others have said by labelling 'irregularities' as 'administrative errors'? What demonstration have they given that these were errors that did not affect numbers?

I consider administrative errors differently. If we say polls should start by 8:00am and it rather starts at 10:00, that would be an administrativ error. If we say send 110% ballots to a station and we fail to do that, that would be an administrative error. I do not consider presiding officers failure to sign, or people voting without biometric verification or over-voting as administrative errors. They are violations against the Constitution and electoral statutes. The only way these would have been considered ineffective is that the numbers do not make a change or after scrutinising the records, they are found not to have occurred. They can never be waived away as errors. By the way errors are rectifiable. Did the EC defend itself by saying that those numbers should have been entered in an alternative way to rebut the claims? No.

Further Nii, let me quote here for you a portion of the report by the Carter Centre on their observance of the 2008 elections:

"While counting was conducted in a transparent and impartial manner at the vast majority of stations,
The Carter Center notes that many observed polling stations did not correctly reconcile their vote
count on the Statement of Poll forms. Moreover, the form itself failed to ask for a tally of the total
number of used ballots, not necessitating a final reconciliation. Also the procedure did not appear to require that unused ballots be counted, meaning that any discrepancies were unlikely to be discovered. On several
occasions, when there were discrepancies between the number of voters said to have cast ballots,
according to the enumeration form, and the number of ballots counted, polling officials rectified this
discrepancy by adding the number of unaccounted ballots to the rejected ballot number. Observers also
noted that, in cases where presiding officers had incorrectly completed the math on the forms, officials at
collation centers simply changed mistakes rather than conduct a recount of that polling
place. The Carter Center urges the Electoral Commission to appropriately train polling officials on reconciliation practices for future elections."
Nii Ashitey 12 years ago

Yaw,these irregularities as you prefer to call them did not alter the final outcome of the votes caste.At least there was no evidence to that effect.What you are seeking to do is to use technicalities like the signature examp ...
read full comment

Yaw,these irregularities as you prefer to call them did not alter the final outcome of the votes caste.At least there was no evidence to that effect.What you are seeking to do is to use technicalities like the signature example and contested areas like biometric verification and what constitutes over voting.You did not present the hard facts and so I am surprised on what basis you feel aggrieved about the judgement.

I will even posit that those three judges who ruled in favour of the petitioners got their reasoning and conclusion wrong due to their methodology and interpretation of the law. Accept the verdict and move on.
Sankofa 12 years ago

Yaw Ohemeng, in the light of the observations made by the Carter centre as reported by you, what was their overall verdict on the election and results?

As far as I am aware, every one of the observer teams declared the ele ...
read full comment

Yaw Ohemeng, in the light of the observations made by the Carter centre as reported by you, what was their overall verdict on the election and results?

As far as I am aware, every one of the observer teams declared the elections free and fair, and accepted the outcome.

That is really what matters. the observations you have quoted were meant to improve the conduct of future elections. not cast doubt on the election process or outcome.
Yaw Ohemeng 12 years ago

For 2008, I agree. But with the closeness of elections in Ghana, these canno be ignored further. I am by no means asking that results should be reversed. However we will be storing trouble for ourselves if we continue to igno ...
read full comment

For 2008, I agree. But with the closeness of elections in Ghana, these canno be ignored further. I am by no means asking that results should be reversed. However we will be storing trouble for ourselves if we continue to ignore. In future it may be the NDC complaining. We have the chance now to make reforms to prevent these occurrences in future. Without computations, no one can say there were no effects. The difference in votes was only 325,000.
Rockson Adofo 12 years ago

When all are said and done, why do idiots go on analyzing what can never reverse night/day to day/night. Have these jokers thought about doing something better with themselves other than losing their childish brains. Go kiss ...
read full comment

When all are said and done, why do idiots go on analyzing what can never reverse night/day to day/night. Have these jokers thought about doing something better with themselves other than losing their childish brains. Go kiss Mahama's ass before you go to sleep in peace. Useless bunch.

Kojo KOMANU 12 years ago

As women suffer from menopause, men also suffer from andropause and are unable to correctly remember what they had learnt in the past. The oldman has lost his knowledge of the principles of the law. Thus, he has failed to und ...
read full comment

As women suffer from menopause, men also suffer from andropause and are unable to correctly remember what they had learnt in the past. The oldman has lost his knowledge of the principles of the law. Thus, he has failed to understand the judgment of the Supreme Court. Let us forgive him and rather advise the wise ones to ignore what he has written.
Mahomet 12 years ago

Komanu, You should go a children's playground. You are too young (in thinking) to contribute to something so deep.

It is beyond you and that's why you responded in such childish and childlike fashion.

Komanu, You should go a children's playground. You are too young (in thinking) to contribute to something so deep.

