[ad_1]
Ghana again witnessed a petition to the Supreme Court (CS) regarding the outcome of a presidential election. Nonetheless, there are a number of incidents that have occurred with this petition that puzzles me and many citizens as to what exactly is going on. What principle can serve justice better and faster in the election petition; the burden of responsibility of EC or the petitioner’s allegations?
First, the Supreme Court rejected on February 3, 2021 a request by the petitioner, former President John Mahama, for the original documents of the 1st respondent, the chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC). The SC’s decision to reject the first respondent’s request for the original documents not only serves to quell the negative perception the petitioner has created about the BOIs, but also prevents the BOIs from skillfully demonstrating competence and defending its integrity. The SC can temper justice with pity if the judiciary reconsiders its decision in order to help the public dispel any misperception created by the applicant against the first defendant.
In addition, regardless of whether a proxy has signed or not, agrees or disagrees, gave reasons or not, the actions and decisions of the presidents of the polling stations and the returning officers of the constituencies and regional collection centers are definitive for declaration by the 1st defendant and President of the EC. So I tend to get confused when the burden of proof is brought up on a petitioner whose deeds and documents cannot invalidate or challenge the results of an election unless he requests the original document from the arbitrator. in accordance with CI-127, clause 47 (5).
A petitioner, based on subsection 47 (5), although he may or may not have a copy of the original documents, should not be refused when the petitioner asks to understand the basis on which the arbitrator, chairman or director poll made the statement. The authenticity of the document used for the statement is with EC and can only be disputed by a petitioner after the petitioner has compared with any copies he may have.
Also, although I participated in the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections, I cannot report an election where the EC gave me duplicate pink sheet documents to me or to other candidates including agents. were not present. This is mainly due to the fact that I do not present agents in polling stations and collection centers except for the Strong room of the EC.
Despite the excellent work done by the EC and my team in accordance with the declaration of December 9, 2020, my agent left before the signing of Form 13 for security reasons, but we still do not have a copy of Form 13 , although all the constituency results are available as well as the first summary sheet before filing on Form 13.
For the first time, the EC under the leadership of Ms. Jean Mensah demonstrated its motto of integrity, fairness and transparency by displaying the original copies of the summary documents (form 12) of the 275 constituencies and 16 regions with figures on the CE website. All candidate agents in the vault have received Regional Ranking Form 11 (consisting of all constituency numbers) and Regional Summary Form 12. Any reasonable patriotic citizen will have no doubt that the posting of results of 38,622 polling stations on the EC website will be complicated.
Of course, using the Constituency Ranking Form will cause some summation issues that the Strongroom will correct later. I had the privilege as Independent Presidential Candidate 2012-2020 to have personally worked and interacted with the three Presidents of the EC, Dr Afari Gyan, Ms Charlotte Osei and currently Ms Jean Mensah. The two previous predecessors did their best in the context of the demands of their time, but Ms Jean Mensah created a niche of courageous, transparent and competent reformer of the EC.
It is for these reasons that I believe that the Supervisory Committee should allow the EC to present the documents requested by the petitioner. My reason is emphasized on balancing constitutional independence and the unhindered work of EC. The SC can compare the burden of proof of responsibility and accountability on EC’s part in the election petition with providing the original documents to a petitioner for clarity instead of the legal axiom customary whereby the burden of proof lies with a petitioner (the one who alleges).
Second, it is not clear why the petitioner would include the second respondent and President of the Republic of Ghana in the petition. There is no claim against the 2nd defendant to justify being part of the case; the sole responsibility for the conduct of elections, the result of which is contested by the petitioner, lies with the EC (1st respondent). Although the outcome of the petition may affect the 2nd defendant, it is still unclear why the 2nd defendant is present to defend the actions of the first defendant. Is the EC unable to defend its own actions? Obviously, the presence of the 2nd respondent is not necessary since the actions of the 2nd respondent are not scrutinized.
CI-127, aside from the 1992 constitution, makes an informative and comprehensive statement, section 48 (2) making the actions and decision of EC ultimately responsible and accountable for our elections, unless petitioned to the SC. As indicated in subsection 48 (2): The non-presence of the candidate or the polling officer or the candidate’s counting officer at the time and place does not invalidate the act or thing done. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has nothing to do with this petition as he participates in the election just like the petitioner and it is the actions and decisions of the EC that are paramount and final.
I also cannot understand why the 2nd defendant would beg the court to refrain from accepting the petitioner’s request for the original documents which might clarify the case. Why is the 2nd respondent allowed to play the referee and the player in the petition? This again raises the question of the relevance of the 2nd petitioner in this whole petition, as it only serves to act in such a way as to thwart the process of seeking clarity; this question can be addressed to the first responder.
Third, the petitioner and the NDC have never given Ms. Jean Mensah an inch of benefit of a doubt since taking office after patriotically leaving the IEA she co-founded. The slanderous personal allegation against the first defendant and Ms. Jean Mensah raises the question of what the petitioner did with the former EC president, Ms. Charlotte Osei, who justified the petitioner for such a seemingly proud litigation posture and hatred vicious towards a visionary EC and president.
The dangerous political attitude of the petitioner and the NDC party is a great threat to national security for citizens to be wary of the first respondent and EC. We have confidence in the SC to deliver justice that will lead to clarity and peace to Ghanaians.
Finally, both the petitioner and the second respondent made allegations of voice-stuffing which favored the other party, but the first respondent has yet to comment on the matter. In such a situation, the public could be better served and justice would be served if election officials at these verified locations were treated in accordance with CI-127 45 (2) instead of the president assuming the responsibility of an oath-taking. For election officials and candidates’ agents are required to take the oath CI-127 2 (4), 19 (4), 21 (6) to take responsibility for their actions at their respective levels.
Conclusion and recommendation
1. The petitioner should clearly state specific polling stations, constituencies, regions and national collection centers that they need clarity from the EC to the SC.
2. Unless the petitioner clearly indicates an action contrary to the law on the part of the 2nd Respondent, the Court Committee should clearly indicate its nature of engagement in the petitioner’s case against the President of the EC. It is not the responsibility of the 2nd defendant to defend the actions of EC.
3. The EC, as arbitrator, should make available to the petitioner the original documents requested without the burden of proof on the petitioner but the burden of responsibility and accountability on the part of the petitioner. ‘EC which enjoys independent constitutional authority to discharge its duty unimpeded.
4. The presence of signing and commenting agents is only a measure of transparency and collaboration between the candidates and the EC for a wider acceptance of the election results.
5. The election period for the petition can be reduced to 21 days or drastically when EC presents the original documents to the petitioners prior to the case management stage. The danger of discrediting revered state institutions such as the EC and the SC to endanger our national security due to political defeats will be minimized.
6. The various officials of the EC will be made directly responsible and accountable for their respective actions.
7. State institutions, candidates and political parties that cause chaos and economic destruction should be held accountable in accordance with the law, especially the compensation for victims of market fires and mutilation of innocent voters.
Source link
