1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer>

Newsflash

  • NDC RIGGING MACHINERY IN MOTION …. as DI raises red flags over suspicious NHIS registration numbers -

    Public policy and governance think tank, the Danquah Institute has expressed grave concern about the Electoral Commission's decision to register all persons in the country who, simply, are in possession of identity cards issued by the National Health Insurance Authority.

    At a press conference organised by DI last week, a fellow of the institute, Mr. Boakye Agyarko, explained that “one of the objects of the National Health Insurance Authority” as captured on the NHIA’s website which states that “persons not resident in the country but who are on a visit to this country” can obtain NHIS cards is deeply worrying.

  • GHANA MUST WAKE UP, SHOUT FOR A NEW REGISTER AND SHAKE UP THE EC -

    FITCH Rating’s latest report on Ghana lays particular emphasis on the importance of Ghana’s democracy and stability to the country’s economic prospects. Whiles it gives a negative outlook based on how the economy is being run, Fitch makes the point that Ghana’s credit rating has not, however, fallen below ‘B’ because of the country’s “strong governance record and recent democratic history,” and that, this is “reflected in Ghana’s ability to attract foreign direct investment, which at 7% of GDP is well above that of Nigeria, Gabon, Zambia, Kenya and Angola.”

  • Danquah Institute Reacts to Bogus Polls On NPP General Secretary Race -

    The attention of the Danquah Institute has been drawn to a story making the rounds on social media and now on www.ghanaweb.com, as well, titled “Danquah Institute predicts 64.7% win for Kwabena Agyepong.”

  • The Monetary Policy Committee - November 2013 -

    You are welcome to this Press briefing. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) held its 58th meeting on November 25 to 27, 2013 to review the latest economic developments and the monetary policy stance. I present to you the outcome of the deliberations.

    The latest projections by the IMF indicate a pickup in the pace of global activity from 2.9 percent in 2013 to 3.6 percent in 2014, driven largely by the advanced economies with the impulse to global growth expected to come mainly from the United States against weaker prospects in emerging market economies.

  • Africa’s tax systems: progress, but what is the next generation of reforms? -

    Mick MooreTaxation is zipping up the development agenda, but the discussion is often focussed on international aspects such as tax havens or the Robin Hood Tax. Both very important, but arguably, even more important is what happens domestically – are developing country tax systems regressive or progressive? Are they raising enough cash to fund state services? Are they efficient and free of corruption? This absolutely magisterial overview of the state of tax systems in Africa comes from Mick Moore (right), who runs the International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD). It was first published by the Africa Research Institute.

    Anglophone countries have led the way in reforming tax administration in Africa, considerably more so than their francophone peers. The reasons for this are numerous. Networks of international tax specialists are based mainly in English-speaking countries. Many of the modern systems that promote best practice within tax authorities were developed in anglophone countries, especially Australia. International donors, and particularly the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), have directly and indirectly promoted a lot of reform of national tax authorities. In fact, this has been one of the success stories of British aid.

  • TWO DECADES OF FREEDOM: What South Africa Is Doing With It, And What Now Needs To Be Done -

    As the 20th anniversary of the birth of democracy in South Africa, on April 27 2014, approaches, it seems a perfect opportunity to take a step back and get a long-range perspective on the important question: “So, what has Nelson Mandela’s South Africa done with its freedom?”

    Goldman Sachs has produced this report in the hope of contributing to- wards a more balanced narrative on South Africa; one, which in the wake of 2012’s tragic events at Marikana, had become somewhat hysterical, short-term and often negative

  • Shifting Power? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives -

    Accountability and transparency initiatives hav e taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of th e century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving.

    This paper arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives which gathered and analysed existing evidence, discussed how it could be improved, and evaluated how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced. This paper takes the discussion further, by delving into what lies behind the methodological and evaluative debates currently surrounding governance and accountability work. It illustrates how choices about methods are made in the cont ext of impact assessment designs driven by different objectives and different ideological and epistemological underpinnings. We argue that these differences are articulated as methodological debates, obscuring vital issues underlying accountability work, which are about power and politics, not methodological technicalities.

