Election petition: I do not agree with the trial process and the decision of SC – Mahama

The petitioner in the recently concluded election petition, John Dramani Mahama, expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to reject his election petition.

Reacting to his defeat, the former president hinted that his defeat was not surprising as the Supreme Court had rejected many claims filed by his legal team.

“No one who follows the Supreme Court process will be surprised by the judgment handed down a few hours ago.

“Although I know that we are legally bound by the decision of the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Ghana, I do not agree with the process of the trial and the decision of the court,” he said. he said emphatically.

His response comes hours after a panel of seven Supreme Court justices, in a unanimous decision, rejected the election petition he filed to seek redress in what he called “fictitious and fictitious. “.

However, finding no merit in his case, the Supreme Court rejected it, describing it as unfounded.

Mr Mahama’s argument presented to the Supreme Court indicates that none of the candidates who contested the polls obtained more than 50% of the votes cast. He alleges that the person who would have won the ballot benefited from the filling of the votes.

He also claims that the candidate benefited from arithmetic and calculation errors. He concludes that the declaration of Nana Akufo-Addo by the EC is unconstitutional because he did not obtain more than 50% of the valid votes cast.

Speaking to the media, Mahama further said his quest to hold Election Commission Chairman Jean Mensa accountable for electoral anomalies was blocked by a cordon and firewall.

He further disagreed with the Supreme Court’s opinion that his petition was akin to any other civil litigation, as the EC president, who is likely to account for her role in the election, escaped scrutiny. the law.

“I do not agree with the suggestions of our judges that an election petition is also sensitive to any other civil litigation and therefore an EC President whose function goes to the heart of our democracy can, by a turn of legal sleight-of-hand, avoiding accountability for its stewardship in an appropriate manner. forum such as the highest court in the land ”.