|
|
Press Release
August 05, 2013
NPP
ANNUL VOTES FROM 1,772 POLLING STATIONS
DUE TO OVER-VOTING
The petitioners in the Presidential Election hearing have
explained that the occurrence of over-voting in 1,772 polling
stations infringes Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, the
universally acknowledged principle of “one man one vote” and
Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75.
The petitioners submit that under the Constitution, each
registered voter, who casts his/her vote in the manner
prescribed by the law, can only have his/her vote counted once,
adding that it is the mandate of the Electoral Commission to
ensure that this principle is protected.
“It follows necessarily, therefore, that any practice suggestive
of over-voting must be outlawed. If there is the occurrence of
over-voting, it goes without saying that the franchise
constitutionally given to the voter at a polling station has
been abused. The result of the election at the polling station
in question must be annulled.”
These arguments are contained in the 176-page written address
filed by counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners have long maintained that over-voting takes
place when (a) the total number of ballot papers issued to
voters on Election Day or (b) where votes cast at various
polling stations exceeded the total number of registered voters.
Shedding more light on these two scenarios in the address, the
petitioners argue that, firstly, over-voting takes place where
all the number of people duly registered to vote at a particular
polling station turn up on election day to vote, (and this can
be discovered from the number of ballots issued), however, the
number of ballots found in the box at the end of the polls end
up being more than the number of voters registered to vote at
that polling station.
“Secondly, where a number less than the number of registered
voters at a particular polling station show up to vote (and this
can also be determined from the number of ballots issued), it
goes without saying that the number of ballots found in the box
at the close of the polls should not be more than the number of
ballots issued to the voters,” the petitioners add.
Therefore, in the view of the petitioners, “in an election at a
polling station shown to have been affected by over-voting, it
is not possible to determine which of the votes cast constitutes
the invalid votes and, therefore, which votes cast count as the
lawful votes.”
“The practice, therefore, has been to annul all the results of
the polling stations where they are proven to have occurred,”
the petitioners stressed.
Indeed, the petitioners maintain that the evidence led at the
trial supports the view of the EC and the petitioners that when
there are cases of over-voting, the results at the polling
station cannot be relied upon, and it was on this basis that the
EC on two (2) occasions in accordance with its policy, annulled
results in polling stations where over-voting occurred.
The petitioners state emphatically that they succeeded in
establishing the claim of over-voting in 1,772 polling stations
used in the conduct of the December 2012 presidential election,
which, in effect, invalidated a total of 745,569 votes.
Giving more details on this figure, the petitioners explain that
while over voting occurred in 1,722 polling stations, in 85% of
these polling stations, over-voting took place along with no
biometric verification, no signature of presiding officer,
duplicate serial numbers, and duplicate polling station codes.
“It is only in 264 polling stations where the only irregularity
was over-voting,” the petitioners add.
Thus, according to the petitioners, should the results from
these polling stations where over-voting took place be annulled,
neither John Mahama nor Nana Akufo-Addo would secure the
required 50% plus of valid votes cast.
“In the event, John Dramani Mahama’s total votes would be
reduced by 504,014, resulting in him securing 49.47% of valid
votes cast. Nana Akufo-Addo’s total votes, on the other hand,
would be reduced by 226,198, resulting in him securing 49.0% of
valid votes cast. The constitutional and statutory violation of
over-voting, therefore, would have had a material effect on the
election results declared by the 2nd respondent. In that event,
there ought to be a second election between the two leading
candidates, in accordance with article 63(4) of the
Constitution,” the petitioners address states.
Respondents’ argument “unsound and illogical”
The argument pushed by the respondents throughout the “battle of
evidence” was that, even in polling stations affected by
over-voting, it would amount to a denial of the right to vote of
innocent citizens and, therefore, unconstitutional for the whole
of the votes at the polling stations to be annulled.
“That argument is also clearly defeated by the evidence of Dr.
Afari-Gyan under cross-examination by counsel for petitioners on
17th July, 2013, when he admitted that, in a case of
over-voting, consistent with what he told the whole nation
before the December 2012 elections, the results of the election
at the polling station in question will have to be annulled, as
the integrity of the election would have been compromised,” the
petitioners note.
The petitioners also noted that when the respondents were
confronted with the overwhelming record of over-voting on the
face of the pink sheets, the respondents resorted to devising
various excuses at rationalising the phenomenon.
According to the petitioners, the first occasion on which the
respondents sought belatedly to justify or explain away the
entries made in columns on the pink sheets indicating of
over-voting was on 23rd April, 2013, when counsel for 1st
respondent, Tony Lithur, in his cross-examination made the point
that every case of over-voting on the face of the pink sheet was
an administrative error.
“Counsel for 1st respondent, at page 39 of the record of
proceedings for 23rd April, 2013, then started speculating as to
the reasons for the entries indicative of over-voting by
evolving a strange theory of electoral practice. Counsel
suggested that the reason why there seemed to be over-voting on
some of the pink sheets was that the number ‘at the bottom was
just lifted and placed in C1’”, the address states.
This explanation, according to the petitioners, was debunked by
Dr Bawumia, when he indicated that that constituted an
impossible proposition since C1 is filled before the count of
ballots.
“Thus, it is highly irregular that a number would be lifted from
the total votes cast column and placed in C1 after the counting
of the ballots. This irregularity undermines the reliability of
the record, i.e., the pink sheet, and compromises the integrity
of the results, which should lead to the annulment of the
results in that polling station,” the address further adds.
|