  • ADVISORY NOTES TO PARLIAMENT ON THE PETROLEUM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA, AGM PETROLEUM AND COLA NATURAL RESOURCES -

    The Ministry of Energy has officially laid before Parliament two Petroleum Agreements for ratification following earlier approval by Cabinet. The Agreements are:

    1. Petroleum Agreement among Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, GNPC Exploration and Production Company Limited and AGM Petroleum Ghana LTD in respect of the South Deepwater Tano Contract Area (and shall be called AGM Contract for the purpose of this Analysis).

    2. Petroleum Agreement among Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, Cola Natural Resources and Medea in respect of East Cape Three Points Contract Area (and shall be called Cola Contract for the purpose of this analysis).

    This Advisory Notes is provided to members of Parliament to enrich debate during the consideration of the Agreements. The Notes are based on analysis by the Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) of the Negotiated Agreements and the memoranda accompanying them. These Notes do not cover most of the subjects in the two Agreements as most of them have common provisions. The focus of the analysis therefore covers subjects that show material differences between the Agreements for the purpose of enriching the debate in parliament.

  • CADA DISCUSSES OVER VOTING -

    Of late Ghanaians have become obsessed with throwing electoral ‘jargons’ around arising from the recent Election Petition in the Supreme Court of Ghana and most people have overnight turned themselves into Electoral Specialists in view of the enormous interest generated during the petition hearing. However, there are still lack of clarity and understanding in some of the widely used electoral terminologies. The Centre for African Democratic Affairs (CADA) a ‘Think Tank’ of Election Experts, has taken upon itself the challenge to critically examine some of the terms that created confusion in the minds of people during the court proceedings. One of such terminologies is over voting whose definition is still ambiguous even after the ruling of the Supreme Court. CADA therefore discusses the term Over Voting in the first of its series.

  • A strong Parliament is key to fighting corruption - Minority Leader -

    The Minority Leader in Parliament, Osei Kyei Mensah-Bonsu, has stated that strengthening Parliament’s financial oversight responsibilities is critical to combating corruption.

    He noted that “the evil enterprise of corruption which has become cancerous in Ghana”, explaining that Parliament has no option than to demonstrate extreme concern about the problems and threats that corruption poses to the stability and security of the country.

    He said corruption undermines state institutions and the values of democracy, as well as cultural and traditional values and the justice system. According to him these work against sustainable development and the rule of law.


Warning: Parameter 1 to modMainMenuHelper::buildXML() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/danquahi/public_html/libraries/joomla/cache/handler/callback.php on line 99

NPP's Petition to the Supreme Court

PDF Print E-mail

 

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE SUPREME COURT
ACCRA – A. D. 2012

PETITION NO.________

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION OF JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HELD ON 7TH AND 8TH DECEMBER 2012:

Article 64 of the Constitution, 1992; Section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992
(PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 & 68 A of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C. I. 74

 

B E T W E EN:
1.         NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO
House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra
2.         DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA
House No.  10, 6th Estate Road
Kanda Estates, Accra
3.         JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY
24, 4th Circular Road, Cantonments, Accra               …                    Petitioners

A N D
1.         JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra
2.         THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
National Headquarters of the Electoral Commission
6th Avenue, Ridge, Accra                                           …                    Respondents

 

PETITION

 

The Petition of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra, of the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana, whose electronic mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia of House No. 10, 6th Estate Road, Kanda Estates, Accra, whose electronic mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey of House No. 24, 4th Circular Road, Cantonments, Accra, whose electronic mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , showeth as follows:

  1. The Petitioners are all Ghanaian citizens by birth and members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), a political party duly registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana.  The 1st Petitioner was the presidential candidate of the NPP in the December 2012 elections; the 2nd Petitioner was the running mate of the 1st Petitioner in the December 2012 presidential election; and the 3rd Petitioner is the National Chairman of the NPP.

 

  1. The 1st Respondent was the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the December 2012 presidential election and was the person declared by 2nd Respondent on 9th December 2012 as having been validly elected as president of the Republic of Ghana, following the December 2012 presidential election.
  1. The 2nd Respondent is the constitutional body established by Article 43 of the Constitution, 1992, and the provisions of the Electoral Commission Act 1993 (Act 451), and mandated under Article 45 (c) of the Constitution and section 2 (c) of Act 451 to conduct and supervise public elections and referenda in the Republic of Ghana, and to declare the results thereof in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

 

  1. The Petitioners say that at the presidential election held in the Republic of Ghana on 7th and 8th December 2012 and conducted by the 2nd Respondent, the following were candidates in the order set out on the presidential election ballot:
  2. John Dramani Mahama
  3. Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey
  4. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo
  5. Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom
  6. Akwasi Addai Odike
  7. Hassan Ayariga
  8. Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster
  9. Jacob Osei Yeboah
  1. Petitioners say that at the conclusion of the election, the 2nd Respondent herein, acting through its Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, who was at all material times the Returning Officer for the December 2012 presidential elections, returned John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent herein, as having been validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.

