The petitioner in the just-ended election petition, John Dramani Mahama has expressed his disappointment in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to dismiss his election petition.

Reacting to his defeat, the former president intimated that, his defeat came as no surprise as the apex court had denied many of the applications filed by his legal team.

"No one who follows the proceeding of the Supreme Court will be surprised with the judgement pronounced a few hours ago.

"Much as I am aware that we are legally bound by the decision of the highest Court of the land the Supreme Court of Ghana, I disagree with the process of the trial and the ruling of the court," he stated emphatically.

His response comes a few hours after a seven-member panel of Supreme Court Judges in a unanimous decision dismissed the election petition he filed to seek redress in what he described as "fictionalized and fictitious".

However, not finding any merit in his case, the apex court dismissed it, describing it as without merit.

Mr. Mahama's argument presented before the apex court states that none of the candidates who contested the polls obtained more than 50% of the votes cast. He alleges that the person said to have won the polls benefitted from vote padding.

He also claims the candidate benefitted from arithmetic and computational errors. He concludes that the EC’s declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo is unconstitutional since he did not obtain more than 50% of the valid votes cast.

Addressing the media, Mr Mahama further stated that his quest to hold the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission Jean Mensa accountable for the electoral anomalies were blocked by a protective cordon and firewall.

He further disagreed with the opinion held by the Supreme Court that his petition was akin to any other civil litigation as the EC Chair who is liable to account for her role in the election evaded the law.

"I disagree with the suggestions of our Justices that an election petition is as keen to any other civil litigation and therefore an EC chairperson whose function goes to the heart of our democracy can by a legal sleight of hand avoid accounting for her stewardship in an appropriate forum such as the highest court of the land".