|
|
Release
NPP
August 1, 2013
EC ADMITS IRREGULARITIES OCCURRED IN 2012
ELECTIONS …..BUT CLAIMS THEY DID NOT AFFECT OUTCOME
The Electoral Commission has stated in its written address that
irregularities, indeed, did occur in the conduct of the 2012
elections, however, they are of the opinion that these
irregularities did not affect the results as declared by the
Chairman, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan. However, the EC in its address
did not attach any annexures of its analysis to show that,
indeed the irregularities did not affect the results of the 2012
elections.
The “Address filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent” is contained
in 15 pages, a clear improvement over the 5-page affidavit sworn
to by Amadu Sule, in response to the 2nd Amended petition of the
petitioners.
According to the EC, they acknowledge that “in completing the
ballot accounting part of the pink sheet, many of the Presiding
Officers made clerical errors and left blank spaces wrongly and
made errors which were not logical. The petitioners did not
submit any other evidence of the alleged irregularities other
than as appearing on the face of the pink sheets.”
Despite the petitioners claiming throughout the trial that the
six main categories of irregularities malpractices, violations
and omissions in various combinations which affected the results
of the election in the 11,842 polling stations are laid out in
24 grounds, the Electoral Commission disagreed with this
assertion, stating that the “petitioners put forward three
grounds as the basis of their petition.”
The EC throughout its 17 paragraphed address relied heavily on
the evidence of the General Secretary of the National Democratic
Congress, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, just as was done by Tony Lithur,
counsel for the 1st Respondents.
On over-voting, the Electoral Commission stated that the
petitioners did not show how this irregularity related to
Article 42 of the Constitution and Regulation 24 (1) of CI 75.
According to the EC “the petitioners have not shown how these
two provisions apply to the petition since Article 42 relates to
the right of a citizen to vote and his entitlement to be
registered as a voter and Regulation 24 (1) states that a voter
cannot cast more than one vote when a poll is taken.”
Article 42 of the constitution states that “Every citizen of
Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has
the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter
for the purposes of public elections and referenda.”
Regulation 24(1) of CI 75 also states that “A voter shall not
cast more than one vote when a poll is taken.”
In the view of the EC no case of over-voting occurred since the
petitioners were not able to prove that any person voted or
attempted to vote more than once during the 2012 elections,
adding that none of the polling station agents of the
petitioners protested during the counting of the votes.
Touching on the “No signature by the Presiding Officer”, the EC
claimed that the “Petitioners have not shown how that affected
the outcome of the elections.”
This statement, strangely did not take into account Article 49
of the Constitution of Ghana, and as captured in Regulation
36(2) of C.I. 75, which requires the presiding officer to sign
the results declaration form before he can validly announce the
results of the election.
On the allegation of No biometric verification, the Electoral
Commission notes that the petitioners “did not produce a single
piece of evidence of a person who saw anyone voting without
having been biometrically verified.”
Despite Regulation 30 (2) of CI 75 stating that “the voter shall
go through a biometric verification process,” the EC in
paragraph 22 stated that, “it cannot be stated that biometric
verification is limited to finger prints.”
On the use of duplicate serial numbers, the EC described this
category as the “weakest link in an already weak chain.” The EC
explains that “the number was inserted not by the 2nd Respondent
but by the printer,” even though the EC boss has stated in the
witness box that he needed the serial numbers for his own
counting purposes.
It is recalled that the EC stated that it printed a second set
of pink sheets because it was expecting more candidates to
contest the elections. Strangely enough, the second set of pink
sheets also bore the same name of the 8 candidates, in the exact
order as contained in the first set of pink sheets.
The EC’s position on the occurrence of “same polling station
codes with different results” was that this took place because
“the same polling station was used for special (early) voting
and later used for voting on Election Day or in places where
there were split polling stations.”
However, it is recalled that Counsel Philip Addison produced a
list of polling station pink sheets which showed that the same
polling station codes had been used for different polling
station results. In cross-examining Dr. Afari-Gyan on them, the
Electoral Commission boss informed the court, on almost every
single pair, that it was because one of the pair of pink sheets
was a record of the results for the special voting as the
polling stations had also been used for special voting, though
he could not point out to the court which specific pink sheets
were those for special voting.
When put to strict proof, Dr. Afari-Gyan, however, could not
stand by his position and noted that he had not said that all
the polling stations had been used for special voting.
In concluding, the EC also gave the assurance that it was going
to do everything possible to minimize the occurrence of
administrative errors, explaining that “the EC hires over one
hundred thousand temporary officials, who are trained for only a
short time, to conduct the presidential and parliamentary
elections.”
NPP
Headquarters, Private Mail Bag, Accra-North, Ghana
Tel: +233 0302 264329/ 264288 Fax: +233 0302 229 048
Email: nppdcom@gmail.com Website: www.newpatrioticparty.org
.
|