 

  1. The Petitioners say that thereafter on 11th December 2012, the Declaration of President-Elect Instrument, 2012 (C. I. 80) was published under the hand of Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent.
  1. Petitioners say that prior to the December 2012 elections, 2nd Respondent, with the aim of assuring all stakeholders of the transparency and integrity of the process by which it received declaration of voting results from the constituencies, invited, on different occasions, regional executives of registered political parties to the ‘Strong Room’ of the 2nd Respondent, where such results were received; and it was further explained to them that all the results would all be received through the faxes installed in the ‘Strong Room’ directly from its officials from the regions or districts and that there could be no opportunity for tampering with the results before same were received in the ‘Strong Room’.

 

  1. Petitioners say, however, that on 8th December 2012, while provisional results of ballots cast in polling stations were being declared and voting was still underway in some polling stations, it came to the notice of some members of the public that the offices of Superlock Technologies Limited (STL), a security installation and Information Technology (IT) company, was receiving the results of the elections before transmitting same to 2nd Respondent in its ‘Strong Room’.
  1. Petitioners say that a team of NPP leaders, led by Hon. Osafo Maafo, went into the premises of STL and confronted the officials of the company in the presence of the media and police officers, whereupon the STL officials said that 2nd Respondent was their client with whom they had an agreement to provide IT services by, among others, receiving all results of votes cast and faxed from the regional offices of the 2nd Respondent before transmitting same to the ‘Strong Room’ of 2nd Respondent. This encounter, including the said response of the said STL officials, was broadcast live to the general by the electronic media to the general public.

 

  1. Petitioners say this arrangement of 2nd Respondent with STL was made without the knowledge of either the Petitioners’ party or the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC), to which NPP belongs and where all matters concerning elections were discussed. This secret arrangement and concealment provided opportunity for tampering with the results of the elections.
  1. Petitioners say that some time before the December 2012 elections, the Chairman of 2nd Respondent informed Parliament when he appeared before it that 2nd Respondent had registered some one million (1, 000,000) voters, who had not been assigned to any polling station, even though the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012, (C. I. 72) required that registration of voters shall be carried out in designated polling stations, known for that purpose as registration centres.

 

12.       Petitioners say that after 2nd Respondent had conducted its biometric registration exercise, it announced to the general public that the provisional number of voters registered was a little less than thirteen million (13,000,000) and that after cleaning the provisional register and verifying same, it would publish the final number of registered voters. Surprisingly and contrary to legitimate expectation, when 2nd Respondent posted the final total number of registered voters on its website, the number inexplicably increased by over one million (1,000,000).

13.       The Petitioners say that on or about 26th September 2012, that is some forty-two (42) days before the presidential election scheduled for 7th December 2012, the 2nd Respondent, acting through its Chairman, officially announced the total number of polling stations to be employed in conducting both the presidential and parliamentary elections in December 2012 as twenty-six thousand and two (26,002). This was ostensibly to ensure transparency, fairness and integrity of the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections, and to comply with Regulation 16 of C.I.74., which prohibited the establishment of a new polling station within forty-two (42) days of an election.

14.       The Petitioners further say that the total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondent furnished Petitioners’ party, the NPP, was fourteen million and thirty-one thousand, six hundred and eighty (14,031,680). Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Petitioners that 2nd Respondent had on Sunday, 9th December 2012, declared the total number of registered voters as 14,158,890. Furthermore, on the same date, 2nd Respondent posted on its website the total number of registered voters as 14,031,793 showing a clear disparity of 127,097.

15.       The Petitioners say that the 2nd Respondent inordinately delayed in furnishing the Petitioners’ party (NPP) with the final voters’ register until just a few days before the December 2012 elections, which conduct prevented the NPP from scrutinizing the said register and thereby contributed substantially in undermining the transparency, fairness and integrity of the December 2012 elections.

