On the introduction of the video evidence of NDC’s Press Conferences claiming victory to the 2020 elections by Akoto Ampaw during the cross-examination of star witness Asiedu Nketia for the petitioner, I do not know how that helps the respondents defense irrespective of its admissibility.
That because petitioner’s witness had claimed victory to the election outside the court room, his insistence on the administrative and mathematical blunder committed by the first respondent becomes moot.
You can make any claims outside the Court but when you go to Court you bring a reasonable action which you can prove or satisfy without any doubt.
In the 2012 elections, the NPP also held series of press conferences claiming victory, even when they have lost the Parliamentary elections, but when they went to Court, their case was that the Court should annul results of some polling stations before they can be declared winners.
If they had provided enough basis to the Court, that those votes were illegitimate, their claims outside the Court wouldn’t have mattered.
Their case was thrown out because they were not able to provide any reasonable basis why those results should be annulled.
The crust of the NDC’s case is that the second respondent did not cross the constitutional threshold of 50% plus one to warrant the declaration in his favor.
Whether the petitioner won the elections or not is immaterial to the petitioner’s case. The core question which the Court must answer after this trial is whether the second respondent got the required 50% plus one.
This question cannot be answered by relying on the first respondent’s figures alone which in the short duration of this trial has been abundantly discredited. How the Court decides to arrive at the answer to this question will be at the heart of the fairness of this trial.
Unless my mathematics is bad, I know that there were three possible outcomes in the December 2020 elections; either the second respondent won or the petitioner won or none of them had the required 50% plus one.
Three different outcomes which were all possible after elections and each of them had its own consequences.
This is the petitioner’s case!!!
****
The writer is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA), an anti-corruption and civil advocacy group.
Latest Stories
-
CIHRM Ghana confers chartered status on 28 members, 170 associates
1 hour -
Government gross financing needs to remain elevated; debt service obligations are large – IMF warns
1 hour -
Deloitte appoints George Ankomah as Deputy Chair of Africa Board
2 hours -
Palmer inspires Chelsea to victory over PSG to claim Club World Cup
2 hours -
Kwame Dadzie: Bash King Paluta but don’t crush him
2 hours -
T-bills auction: Government fails to meet target again; interest rates go up
2 hours -
Beyond Publications and Prestige: Ghana scholarly society charts the path for research that drives real development
3 hours -
I’m not too old to be ignored, I’ve sacrificed for NPP – Kufuor laments exclusion
5 hours -
Sinner beats Alcaraz in four sets to clinch Wimbledon title
5 hours -
MTN Ghana champions youth mentorship drive at UG with focus on digital skills
5 hours -
Kufuor demands respect and inclusion; laments marginalisation by NPP
5 hours -
Black Queens outstanding allowances has been paid – Ghana’s Ambassador to Morocco
6 hours -
Mobik Energy CEO raises alarm over Tarkwa’s disappearing rivers and environmental neglect
6 hours -
Former Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari dies in London
7 hours -
Hard work, not betting, will secure your future -Mobik Energy CEO advises Tarkwa Youth
7 hours