Saturday, August 24, 2013
Item Three: The Supreme Court’s
Verdict
As we inch toward August 29 for
the Supreme Court’s verdict on the NPP’s petition challenging the legitimate
victory of President Mahama at Election 2012, we hear pronouncements from
across the political divide that the verdict will be determined in one of the
following ways: a unanimous
verdict, an 8:1 or 7:2 or 6:3 majority decision (thanks to Sam Okudzeto). But
there is also a 5:4 possibility.
A
unanimous decision means that all the 9 judges will take one common position to
conclusively determine the winner or loser. Will this consensus be difficult to
attain? Not so, if all the judges believe in the relevance of the franchise and
the outcome of the kind of free, fair, and transparent elections that took
place on December 7 and 8, 2012. Nothing creates any doubt about the
genuineness of the polls and the results therefrom. So, why shouldn’t unanimity
be the highest expectation?
The
majority decision (whether based on a ratio of 8:1 or 7:2 or 6:3 or 5:4) will
raise eyebrows but exhaustively end the litigation. What will be left open is
why there will be a majority and minority position on such a simple and
straightforward matter: that elections are won at the polls when votes are
cast, counted, certified, and announced as the true reflection of the
electorate’s political will and not in the dark chamber of the Supreme Court on
the basis of clerical errors and indeterminable factors (such as why the
Presiding Officers failed to sign the pink sheets). Other grievances on serial
numbers and over-voting or voting without biometric verification are purely
absurd and not worth considering at all.
I
have the strong conviction that the NPP petitioners will lose the case and
choose the review method only to be given another lethal blow to dim their
political light, even for Election 2016.
As
Okudzeto put it, if the loser is to go for a review, only two justices will be
added to the nine; and it is unlikely that the decision will be overturned. I
have no objection to this opinion because once the Supreme Court gives its
ruling on the matter, no amount of witchery or prayers can force it to reverse
it.
Rather
preposterously, though, it is the NPP camp hat has settled on either a 7:2 or
6:3 majority option to make it the winner, basing the choice on what is
considered to be the “water-tight evidence” adduced during proceedings. Some
unspoken words hint that the “9” will come from the NPP sympathizers among the
9-member panel. But that is their own cup of tea.
The
NPP followers are misconstruing talks from the NDC camp regarding “the
winner-takes-all” syndrome as an admission of loss and that the NDC might be
seeking to cool tempers to be accommodated by a winning NPP. Others claim that
Hassan Ayariga of the PNC and other opposition members paid a visit to
Akufo-Addo, indicating that they have foreseen a positive change in his
political fate, come August 29.
On
the other hand, President Mahama and the NDC camp are optimistic of victory but
haven’t said by what margin nor are they bothered by the claims of the NPP
petitioners and their followers.
Now,
here is the main issue: Of course, in law, opinions differ, which is why some
are claiming that the verdict will be by a majority decision.
What
will be interesting to know is which judge will root for the petitioners and
why and which for President Mahama, the Electoral Commission, and the NDC, and
why.
If
the judges don’t want to undermine the electoral process, they should be guided
by principles on what constitutes voting/franchise and why that franchise is an
integral part of the democratic process. What it means is that it is votes that
matter, not technicalities woven around pink sheets.
Obviously,
the votes cast, counted, and announced by the EC were not passed through the
pink sheets first. The collation forms that were aggregated and the outcome of
the elections known, certified, and released by Dr. Afari Gyan preceded the entries
to be made in the pink sheets. So, what is the justification for the
petitioners’ turning to the pink sheets and not the collation forms or the
primary evidence of voting (the ballot papers) to fight their case? And is that
what will appeal to the conscience of the Supreme Court judges to root for
them?
In
a democracy, nothing is more sacred than the ballot paper and the opportunity
given voters to exercise their franchise. The electoral decisions made by the
voters translated into the choices that they made when they voted. They had
nothing to do with clerical issues as evidently present in the entries to be
made in the pink sheets by the Presiding Officers.
In
the case of Election 2012, one outstanding positive aspect was the signing of
the pink sheets by the polling agents representing the various contestants. By
that singular act, they endorsed the outcome of the elections at each polling
station. Endorsing the results means accepting it as a fait accompli—a true
reflection of the political will of the electorate. Whoever doubts this
endorsement is a threat to be written off like a bad debt, not pampered or
encouraged to poison public opinion and threaten national stability.