16.       Although a common register was compiled for both the presidential and parliamentary elections, it turned out, from the results declared by the 2nd Respondent, that the total number of registered voters in respect of the presidential elections exceeded that of the registered voters for the parliamentary elections by one hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten (127,210) voters.

17.       The Petitioners will contend that the total number of registered voters ought to be the same for both the presidential and parliamentary elections and further that there could not lawfully be different total registered voters for the presidential and parliamentary elections.

18.       The Petitioners say that following the completion of the presidential election on 8th December 2012, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, pursuant to Regulation 5(5) of C. I. 75, declared the results of the presidential election to the general public via radio and television in the evening of 9th December 2012 as follows:

  1. The total number of registered voters was fourteen million one hundred and fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (14,158, 890). This number of registered voters so declared was however in excess of the official total number of registered voters of fourteen million and thirty-one thousand six hundred and eighty (14,031,680) which the 2nd Respondent had furnished the NPP between 19th November 2012 and 2nd December 2012 by as much as one hundred and twenty-seven thousand and two hundred and ten (127,210) votes.

 

  1. Total votes declared as cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates were as follows:
  1. John Dramani Mahama --         5, 574, 761.     50.70%
  2. Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey                          --              38, 223.     0.35%
  3. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo             --         5, 248, 898.    47.74%
  4. Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom                           --                64, 362.     0.59%
  5. Akwasi Addai Odike                                 --                  8, 877.     0.08%
  6. Hassan Ayariga                                        --                24, 617.      0.22%
  7. Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster              --                20, 323.     0.18%
  8. Jacob Osei Yeboah                                  --                15, 201.     0.14%

------------------
14, 158, 880

19.       Petitioners say the invisible sleight of hand, which transmogrified the total number of registered voters from fourteen million and thirty-one thousand six hundred and eighty (14,031,680) as provided to the NPP by the 2nd Respondent to fourteen million one hundred and fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890) remains completely inexplicable to date.

 

20. Grounds for Challenging the Validity of the December 2012 Election

Ground 1

There were diverse and flagrant violations of the statutory provisions and regulations governing the conduct of the December 2012 presidential election which substantially and materially affected the results of the elections as declared by the 2nd Respondent on 9th December, 2012.

Particulars

  1. That 2nd Respondent permitted voting to take place in many polling stations across the country without prior biometric verification by the presiding officers of 2nd Respondent or their assistants, contrary to Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75.

 

  1. That the voting in polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric registration were unlawfully taken into account in the declaration of results by 2nd Respondent in the presidential election held on 7th and 8th December 2012.
  1. That by 2nd Respondent’s established procedure, 2nd Respondent conducted the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections at polling stations each of which was assigned a unique code to avoid confusing one polling station with another and to provide a mechanism for preventing possible electoral malpractices and irregularities.

 

  1. That there were, however, widespread instances where different results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms (otherwise known as the ‘pink sheet’ or ‘blue sheet’) in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes.
  1. That the existence of polling stations of the nature referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph (d) and the results emanating therefrom were patently illegal.

 

  1. That there were widespread instances where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the declarations forms as required under Regulation 36 (2) of C. I. 75. And yet the results on these forms were used in arriving at the presidential results declared on 9th December 2012 by the Chairman of 2nd Respondent, thereby rendering the results so declared invalid.

Ground 2

  1. That the election was also vitiated by gross and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices which fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in four thousand, seven hundred and nine (4,709) polling stations as declared by 2nd Respondent.

 

Particulars

  1. That the results as declared and recorded by the 2nd Respondent  contained widespread instances of over-voting in flagrant breach of the fundamental constitutional principle of universal adult suffrage, to wit, one man one vote.

 

  1. That there were widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure established by 2nd Respondent required that each polling station have a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and will of the lawfully registered voters.
  1. That while the total number of registered voters as published by the 2nd Respondent  and provided to all political parties or candidates for the presidential and parliamentary election was fourteen million, thirty-one thousand, six and eighty (14,031,680), when 2nd Respondent announced the results of the presidential election on 9th December 2012, the total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondent announced mysteriously metamorphosed to  a new and inexplicable figure of fourteen million, one hundred and fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890). This thereby wrongfully and unlawfully increased the total number of registered voters by the substantial number of one hundred and twenty-seven thousand and ninety-seven (127, 210).

