The errors which formed basis for the disqualification of the Progressive People Party flagbearer appears to have increased from 1 to 105, Joy News has learnt.
Lawyer for the PPP flagbearer Ayikoi Otoo confirmed this to Myjoyonline.com hours after the EC had been directed to allow all presidential aspirants to correct all infractions on their presidential nomination forms.
Deputy Director of Communications at the EC Yusif Ayuba, however told Joy News he is unaware of any new errors.
The Supreme Court in its ruling, Monday directed the EC to extend its nomination period by a day to allow all the 12 aspirants who have been disqualified on the basis of errors on their nominations to correct all those anomalies.
The PPP candidate like the 11 other candidates had infractions on their forms for which reason they were disqualified.
The infractions, according to the EC, ranged from acts of fraud, registration irregularities and recklessness on the part of the aspirants and their endorsers.
For the PPP flagbearer he was disqualified because one of his endorsers, Richard Aseda was deemed to have endorsed the candidate in the Central Region, as well as in the Volta Region, contrary to the election regulation which allowed the endorser the right to endorse in only one district.
Even though the PPP conceded to committing the error, the party vehemently disagreed with the EC's decision to disqualify its presidential candidate and therefore proceeded to court to have the decision set aside.
The High Court judge Justice Kyei Baffuor ruled in favour of the PPP and directed the EC to give Dr Nduom the opportunity to correct the error.
With a little over a month to go for the December election, many political pundits expected the EC to have allowed the PPP and other candidates to correct their errors but the EC had other ideas.
Not impressed with the ruling by the High Court, the EC proceeded to the Supreme Court to have that decision quashed.
The EC averred the ruling by the High Court may have dire implications if it was allowed to stand. It prayed the apex court to set aside the ruling of the high court.
But the Supreme Court again disagreed with the EC. The seven member panel in a unanimous decision directed the EC to allow the candidates to correct all the anomalies raised by the EC on their nomination forms and also gave further directives. That the EC must extend the nomination period by one more day.
With a 24 hour deadline to meet, the PPP proceeded to the EC in the hope of correcting the single error that was brought to their attention and for which its flagbearer was disqualified but the party is claiming a mountain of errors have been identified by the EC to which they have to correct before Tuesday, 5:00 pm.
General Secretary of the party Murtala Mohammed said the party received a letter from the EC asking them to correct all the errors on their nomination forms but failed to tell them exactly what the errors were.
Part of the letter read: "Please find attached a list of other concerns and discrepancies found on your nomination form within the extended nomination period. These include signatures which do not tally across copies of your form.”
He said for four hours he sat at the EC office in an attempt to find out which of the signatures had problems but had no information from the EC.
In a brief chat with Ayikoi Otoo, the lawyer for the party's flagbearer, he said he had been reliably informed about the 105 errors but was yet to peruse the nomination form to find out what type of errors were found.
Below however is the full letter the EC wrote to the PPP
Dear Sir: Re-Presidential Election Nomination
We refer to the Supreme Court ruling on Monday 7, 2016 in the case of the R vs High Court (Commercial Division) Accra Ex Parte Electoral Commission (Applicant) and Papa Kwesi Nduom (Applicant). The Court in the said case, ordered that the Electoral Commission extend the nomination period of Monday 7 November 2016 to 17.00 hours GMT on Tuesday 8 November 2016.
The court further ordered that you be given a hearing within the extended period and that we afford you the opportunity to comply with regulation 9 (2) (b) of CI 94, in appropriate cases. You would recall that by our letter to you on October 10, 2016, we informed you of two subscriptions that were not as required by law on pages 21 and 39 of your form.
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, which effectively extended the nomination period to November 8, 2016, and following the hearing provided you today, we should be grateful if you would do the following.
Kindly take the requisite steps to procure the attendance of Mr. Richard Aseda (who is listed as a subscriber on pages 21 and 39 of your form) at the head office of the Commission, prior to the close of nomination, to confirm that he actually subscribed to your forms and the district in which he subscribed.
Further, please find attached a list of other concerns and discrepancies found on your nomination form within the extended nomination period. These include signatures which do not tally across copies of your form.
Please be advised that in line with the requirements of law; i. You must have a minimum of two subscribers in every district of Ghana and that your subscribers are all validly registered voters;
ii. That your subscribers have duly endorsed your nomination papers as required by law. iii. A subscriber cannot nominate more than one presidential candidate