|
|
Press Release
August 04, 2013
NPP
BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION WAS TO
PREVENT FRAUD AND MULTIPLE VOTING
The use of biometric verification was to ensure that only
persons entitled and properly accredited to vote exercise their
franchise in accordance with the law, as voting without
biometric verification is also linked to the protection of the
integrity of the electoral process as well as to the principle
of “one man one vote.”
This is contained in the 176-page “written address of counsel
for petitioners”, where they explained that on Election Day, the
election official needs to be sure that the person arriving at
the polling station, apart from the mere production of the
required ID card, is the same person whose biometric details are
captured on the biometric voters register.
According to the petitioners, the evidence led at the trial
shows that 508,837 people voted without prior biometric
verification, which in their opinion was unconstitutional, a
violation of the law and a malpractice.
“If the President is not voted for in a manner that is not
secure, then the country will head into an abyss for, the
election would not have represented the will of the people. The
will of the people can only be exercised by the eligible voter,”
the petitioners state.
The Petitioners explained that the history of Ghana’s electoral
system is replete with numerous instances of people voting with
fake ID cards, impersonation and multiple voting, thus, there
can be no question about the legitimacy or importance of the
State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.
“The electoral system cannot inspire confidence if no safeguards
exist to detect or deter fraud or to confirm the identity of
voters,” the petitioners maintain.
Every voter shall undergo biometric verification
The petitioners argued that the 1992 Constitution does not
prescribe all the steps by which voting is done in Ghana, nor
does it prescribe how registration of voters for public
elections and referenda is to be carried out, what procedures
should be employed, or what kind of registration prospective
voters should undergo.
Thus, by virtue of Article 45, the Constitution vests the
Electoral Commission with the power regarding the performance of
functions, as described above, and also in relation to how
public elections are to be conducted and supervised.
“It cannot be contended that an unconstitutionality is
occasioned when the 2nd respondent, pursuant to powers conferred
on it by the Constitution, enacts regulations (C. I. 75),
prescribing how registration of voters should be done in this
country and regulating the conduct of public elections, and
those regulations impose any reasonable requirements for
prospective voters to comply with, such as the establishment
their identity before voting,” the petitioners note.
Whilst regulation 18(1) of C.I. 75, makes it mandatory for every
polling station to be provided with a biometric verification
device; Regulation 30 (2) of C.I. 75 also states that “the voter
shall go through a biometric verification process. In addition
to these, Regulation 34(1) of C.I. 75 adds states that upon “the
breakdown of an equipment, the presiding officer shall in
consultation with the returning officer and subject to the
approval of the Commission, adjourn the proceedings to the
following day.”
“The combined effect of Regulations 18(1), 30(2) and 34(1) is
that the use of the Biometric Verification Device (BVD) was made
a mandatory component of the 2012 presidential election…. Thus,
for the first time in our Fourth Republican journey, voting in a
general election spanned two days and it so happened because of
reported incidents of alleged breakdown of BVDs. That
unprecedented adjournment underlines the significance that the
nation attached to biometric verification for the 2012 general
elections,” the petitioners note.
Unconstitutionality in the use of BVD debunked
Citing authorities from the UK, USA, South Africa, Canada and
India, the petitioners debunked claims by the 1st and 3rd
respondents that the use of the biometric verification device
was unconstitutional.
It is recalled that after the attention of the 1st and 3rd
respondents were been drawn to the fact that, voting without
biometric verification occurred throughout the country and that,
even in certain polling stations, the EC’s officers in
accordance with the acknowledged rules for the conduct of the
December 2012 elections annulled results in four (4) polling
stations for failure of certain voters to go through biometric
verification, Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, who testified for and on
behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondents, stated in paragraph 15B
of his affidavit filed on 15th April, 2013, that the decision to
make voters vote only after going through biometric verification
is unconstitutional.
The petitioners thought it strange and striking that the “1st
and 3rd respondents who, at the material time of the passage of
C.I. 75, were the President of the Republic and the ruling
majority party in Parliament respectively were, together with
2nd respondent [EC] principally responsible for the enactment of
C.I. 75, should now through a species of weak constitutional
argument attempt to undermine the constitutional validity of C.
I. 75 by seeking to legitimize illegal conduct to justify the
questionable declaration of 9th December 2012 by the EC.”
“Such contradictory behaviour does not enhance the democratic
governance of our State under the Rule of Law,” the petitioners
stressed.
EC Claims exposed
The petitioners explained that contrary to claims made by Dr
Afari Gyan that “no one voted without biometric verification”,
his admissions in the witness box that he would allow certain
persons like the Omanhene to cast his vote without biometric
verification, exposes the untruths made by the EC boss. In
addition to this, Dr Afari Gyan also admitted that he had
instructed his officials to allow certain “prominent persons” to
vote without biometric verification.
In the view of the petitioners, “such cases would promote the
uneven application of the law on biometric verification. The 2nd
respondent [EC], by turning others who could not be verified
away and permitting others who were well-known in the community,
but who could also not be verified biometrically, to vote, could
be said to be valuing the vote of one person over the other. It
is an uneven application of the law.”
They continue, “It implies that the main guarantee of one’s
right to vote, after having registered, is whether one is
well-known in one’s community. If one is not and one’s biometric
details cannot be captured, one will be turned away even though,
in another instance, an Omanhene or a prominent person will be
allowed to vote even though he has not been verified
biometrically.”
Further debunking the claims of Dr Afari Gyan about no one
voting without biometric verification, the petitioners stated
that the evidence led at the trial showed, the incidence of
people voting without biometric verification was evident on the
face of the pink sheets.
It is recalled that the EC boss stated that the pink sheets for
the December 2012 elections were designed and printed before the
decision to compel voters to be verified biometrically before
voting was taken. Hence the appearance on the form of the
question C3 as follows: “What is the number of ballots issued to
voters verified by the use of Form 1C (but not by use of BVD)”?
The EC also further stated that, in view of the late decision
regarding verification, all presiding officers were instructed
to leave question C3 on the pink sheet blank, as verification
would be carried out for each voter at the polling station.
However, according to the EC, some presiding officers mistakenly
filled question C3.
“This averment of the 2nd respondent, was also belied by the
unimpeachable evidence consisting of admissions by the Chairman
of 2nd respondent, on 6th June, 2013, that C. I. 75 (mandating
the use of biometric verification) came into force on 28th
September, 2012, long before the Chairman of 2nd respondent on
20th October, 2012, gave the order for the pink sheets to be
printed,” the petitioners explain.
The explanation simply, according to the petitioners, cannot be
true because, if it is, then it raises grave concerns over the
capacity of presiding officers the 2nd respondent with the
resources of the State employed.
“C3 (“What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by
the use of Form 1C (but not by the use of BVD”)) is clear and so
simple to understand that it leaves no room for ambiguity or
multiple interpretations. Thus, if over 2000 presiding officers
trained with state resources could not be trusted by the 2nd
respondent to understand and act properly on such a simple
instruction only to fill column C3 in “error”, then one can
imagine the number of other “errors” committed on the pink
sheets which culminated in the 9th December, 2012 declaration
that 1st respondent won the election, the address reads.
|