 

  1. That there were widespread instances of voting without prior biometric verification;
  1. That there were widespread instances of absence of the signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the Declaration Forms known as ‘pink sheet’; and

 

  1. That there were widespread instances where the words and figures of votes cast in the elections and as recorded on the ‘pink sheets’ did not match.

Ground 3

That the statutory violations and irregularities and/or malpractices described under Grounds 1 and 2 herein, which were apparent on the Declaration Forms (‘pink sheets’) had the direct effect of introducing into the aggregate of valid votes recorded in the polling stations across the country, a whopping figure of one million, three hundred and forty-two thousand, eight hundred and forty-five (1,342,845) irregular votes, which vitiated the validity of the votes cast and had a material and substantial effect on the outcome of the election, as shown in the table below:

Particulars

VIOLATIONS OR IRREGULARITIES

NUMBER OF VOTES

  1. The aggregate of instances of over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters

226,808

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and
  3. votes cast without biometric verification

154,586

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. voting without biometric verification, and
  4. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

9,149

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters
  3. voting without biometric verification, and
  4. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets’

67,721

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. voting without biometric verification,
  4. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheet’, and
  5. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

1,396

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. voting without biometric verification, and
  4. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

406

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and
  3. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

8,355

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets’

149,177

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’ and
  4. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

1,713

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’ and
  4. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

613

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and
  3. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

1,587

  1. The aggregate of instances of voting without biometric verification

306,498

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of voting without biometric verification, and
  3. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

17,620

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of voting without biometric verification,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ and assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’

130,458

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of voting without biometric verification,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’ and
  4. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

2,397

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of voting without biometric verification,
  3. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’ and
  4. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

358

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. voting without biometric verification, and
  3. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

575

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. instances of voting without biometric verification,
  3. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching, and
  4. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

586

  1. The aggregate of instances of same serial numbers for different polling stations

50,278

  1. The aggregate of instances of absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets’

198,669

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. absence of presiding officers’ or assistants’ signatures on ‘pink sheets,’ and
  3. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

10,256

  1. The aggregate of instances of words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching

3,645

  1. The aggregate of instances of:
  2. words and figures on ‘pink sheets’ not matching, and
  3. same serial numbers on 'pink sheets’ with different results

196

Grand Total                                                                                             

1,342,845

21.    Petitioners contend that these one million, three hundred and forty-two thousand, eight hundred and forty-five (1,342,845) have been rendered invalid by reason of the above violations and irregularities and accordingly ought to be annulled.

22.  Petitioners say that upon the annulment of the votes in the four thousand seven hundred and nine (4,709) polling stations, the following votes ought to be deducted from the respective votes declared in favour of the presidential candidates:

  1. John Dramani Mahama                                 : 916,409;
  2. Henry Herbert Lartey                                      :     6,413;
  3. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo                   :  395,784;
  4. Papa Kwesi Nduom                                       :      8,778;
  5. Akwasi Addai Odike                                       :       2,544;
  6. Hassan Ayariga                                              :      5,956;
  7. Michael Abu Sakara Forster                          :      3,166;
  8. Jacob Osei Yeboah                                        :      3,795

 

23.    Petitioners say when these figures are annulled and deducted from the total votes declared by the Chairman of 2nd Respondent on 9th December 2012, the results that ought to be returned are as follows:

EC DECLARED

AMOUNT TO BE ANNULED

NEW VOTES

% OF VOTES

John Dramani Mahama

5,574,761

916,409

4,658,352

48.26%

Henry Herbert Lartey

38,223

6,413

31,810

0.33%

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo

5,248,898

395,784

4,853,114

50.28%

Papa Kwesi Nduom

64,362

8,778

55,584

0.58%

Akwasi Addai Odike

8,877

2,544

6,333

0.07%

Hassan Ayariga

24,617

5,956

18,661

0.19%

Michael Abu Sakara Foster

20,323

3,166

17,157

0.18%

Jacob Osei Yeboah

15,201

3,795

11,406

0.12%

TOTAL

10,995,262

1,342,845

9,652,417

 

24.       Petitioners say that in some instances, votes earned by the 1st Petitioner were unlawfully reduced whilst at the same time, votes of the 1st Respondent were illegally padded with the sole purpose of procuring the victory of the 1st Respondent in the 2012 December Presidential Elections.

