Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ghana Presidential Election Supreme Court Petition

Ghana Presidential Election Supreme Court Petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33 |Likes:
Published by Eric Kitetu
An example of what a Presidential Election Petition should look like. If nothing else, it has numbers!
An example of what a Presidential Election Petition should look like. If nothing else, it has numbers!

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Eric Kitetu on Mar 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
DAILY GUIDE PAGE 6Monday, December 31, 2012
Article 64 of the Constitution, 1992; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act,1992(PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 & 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules2012, C. I. 74
B E T W E EN:1. NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO
House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra
2. DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA
House No. 10, 6th Estate RoadKanda Estates, Accra
3. JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY
24, 4th Circular Road, Cantonments, AccraPetitioners
A N D1. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra
2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
National Headquarters of the Electoral Commission6th Avenue, Ridge, AccraRespondents
PETITION
 The Petition of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent,Nima, Accra, of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, whose electronicmail address is nadaa5781@gmail.com, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia of House No. 10, 6thEstate Road, Kanda Estates, Accra, whose electronic mail address is mahamudu_bawu-mia@yahoo.co.uk, and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey of House No. 24, 4th CircularRoad, Cantonments, Accra, whose electronic mail address is joobetsebi@gmail.com,showeth as follows:1.The Petitioners are all Ghanaian citizens by birth and members of the NewPatriotic Party (NPP), a political party duly registered under the laws of the Republicof Ghana. The 1st Petitioner was the presidential candidate of the NPP in the Decem-ber 2012 elections; the 2nd Petitioner was the running mate of the 1st Petitioner in theDecember 2012 presidential election; and the 3rd Petitioner is the National Chairmanof the NPP.2.The 1st Respondent was the presidential candidate of the National Democrat-ic Congress (NDC) in the December 2012 presidential election and was the persondeclared by 2nd Respondent on 9th December 2012 as having been validly elected aspresident of the Republic of Ghana, following the December 2012 presidential elec-tion.3.The 2nd Respondent is the constitutional body established by Article 43 of theConstitution, 1992, and the provisions of the Electoral Commission Act 1993 (Act 451),and mandated under Article 45 (c) of the Constitution and section 2 (c) of Act 451 toconduct and supervise public elections and referenda in the Republic of Ghana, and todeclare the results thereof in accordance with the Constitution and the law.4.The Petitioners say that at the presidential election held in the Republic of Ghana on 7th and 8th December 2012 and conducted by the 2nd Respondent, the fol-lowing were candidates in the order set out on the presidential election ballot:(a)John Dramani Mahama(b)Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey(c)Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo(d)Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom(e)Akwasi Addai Odike(f)Hassan Ayariga(g)Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster(h)Jacob Osei Yeboah5.Petitioners say that at the conclusion of the election, the 2nd Respondent here-in, acting through its Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, who was at all material timesthe Returning Officer for the December 2012 presidential elections, returned John Dra-mani Mahama, the 1st Respondent herein, as having been validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.6.The Petitioners say that thereafter on 11th December 2012, the Declaration of President-Elect Instrument, 2012 (C. I. 80) was published under the hand of Dr. Kwad-wo Afari-Gyan, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent.7.Petitioners say that prior to the December 2012 elections, 2nd Respondent,with the aim of assuring all stakeholders of the transparency and integrity of the processby which it received declaration of voting results from the constituencies, invited, ondifferent occasions, regional executives of registered political parties to the ‘StrongRoom’ of the 2nd Respondent, where such results were received; and it was furtherexplained to them that all the results would all be received through the faxes installedin the ‘Strong Room’ directly from its officials from the regions or districts and thatthere could be no opportunity for tampering with the results before same were receivedin the ‘Strong Room’.8.Petitioners say, however, that on 8th December 2012, while provisional resultsof ballots cast in polling stations were being declared and voting was still underway insome polling stations, it came to the notice of some members of the public that theoffices of Superlock Technologies Limited (STL), a security installation and Informa-tion Technology (IT) company, was receiving the results of the elections before trans-mitting same to 2nd Respondent in its ‘Strong Room’.9.Petitioners say that a team of NPP leaders, led by Hon. Osafo Maafo, wentinto the premises of STL and confronted the officials of the company in the presenceof the media and police officers, whereupon the STL officials said that 2nd Respon-dent was their client with whom they had an agreement to provide IT services by, amongothers, receiving all results of votes cast and faxed from the regional offices of the 2ndRespondent before transmitting same to the Strong Room’ of 2nd Respondent. Thisencounter, including the said response of the said STL officials, was broadcast live tothe general by the electronic media to the general public.10.Petitioners say this arrangement of 2nd Respondent with STL was made with-out the knowledge of either the Petitioners’ party or the Inter-Party Advisory Commit-tee (IPAC), to which NPP belongs and where all matters concerning elections were dis-cussed. This secret arrangement and concealment provided opportunity for tamperingwith the results of the elections.11.Petitioners say that some time before the December 2012 elections, the Chair-man of 2nd Respondent informed Parliament when he appeared before it that 2ndRespondent had registered some one million (1, 000,000) voters, who had not beenassigned to any polling station, even though the Public Elections (Registration of Vot-ers) Regulations 2012, (C. I. 72) required that registration of voters shall be carried outin designated polling stations, known for that purpose as registration centres.12.Petitioners say that after 2nd Respondent had conducted its biometric registra-tion exercise, it announced to the general public that the provisional number of votersregistered was a little less than thirteen million (13,000,000) and that after cleaning theprovisional register and verifying same, it would publish the final number of registeredvoters. Surprisingly and contrary to legitimate expectation, when 2nd Respondent post-ed the final total number of registered voters on its website, the number inexplicablyincreased by over one million (1,000,000).13.The Petitioners say that on or about 26th September 2012, that is some forty-two (42) days before the presidential election scheduled for 7th December 2012, the 2ndRespondent, acting through its Chairman, officially announced the total number of polling stations to be employed in conducting both the presidential and parliamentaryelections in December 2012 as twenty-six thousand and two (26,002). This was osten-sibly to ensure transparency, fairness and integrity of the December 2012 presidentialand parliamentary elections, and to comply with Regulation 16 of C.I.74., which pro-hibited the establishment of a new polling station within forty-two (42) days of an elec-tion.14. The Petitioners further say that the total number of registered voters that 2ndRespondent furnished Petitioners’ party, the NPP, was fourteen million and thirty-onethousand, six hundred and eighty (14,031,680). Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Petitioners that 2nd Respondent had on Sunday, 9th December 2012, declared thetotal number of registered voters as 14,158,890. Furthermore, on the same date, 2ndRespondent posted on its website the total number of registered voters as 14,031,793showing a clear disparity of 127,097.15. The Petitioners say that the 2nd Respondent inordinately delayed in furnish-ing the Petitioners’ party (NPP) with the final voters’ register until just a few days beforethe December 2012 elections, which conduct prevented the NPP from scrutinizing thesaid register and thereby contributed substantially in undermining the transparency,fairness and integrity of the December 2012 elections.16.Although a common register was compiled for both the presidential and par-liamentary elections, it turned out, from the results declared by the 2nd Respondent,that the total number of registered voters in respect of the presidential elections exceed-ed that of the registered voters for the parliamentary elections by one hundred and twen-ty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten (127,210) voters.17. The Petitioners will contend that the total number of registered voters oughtto be the same for both the presidential and parliamentary elections and further thatthere could not lawfully be different total registered voters for the presidential and par-liamentary elections.18. The Petitioners say that following the completion of the presidential electionon 8th December 2012, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, pursuant to Regulation5(5) of C. I. 75, declared the results of the presidential election to the general public viaradio and television in the evening of 9th December 2012 as follows:(i)The total number of registered voters was fourteen million one hundred andfifty-eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (14,158, 890). This number of registeredvoters so declared was however in excess of the official total number of registered vot-ers of fourteen million and thirty-one thousand six hundred and eighty (14,031,680)which the 2nd Respondent had furnished the NPP between 19th November 2012 and2nd December 2012 by as much as one hundred and twenty-seven thousand and twohundred and ten (127,210) votes.(ii)Total votes declared as cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATUREIN THE SUPREME COURTACCRA – A. D. 2012PETITION NO.________PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITIONIN THE MATTER OF A PETITION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION OF JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AS PRESIDENTOF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HELD ON 7TH AND 8TH DECEMBER 2012:
Cont’d on page 7
 
DAILY GUIDE PAGE 7Monday, December 31, 2012
were as follows:(a)John Dramani Mahama--5, 574, 761.50.70%(b)Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey--38, 223. 0.35%(c)Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo --5, 248, 898. 47.74%(d)Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom--64, 362. 0.59%(e)Akwasi Addai Odike--8, 877. 0.08%(f)Hassan Ayariga--24, 617.0.22%(g)Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster--20, 323. 0.18%(h)Jacob Osei Yeboah--15, 201. 0.14%------------------14, 158, 88019.Petitioners say the invisible sleight of hand, which transmogrified the totalnumber of registered voters from fourteen million and thirty-one thousand six hundredand eighty (14,031,680) as provided to the NPP by the 2nd Respondent to fourteen mil-lion one hundred and fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890)remains completely inexplicable to date.20. Grounds for Challenging the Validity of the December 2012 Election
Ground 1
 There were diverse and flagrant violations of the statutory provisions and regulationsgoverning the conduct of the December 2012 presidential election which substantiallyand materially affected the results of the elections as declared by the 2nd Respondenton 9th December, 2012.
Particulars
(a)That 2nd Respondent permitted voting to take place in many polling stationsacross the country without prior biometric verification by the presiding officers of 2ndRespondent or their assistants, contrary to Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75.(b)That the voting in polling stations where voting took place without prior bio-metric registration were unlawfully taken into account in the declaration of results by2nd Respondent in the presidential election held on 7th and 8th December 2012.(c)That by 2nd Respondent’s established procedure, 2nd Respondent conductedthe December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections at polling stations each of which was assigned a unique code to avoid confusing one polling station with anotherand to provide a mechanism for preventing possible electoral malpractices and irregu-larities.(d)That there were, however, widespread instances where different results werestrangely recorded on the declaration forms (otherwise known as the pink sheet’ orblue sheet’) in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes.(e)That the existence of polling stations of the nature referred to in the preced-ing sub-paragraph (d) and the results emanating therefrom were patently illegal.(f)That there were widespread instances where there were no signatures of thepresiding officers or their assistants on the declarations forms as required under Regu-lation 36 (2) of C. I. 75. And yet the results on these forms were used in arriving at thepresidential results declared on 9th December 2012 by the Chairman of 2nd Respon-dent, thereby rendering the results so declared invalid.
Ground 2
(1)That the election was also vitiated by gross and widespread irregularitiesand/or malpractices which fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in fourthousand, seven hundred and nine (4,709) polling stations as declared by 2nd Respon-dent.
Particulars
(a)That the results as declared and recorded by the 2nd Respondent containedwidespread instances of over-voting in flagrant breach of the fundamental constitution-al principle of universal adult suffrage, to wit, one man one vote.(b)That there were widespread instances where there were the same serial num-bers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure estab-lished by 2nd Respondent required that each polling station have a unique serial num-ber in order to secure the integrity of the polls and will of the lawfully registered vot-ers.(c)That while the total number of registered voters as published by the 2ndRespondent and provided to all political parties or candidates for the presidential andparliamentary election was fourteen million, thirty-one thousand, six and eighty(14,031,680), when 2nd Respondent announced the results of the presidential electionon 9th December 2012, the total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondentannounced mysteriously metamorphosed to a new and inexplicable figure of fourteenmillion, one hundred and fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890). This thereby wrongfully and unlawfully increased the total number of registered vot-ers by the substantial number of one hundred and twenty-seven thousand and ninety-seven (127, 210).(d)That there were widespread instances of voting without prior biometric veri-fication;(e)That there were widespread instances of absence of the signatures of presid-ing officers or their assistants on the Declaration Forms known as ‘pink sheet’; and(f)That there were widespread instances where the words and figures of votescast in the elections and as recorded on the pink sheets’ did not match.
Ground 3
 That the statutory violations and irregularities and/or malpractices described underGrounds 1 and 2 herein, which were apparent on the Declaration Forms (‘pink sheets’)had the direct effect of introducing into the aggregate of valid votes recorded in thepolling stations across the country, a whopping figure of one million, three hundredand forty-two thousand, eight hundred and forty-five (1,342,845) irregular votes, whichvitiated the validity of the votes cast and had a material and substantial effect on the out-come of the election, as shown in the table below:
""
 
VIOLATIONS OR IRREGULARITIES NUMBEROFVOTES
(1)
 
 The aggregate of instances of over voting due to total votesexceeding ballot papers issued to voters
226,808
 (2)
 
 The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issuedto voters, and(b)
 
votes cast without biometric verification
154,586
 (3)
 
 The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issuedto voters,(b)
 
voting without biometric verification, and(c)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
9,149
 (4)
 
 The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issuedto voters(b)
 
voting without biometric verification, and(c)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets’
67,721
 
""
 
""
(5)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,(b)
 
voting without biometric verification,(c)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheet’, and (d)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
1,396
 (6)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,(b)
 
voting without biometric verification, and (c)
 
words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching 
406
 (7)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and (b)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
8,355
 (8)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets’ 
149,177
 (9)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets,’ and (c)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
1,713
 
""
 
(10)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets,’ and (c)
 
words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching 
613
(11)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
instances of over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot  papers issued to voters, an(b)
 
words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching 
1,587
(12)
 
The aggregate of instances of voting without biometric verification
306,498
(13)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
instances of voting without biometric verification, and (b)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
17,620
(14)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
instances of voting without biometric verification,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ and assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets,’ 
130,458
(15)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
instances of voting without biometric verification,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets,’ and (c)
 
same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results
2,397
(16)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
instances of voting without biometric verification,(b)
 
absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on‘pink sheets,’ and (c)
 
words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching 
358
(17)
 
The aggregate of instances of:(a)
 
voting without biometric verification, and (b)
 
words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching 
575
(18)
 
The aggregate of instances of:
586
Cont’d on page 8

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->