So,
if any judge thinks otherwise and agrees with the NPP petitioners, what will he/she
be doing but supporting a wrong move based on mere technicalities as against
the actual primary element that determines the outcome of elections.
We
are suggesting that the failure of Presiding Officers to sign pink sheets, for
instance, is a mere administrative lapse that has no impact on the actual
event—the voting that took place on December 7 and 8, 2012, and its outcome.
Thus, if a judge sides with the NPP, using this transpositional errors or
clerical lapses as a justification, he/she will be helping to set a nasty
precedent that is detrimental to future elections: a disgruntled Presiding
Officer whose preferred candidate loses the elections at the polling station
will simply refuse or fail to sign the pink sheet and create favourable grounds
for that lapse to be used by malcontents seeking to overturn the outcome of the
elections in court. Future elections will, therefore, stand endangered. Is that
what Ghana needs?
It
will be very intriguing to know which judges will support which side in this
petition. That is why we will insist that we be given full details on how the
judges individually approached the matter. They will have their pre-August 29
conference and give opinions to support whatever stance they take. In declaring
the verdict, we should be told the position taken by each judge and why. That
way, we can interpret issues better. Obviously, some career-challenging
instances abound in the handling of this petition!!
Another angle to the expectations
regarding the verdict is that there are three possibilities:
1.
A declaration that President Mahama was validly
elected at Election 2012 (retention of the status quo);
2.
An annulment of the so-called over 4 million votes
cited by the petitioners as being in contention and a declaration of Akufo-Addo
as President in consequence; and
3.
A declaration that the elections
lacked credibility and an order for a re-run or that even after some annulments,
neither President Mahama nor Akufo-Addo can have the required quantum of votes to
be declared the winner of the 2012 Presidential elections and, therefore, a
re-run of the elections should be done.
I am convinced that the first
option will prevail. The demand for over 4 million votes to be annulled to put
Akufo-Addo at the Presidency will be disregarded by the Supreme Court because
it is made in bad faith and is an insult to the electorate. The reality on
voting day runs counter to this self-serving demand. How can so many people be
disenfranchised just because of clerical errors by Presiding Officers or
unsubstantiated allegations of over-voting or voting without biometric
verification?
Option 3 is not only absurd but
ill-conceived. Who will conduct the re-run? This very Electoral Commission that
the petitioners have sought to discredit? Will the Supreme Court judges be so
unintelligent and muddled in their thinking to impose this burden on the EC? Or
will they ask that the current crop of EC officials be replaced with others
before being tasked to conduct “credible elections” in this case of re-run?
What, then, will be the
time-frame for such a re-run? And who will be ruling the country while this
preparation goes on? The Speaker of Parliament? He isn’t qualified in this
circumstance. The Chief Justice? Inconceivable because she has no locus!! So,
the country will be left acephalous (without a head)? Why will the judges be so
stupid to go that way?
I invite you to read this article:
http://opinion.myjoyonline.com/pages/comment/201308/111810.php
You see, the demerits far
outweigh any merit that such an option may entail. There will be no re-run.
So, the obvious expectation—based
on incontrovertible fact that he genuinely won the free, fair, and transparent
2012 elections as declared and reinforced during the proceedings by the EC—is
that the incumbent John Mahama will be retained in office and given a free hand
to rule the country as he has already been doing. He has already consolidated
his grips on power and will not be easy to divest of that power and authority.
In effect, then, the NPP’s
petition will end up as a futile exercise in legal acrobatics and political
jingoism. Votes cast at the polls determine the fate of candidates, not
clerical lapses as is being traced to pink sheets gathered from only the
strongholds of the NDC where President Mahama won, excluding any from the NPP’s
strongholds, where Akufo-Addo won.
What sort of jaundiced approach
to justice and equity is this? And to imagine that the petitioners skewed their
so-called pink sheets evidence, basing their (mis)calculations on less than
half of the total number of polling stations that took part in Election 2012!!
How representative is that evidence? The petition is just for academic purposes
and won’t change anything regarding the administration of the country.
We are even not talking about the
handicap facing Akufo-Addo, assuming that the Supreme Court is even favouring
him as the winner. With the NPP’s minority in Parliament, how will he hope to
accomplish anything, especially if it has to be handled in conjunction with the
Legislature? Will this kind of situation help the country to move forward? I
don’t think so, which is why it will be catastrophic to either annul the over 4
million votes cited by the petitioners to put Akufo-Addo in office. Hoodoo!!!
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment