The composite judgement from the nine Justices that dismissed the 2012 Presidential election petition challenging the legitimacy of John Mahama’s Presidency could have been more plain, says John Boadu.
The Deputy Communications Director of the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) believes the Supreme Court Judges should have stuck to the two issues which the petition was reduced to in their judgements – that is, whether or not there were statutory violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the elections held on December 7 and 8, 2012.
The other issue being whether or not such violations, omissions, irregularities and malpractices affected the outcome of the results of the elections which led to the declaration of John Mahama as President.
Speaking on Peace FM’s Kokrokoo morning show on Friday September 6, John Boadu noted that the judgement of some of the nine Justices have divided people’s mind on the relevant issues even further.
He said the various definitions of over-voting provided in the judgements of the Justices was not good consensus building for the country.
Five of the nine Justices upheld the definition of over voting as the number of ballots that exceed the number of voters registered at a polling station – as proffered by National Democratic Congress (NDC) General Secretary Johnson Aseidu Nketia.
The other four Judges, however, upheld Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, the Second Petitioner’s, definition of over voting – that it is when votes in a ballot box exceed the number of ballots issued.
But John Boadu said, both definitions constituted over-voting. He wondered how a faction of the nine Judges could call the same irregularity ‘over-voting’ while another faction referred to it as ‘ballot stuffing’
According to John Boadu, truth has become a scarce commodity in the country, indicating that there was a deliberate attempt to make the ruling complex.
To make matters worse, according to Mr Boadu, the Electoral Commission Chairman, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, could not define over-voting for the whole period he was under cross examination apart from a purported “classical definition” of the irregularity.
He thought that was strange considering the wealth of knowledge a person such as Dr Afari-Gyan has about elections.
He said the preponderance of evidence that came before the Supreme Court Judges as against their ruling was not consistent.
John Boadu indicated that the opening statement of the some of the Justices showed that they were against the election petition from the very onset.