Election Nerve CentreGhanaHeadlinePolitics

Election 2020 petition: Supreme Court’s ruling problematic, says Tsatsu Tsikata

The veteran lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata insists there is still no constitutionally elected president of Ghana based on the EC’s declaration on 9 December

Story Highlights
  • "What I think is most problematic about the judgment is that we have a situation in this country now, where if you base yourself on the declaration that was made by the chairperson of the Electoral Commission as we all heard, the number that she gave, there was not a constitutionally valid declaration because no candidate got 50%."

Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for John Dramani Mahama in the Election 2020 petition, has declared that the final verdict of the Supreme Court in the case is “problematic”.

Speaking in an yet-to-be televised interview with KSM for the first time after the judgment, Tsikata insisted there is still no constitutionally elected president of Ghana based on the Electoral Commission chairperson’s declaration of 9 December.

“What I think is most problematic about the judgment is that we have a situation in this country now, where if you base yourself on the declaration that was made by the chairperson of the Electoral Commission as we all heard, the number that she gave, there was not a constitutionally valid declaration because no candidate got 50%,” the veteran lawyer told KSM.

Listen to Tsatsu Tsikata in the audio below:

Double victory

The Supreme Court on 4 March affirmed, by a unanimous decision, President Akufo-Addo’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

“The petitioner has not produced any evidence to rebut the presumptions created by the publication of CI 135 for which his action has failed.

“We have, therefore, no reason to order for a rerun … we accordingly dismiss the petition as having no merit,” Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah ruled.

With this unanimous, seven-member decision, the Supreme Court concluded the hearings.

The court determined that the petitioner had based his case on an error made by the chair of the Electoral Commission during the declaration of the presidential election result on 9 December 2020, but that the error could not void the will of the people in electing a president.

The Supreme Court also held that the error by the EC in using total votes cast as the basis for reckoning the total valid votes during the declaration was corrected, and that the correction was made in accordance with the law.

“Unconstitutional”

The petitioner, John Mahama, had claimed that none of the candidates who stood in the presidential election had obtained more than 50% of the votes cast.

Mahama alleged that the second respondent, President Akufo-Addo, won the election through vote-padding.

He also claimed the candidate had benefited from arithmetical and computational errors. He concluded that the EC’s declaration in favour of President Akufo-Addo was unconstitutional, as he did not obtain more than 50% of the votes cast.

What the petitioner wanted

Mahama wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the presidential election result as declared by the EC chairperson, Jean Mensa, was in breach of the constitution.

He further asked the court to annul the results of the polls and order the EC to organise a run-off between himself and President Akufo-Addo.

Before trial commenced, the Supreme Court set the following issues for determination:

  1. Whether or not the petition disclosed any reasonable cause of action.
  2. Whether or not, based on the data contained in the declaration of the first respondent (EC), no candidate obtained more than 50% of the valid votes cast as required by Article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
  3. Whether or not the second respondent still met the Article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitutional threshold by the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South presidential election results of 2020.
  4. Whether or not the declaration by the first respondent dated 9 December was in violation of Article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
  5. Whether or not the alleged vote-padding and other errors complained of by the petitioner affected the results of the 2020 presidential election.

However, reading the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court judges, Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah said the petitioner did not meet the benchmark in any of the five areas to determine the case outlined by the court.

Fred Dzakpata

Asaase Radio 99.5 – tune in or log on to broadcasts online
Follow us on Twitter: @asaaseradio995
#asaaseradio
  #TVOL

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

ALLOW OUR ADS