Barely a week after he headlined the media landscape with his "corrupt" description of a Supreme Court's verdict, Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has yet again stirred the hornet's nest with his claim that the court mistakenly read out a reversed judgment. The Executive Director of Danquah Institute, a pro opposition think tank, remarked that after a careful study of the 588 page-long ruling dated 29th August 2013 on the 2012 presidential election petition, five of the judges agreed with the petitioners' case as against four for the first respondent, John Dramani Mahama. Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo, the first petitioner and 2012 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party, and two others filed the petition against the election of President John Mahama. Justice William Atuguba, president of the nine panel Supreme Court judges, read the verdict in an open court: 1. Duplicate serial numbers of pink sheets: 9–0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED] 2. Duplicate Polling Station Codes &Names: 9–0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED] 3. Unknown Polling Stations: 9–0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED] 4.Voting without biometric verification: 5–4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED] 5. Over voting: 5–4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED] 6. Non-signing of Pink Sheets by POs 5–4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED] "In the circumstances the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is therefore dismissed," Justice Atuguba clarified. But Mr Otchere-Darko, in a six-page statement copied to Myjoyonline.com suggested that what the Supreme Court did was "as if the Court’s main duty was to uphold the presidency of John Mahama rather than to uphold the Constitution of the Republic". He further contended: "My view, however, is that the decision, in both fact and law, is a 5:4 majority that John Mahama was not validly elected. This is because five justices, Julius Ansah, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, and Baffoe Bonnie, all held that the irregularities found were enough to affect the results and that there should be a second election but in the affected areas. Significantly, they were willing to uphold the law but without totally disenfranchising the voters affected." Therefore, the Danquah Institute will on Monday, September 16, 2013, in partnership with other civil society groups hold a symposium at the British Council for jurists and other legal and statistics experts to critique the decision of the Supreme Court in the presidential election petition.