It is beyond you and that's why you responded in such childish and childlike fashion.
Chabba 12 years ago

Atugba's analysis and decision seem wrong to me. I agree with lawyer Okudzeto's assertion that Justice Atugba was disingenuous in handing out the judgement in favour of John Mahama. This is because judgement decisions cannot ...
read full comment

Atugba's analysis and decision seem wrong to me. I agree with lawyer Okudzeto's assertion that Justice Atugba was disingenuous in handing out the judgement in favour of John Mahama. This is because judgement decisions cannot be arrive at using a weighted average of the individual justices. The issues before the court were only TWO: 1) whether there were irregularities 2)whether they affected the election outcome. Each of the petitioners 6 categories if upheld implies no one got the 50 +1 required to secure electoral victory. Five of the justices upheld at least one category of irregularity. Once any of the 6 categories of the irregularities is 'touched' the outcome of the election would be deemed to have been compromised--- it does not matter how many were dismissed since the TWO outcomes would be duly satisfied. So the 5-4 decision in favour of the petitioners is the right one. Justice Atugba was very predictable from the outset of the petition so it is not surprising he did this sham and shameful manoeuvre to decide if favour of John Mahama.
Brother 12 years ago

/why do you talk about Atuguba JSC as if the other 8 were only mere observers Chabba?

/why do you talk about Atuguba JSC as if the other 8 were only mere observers Chabba?
GENERAL DeGAULE 12 years ago

The DI and the merry band of pettifoggers say they won by 5-4. The petition asked for the annulment of 4 or perhaps 3 million votes and for the re-computation of the results which would have given Akuffo Addo was it 52% or 51 ...
read full comment

The DI and the merry band of pettifoggers say they won by 5-4. The petition asked for the annulment of 4 or perhaps 3 million votes and for the re-computation of the results which would have given Akuffo Addo was it 52% or 51.5%, (they weren't sure and expected the Supreme Court to do the calculations for them) and a DECLARATION that Akuffo Addo was duly elected.

The best they could achieve was 2 Judges asking for a rerun in affected areas which mysteriously did not include ASOKWA and 2001 other pink sheets. The ruling said that petitioners request is denied. Request for Akuffo Addo to be declared President IS DENIED. How difficult is that to understand?
Papa Yaw 12 years ago

True

True
AMB 12 years ago

And John Mahama will still win to prove that Nana and his cohorts are indeed liars and that the judges did a fantastic job

And John Mahama will still win to prove that Nana and his cohorts are indeed liars and that the judges did a fantastic job
AMB 12 years ago

Let's not be theoritical about this. Fortunately all the Judges are alive and the judgement was read on their behalf without a dissenting voice. The choice of method is theirs and not bigots and political prostitutes like Sa ...
read full comment

Let's not be theoritical about this. Fortunately all the Judges are alive and the judgement was read on their behalf without a dissenting voice. The choice of method is theirs and not bigots and political prostitutes like Sam O.
kaketonti 12 years ago

Stupidity can no be re-born.He fell from the stage-podium,lost election by the bailot-box,dismissed/disgraced at the court.Is not proper to find remedies for his hard-luck!

Stupidity can no be re-born.He fell from the stage-podium,lost election by the bailot-box,dismissed/disgraced at the court.Is not proper to find remedies for his hard-luck!
Ghanaman 12 years ago

If per Sam Okudjeto's analysis, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld only the claim of voting without biometric verification, and dismiss all the other claims, this means that except, the issue of voting without biometric verificatio ...
read full comment

If per Sam Okudjeto's analysis, Justice Baffoe-Bonnie upheld only the claim of voting without biometric verification, and dismiss all the other claims, this means that except, the issue of voting without biometric verification, the petitioners had 5 justices dismissing their claim. As it stands now for the petitioners to have a 5:4 majority decision, Justice Dotse must uphold their claim in this regard. However, from Okudjeto's own statement, Justice Dotse dismissed this claim of voting without verification. How then did the verdict become 5:4 in favour of the petioners?

BOY KOFI 12 years ago

Nana Addo himself knows that he lost the élections alright but was forced to go to court because some clerical errors were detected somewhere.What we should be concerned about is the ballot and the will of the people.Thank y ...
read full comment

Nana Addo himself knows that he lost the élections alright but was forced to go to court because some clerical errors were detected somewhere.What we should be concerned about is the ballot and the will of the people.Thank you.
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

Why do you seek to confuse yourself and with it others?

First, you create the impression Sam Okuidjeto's truncated, confused, biased and daft analysis had any merit and / or that it was important or significant. It is not ...
read full comment

Why do you seek to confuse yourself and with it others?

First, you create the impression Sam Okuidjeto's truncated, confused, biased and daft analysis had any merit and / or that it was important or significant. It is not even statistics to write home about.

Second, you create the impression it was "Atuguba's statistics" or his singular decision, rather than that of the entire panel of which he was president!!! Why do people like you continue to advance such silly and unhelpful arguments in a dead case?

By engaging in such and trying to resurrect the dead, you only seek to foment trouble by throwing doubt on a process which has run its cause and has been duly concluded.

Please let us move on and stop this postmortem which frankly fuels, rather than set the matter to rest. Why not write about our economic and developmental problems and hold the government to account on its agenda and performance?