25.     When due account is taken of the statutory violations as well as of the gross and widespread irregularities and malpractices, and the necessary deductions effected from the votes wrongfully credited to 1st Respondent by the 2nd respondent and the nullification as required by law of the results declared at the polling stations where these substantive infractions occurred, 1st Respondent did not obtain the total of more than fifty per cent (50%) of the valid votes cast as required by Article 63 (3) of the Constitution in order to become president, and accordingly ought not to have been declared president.

25.       On the contrary, 1st Petitioner herein, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo,  received more than fifty per centum (50%) of the valid votes cast and ought in the circumstances to have been declared the duly and validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.

26.   Petitioners say that all of the irregularities and electoral malpractices captured above, were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the Respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully assisting the 1st Respondent to win the 2012 December Presidential Elections.

27.       The Petitioners say that in consequence of these statutory violations and infractions as well as the irregularities and malpractices, the results declared by 2nd Respondent in favour of 1st Respondent were far in excess of the valid votes cast in his favour, thereby subverting the sovereign will of the electorate contrary to the preamble of the Constitution, Article 1 (1) and Articles 42 and 63 (3) of the Constitution, 1992.

28.       The Petitioners intend to rely on the following laws and authorities:

  1. The Constitution 1992:

particularly, the preamble, Articles 1(1), 42, 63 (3) & 64.

  1. Statutes

  1. The Presidential Elections Act, 1992, (PNDCL 285).

particularly sections 4 & 5 thereof;

  1. The Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 72)

particularly, regulations 2 (4) & (5) thereof;

  1. The Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 75), particularly Regulations 5 (5), 16, 30, 32, 36 & 41 thereof; and
  2. The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012, (C.I.74), particularly Rules 68 & 68A.
  1. Decided cases

 

  1. Mettle Nunoo & Others v. Electoral Commission [2007–2008] 2 SCGLR1250.
  2. Ahumah-Ocansey v. Electoral Commission [2010] SCGLR 575 at 586, 602 to 603, & 614
  3. Tehn Addy v. Electoral Commission [1996 – 97] SCGLR 589
  4. Apaloo v. Electoral Commission [2001] SCGLR, 253.
  5. Tuffuor v. Attorney General [1980.] GLR 637.
  6. The Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte CHRAJ (Dr. Richard Anane - Interested Party). [2007 – 2008] 2 SCGLR 213.
  7. Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241.
  8. Agagu v. Mimiko (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140).
  9. Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) SCIMLR1, at 108, 152 – 153.
  10. INEC v. Roy (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 265) 1047.
  11. Fayemi & Anor. v. Oni (2010) LPELR – CA/IL/EPT/GOV/1/10
  12. Obi v. Mbakwe (1984) 1 SCNLR, 192.
  13. Orubu v. National Electoral Commission (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 3234
  14. Jalingo v. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 538.
  15. Abibo v. Tamunu (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 559) 334.
  16. Apeola v. Awoade (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 617) 30.
  17. Edomkumoh v. Mutu (119) 9 NWLR (Pt. 620 ( 633).
  18. Habib Ullah & Ors. v. Pagel & Anor. (2002) EWCA Civ. 1792 (December 2002).
  1. Textbooks

  1. Manual on Election Adjudication in Ghana, Second Edition, Judicial Service of Ghana, July 2012;
  2. Encyclopedia of Election of Election Law and Practice by Sir T. A. Nwamara, First Edition.
  3. Election Law and Practice by Afe Babalola, Vols. 1 and 2, 2nd Edition.

29. Witnesses:

Petitioners intend to rely on 25 witnesses.

30. Reliefs sought by Petitioners

Therefore your Petitioners pray that the Supreme Court declares:

  1. That John Dramani Mahama, the 2nd Respondent herein was not validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.
  2. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein, rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
  3. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet.

 

31.       The address for service of the Petitioners is House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra.

 

32.       The name and address for service of counsel for Petitioners is:

Akufo-Addo, Prempeh & Co., 67 Kojo Thompson Road, Adabraka, Accra.

32. The addresses of the Respondents are as follows:

  1. John Dramani Mahama, 1st Respondent herein – Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra,
  2. The Electoral Commission, 2nd Respondent herein, National Headquarters of the Electoral Commission, 6th Avenue, Ridge, Accra,

DATED AT ACCRA THIS 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012

  1. …………………………………………..

1st Petitioner


2…………………………………………….
2nd Petitioner

3………………………………………………
3rd Petitioner
The Registrar,
Supreme Court,
Accra.

AND TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTS



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites