Presidential election petition: reasons for judgment (Part 1b)
Constitutional law – Supreme Court – Original jurisdiction – Challenging election of the President – Grounds for – Duplicate serial numbers, duplicate polling station codes and unknown polling stations – Meaning and effect of such grounds – Such grounds not conflicting with any constitutional or statutory regulation and not impacting adversely on 2012 electoral process – Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (CI 75), regs 21(11) and 32.
Advertisement
SUPREME COURT, ACCRA
(Writ No J1/6/2013)
Published Friday February 14, 2014
IN RE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION;
AKUFO-ADDO, BAWUMIA & OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY (No 4)
v
MAHAMA, ELECTORAL COMMISSION &
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (No 4)
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: ATUGUBA, ANSAH, SOPHIA ADINYIRA, R C OWUSU,
DOTSE, ANIN YEBOAH, BAFFOE-BONNIE, GBADEGBE, AND VIDA AKOTO-BAMFO JJSC
Judgment on 29 August 2013
The relevant facts were the same as the facts published in PART 1A on Thursday February 13, 2014. On these facts, the Supreme Court dismissed (per holding (1)), by unanimous decision, the petitioners’ claims relating to issues (iv), (v) and (vi), namely: (iv) duplicate serial numbers, ie occurrence of the same serial numbers on pink sheets for two different polling stations; (v) duplicate polling station codes, ie occurrence of different results/pink sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes; and (vi) unknown polling stations, ie results recorded for polling stations which were not part of the list of 26,0002 polling stations provided by the second respondent Electoral Commission for the election for the following reasons:
Per Atuguba JSC. At conference, we unanimously saw no merit in ground (iv) relating to duplicate serial numbers, ie occurrence of the same serial number on pink sheets for two different polling stations. We were at a loss as to how the embossment of the same number on more than one pink sheet whether serial or otherwise in respect of two different polling stations, has impacted adversely on the 2012 electoral process.
Those numbers, on the evidence of Dr Afari-Gyan, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, are the offshore generation of the printers of the pink sheets. Those numbers have no statutory base.
However, the decisive fact is that their incidence has not been shown to have any detrimental effect on the electoral process. We felt that grounds (v) and (vi) did not relate to matters that could have any substantial effect on the declared results.
Per Ansah JSC. I find the petitioners’ case in this respect, ie the so-called unknown polling stations, not satisfactory. There was evidence that following the...appointment letters, the petitioners sent their agents to the polling stations, voting took place there, the votes were counted and results declared, and finally the agents signed the result forms.
In the face of these overwhelming evidence, no one will doubt that the allegation of voting taking place at stations outside the 26,002 polling stations created by the second respondent was ill-founded and remained unproven at the end of the trial.
Per Sophia Adinyira JSC. This head of irregularity, ie same serial numbers, does not violate any statutory regulation...Interpreting regulations 21(11) and 32 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (CI 75), as a whole, the use of pink sheets to record the poll and election of special voting is a requirement.
Consequently, if the same polling station with the same polling code is used for both special voting and regular voting, then it would explain the existence of two pink sheets with the same polling station code with different results.
Per R C Owusu. If therefore there are any such polling stations with the same polling station code, the number will be few and therefore as Dr Bawumia himself told the court, same will be statistically insignificant. The malpractice, if anything at all, will not affect the result; so this category of malpractices is disallowed.
Per Dotse JSC. My concluding remarks on this matter of duplicate serial numbers on different pink sheets is that, once the petitioners have failed to prove the existence of an established practice in the use of assigned specific serial number on pink sheets to polling stations in past Presidential Elections and their further inability to also prove that these resulted into the massive malpractices they alleged in this category save for the isolated instances mentioned (supra), I would reject the invitation being made to this court to annul votes in this category. It is accordingly rejected.
Per Anin Yeboah JSC. It appeared that my learned brother Dotse JSC had put a lot of industry in preparing his opinion on the categories of electoral irregularities or malpractices relating to unknown polling stations, duplicate polling station codes and duplicate serial numbers. I find his reasons very convincing in law based on the evidence adduced before us by the parties. I am in support of the reasons canvassed by him for the dismissal of the categories of unknown polling stations, duplicate polling station codes and duplicate serial numbers.
Per Gbadegbe JSC. In the course of his evidence, the second petitioner, who was designated by the first petitioner as his Vice Presidential Candidate on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), admitted under cross-examination that the complaint relating to the serial numbers was not derived from any constitutional or statutory infraction but as the numbers were huge, they were serious and inferentially must have affected the outcome of the elections... It is not competent for anyone to raise as a ground of complaint a matter which is not known to the laws by which the elections were regulated.
Editorial Note:
The next publication of the Digest being PART 2 dealing with the reasons given by their Lordships on the petitioners’ claims based on over-voting is scheduled for Thursday February 20, 2014.