Don't you agree that would be a better use of our time and efforts?
Alhajj 12 years ago

As a young Lawyer, I was baffled when the judgment was pronounced. We were all witnesses to the fact that the SC itself came out with the Summons for Direction. 1. Whether or not there were statutory violations, malpractices ...
read full comment

As a young Lawyer, I was baffled when the judgment was pronounced. We were all witnesses to the fact that the SC itself came out with the Summons for Direction. 1. Whether or not there were statutory violations, malpractices and 2. Whether these affected the elections. These were the two issues the S C was required to determine. To use the issues of the Pettitioners was wrong in legal procedure and fraudulent on the part of the S C chairman Atuguba.
Was this not the same Atuguba whose name appeared in the National Reconciliation Committee as the person who spied and made fraudulent reports about his fellow workers and was rewarded with a S C appointment. He is in my opinion an Armed Robber in legal gown.
Paul Amuna 12 years ago

As a "young lawyer" you have just made a vague and confusing posting. What exactly are you trying to put across? And if indeed you are a lawyer, then it seems to me you have been poorly trained. That you cannot examine the fa ...
read full comment

As a "young lawyer" you have just made a vague and confusing posting. What exactly are you trying to put across? And if indeed you are a lawyer, then it seems to me you have been poorly trained. That you cannot examine the facts of the rulings and make an informed analysis and draw conclusions but choose to attack the president of the panel of SC justices.

Are you truly a lawyer? It only goes to buttress my point that any fool can become a lawyer, all you need is a good first degree and to enroll and pass your exams!!!
Speedy Gonzalez 12 years ago

Go to the library and research,that will do you a lot of good.

Go to the library and research,that will do you a lot of good.
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 12 years ago

Why is everyone saying that Justice Atuguba got it wrong as if the final say on the Petition rested with him? Was the Presideing Justice not reading what had been agreed upon by all the 9 Justices? Was the Presiding judge al ...
read full comment

Why is everyone saying that Justice Atuguba got it wrong as if the final say on the Petition rested with him? Was the Presideing Justice not reading what had been agreed upon by all the 9 Justices? Was the Presiding judge all-powerful that he was given sole role of concluding what the Justices had discussed or agreed on or not?

My second point is that although there were 5 Justices out of the 9 who wanted a re-run of some sort, the said justices split the votes on all 3 of the 6 reliefs, thus not commanding a majority of 5 on any of the 3 reliefs that were not unanimously summarily dismissed. In effect, none of the other 3 "competitive" reliefs garnered the 5 votes required to give it the force of law. So if there was to be a re-run of any sort, under what relief could that be done? I pressume that the Justices could not agree to order any re-run because of this simple fact. All that I have said is based solely on the fact that the Supreme Court determined the case by looking at the 6 relief sought individually. In that case, the 6 petitions lost by 6-o, since none of the 6 reliefs sought obtained 5-4 majority required for any of them to succeed. I am yet to be convinced otherwise.
Sankofa 12 years ago

Jojo, you are absolutely right.

Please see my earlier posting for a more detailed analysis.

Okudzeto is numerately challenged and needs education in basic arithmetic.

Jojo, you are absolutely right.

Please see my earlier posting for a more detailed analysis.

Okudzeto is numerately challenged and needs education in basic arithmetic.
Sankofa 12 years ago

The simple answer is that none of the SC judges voted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had wanted 4 million votes cancelled and the election awarded to Nana Addo. None of the judges granted this plea.

The nea ...
read full comment

The simple answer is that none of the SC judges voted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had wanted 4 million votes cancelled and the election awarded to Nana Addo. None of the judges granted this plea.

The nearest the petitioners came was that some of the judges ruled that the votes in certain areas be annulled and a rerun of the ballot held.

There were 6 issues raised by the petitioners. On each single one of those issues, the majority of judges ruled against the petitioners. The verdict was:

9-0
9-0
9-0
5-4
5-4
5-4

Clearly, it was a unanimous verdict to dismiss the petition on all 6 counts.

The pseudo-analysis and misinterpretation by Okudzeto is nonsensical and a vain attempt to mislead the public.
Whatever 12 years ago

How many times didn't the supreme court through the presiding judge remind you NPP ignoramuses that as superiro court of adjucature, they are not bound by the procedures and laws of the lower courts and that they are followin ...
read full comment

How many times didn't the supreme court through the presiding judge remind you NPP ignoramuses that as superiro court of adjucature, they are not bound by the procedures and laws of the lower courts and that they are following they're own procedures? How many times didn't Atruguba remind you guys that the supreme court has the power to make laws through its rulingd yet you are you asking a stupid question based of someone's ill-informed analysis at a partisan symposium?
Kwobia,Toronto 12 years ago

Some more legal stupidity.this article is about rewriting the petition to get the verdict the writer wants.Atubuga's verdict will always stand.

Some more legal stupidity.this article is about rewriting the petition to get the verdict the writer wants.Atubuga's verdict will always stand.
Eric London 12 years ago

Corrupt judge like Atuguba. God will judge him for what he has done to the poor Ghanaians.

Corrupt judge like Atuguba. God will judge him for what he has done to the poor Ghanaians.

41 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

The Statistics of Atuguba's Petition

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 (41)

Read Comments Comments (41)