Archive | Opinions RSS feed for this section
Kabila

KUMBUNGU SPEAKS! WHO IS LISTENING?


The Kumbungu Parliamentary bye-election came to a close on Thursday, May 2, 2013 with the CPP candidate, Amadu Moses Yahaya pulling over thirteen thousand (13,000) votes to win at the polls. The election of Amadu Moses Yahaya has saved the CPP from virtually going extinct atleast in Parliament. Several reasons have been given and are being proffered as having led to the sweet victory for the CPP and many more are those individuals and groups seeking to take credit for Kumbungu reminiscent of what Indira Gandhi once said; “there are two kinds of people in politics; those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be with the former because there is less competition there.”

Instead of fighting over who should take the credit, this article seeks to focus on some useful lessons the outcome of the Kumbungu bye election offers to the various players in our political sphere. But who is listening or going to pay heed to them?

Take it or leave it, the outcome of the bye election was a verdict on the poor performance of the ruling NDC. Read more…

Ghana Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Takes The First Bold Step Towards Justice


On 2nd April 2013, the Supreme Court resumed sitting on the Presidential Election Petition to give directions on how the case should proceed. Firstly, the Court narrowed the issues filed by the parties to two issues: (1) whether or not there were violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices in the December 2012 presidential elections; and (2) whether or not those violations, irregularities, omissions and malpractices affected the outcome of the December 2012 presidential elections.

The narrowing of the parties’ issues in the presidential election petition is generally in line with the jurisprudence on election petitions, which make it clear that where there has been noncompliance with constitutional provisions and the law, and such noncompliance affect the outcome of the elections, the results of the said elections ought to be set aside. The Petitioners therefore bear the burden of proof to show that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the law resulting in irregularities and malpractices and that the Electoral Commission’s noncompliance with the law affected the outcome of the December 2012 presidential elections.  Read more…

Kabila

KABILA: “GHANA MUST TAKE A CUE FROM KENYA. CJ MUST SIT UP!”


Watching the Kenyan Election Dispute case on DSTV channel 413 on Thursday, 28th March between the hours of 13:00 and 16:00 GMT, it was really worrying and embarrassing that the Attorney General of Kenya could boast of the speed with which their case was travelling by citing Ghana’s snail slow pace of handling a similar petition – challenging the validity of the election of the President. Kenyan Attorney General, Githu Muigai speaking; “As my Lords are aware, as we speak here today the Supreme Court of Ghana is sitting on the election dispute relating to their election which was undertaken in December and they are slower than we are and I think we should take a little credit for the sort of enthusiasm that this court has brought to a timeous disposal of this matter.” The Kenyan A-G was allaying any fears of delay. I sighed with disappoint; Oh NO! What a shame, Ghana! This is what happens when your standards fall. You become a reference point for those are accused of falling. It becomes easy and convenient to use you as a solace. How much less can we fall?

Unlike in their previous elections where disputes or challenges were settled by the sad option of bullets and machetes, the People of Kenya this year chose the prescribed channel of using the Court, taking a cue from Ghana’s opposition leader Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo. When I began writing this piece, the petition was expeditiously being dealt with. Indeed on Saturday, 30th March, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya pronounced judgement declaring the validity of the election of Uhuru Kenyatta as President of Kenya. Read more…

Inside the Kenyan Supreme Court. I don't have a photo of Ghana's Supreme Court.

Of Course Ghana Is Not Kenya


Ghana is not Kenya” is one reaction you would hear whenever you compare the presidential election petitions currently pending before the Supreme Courts in both countries.  ”Why not” is an immediate reaction to the “Ghana is not Kenya” reaction and I can empathise with that. Both countries are African countries and seem to have taken the path of democracy. Both countries have made provision in their respective constitutions for presidential election petitions to be filed in their respective Supreme Courts to challenge the election of the president. So why can’t Ghana be like Kenya?

I can also empathise with those who vehemently say, “Ghana is not Kenya” and indeed, I do empathise with those who react in that manner but for completely different reasons. I mean how can we even think that Ghana can be like Kenya. We have to face facts and be honest with ourselves when comparing the manner in which the Supreme Court in both countries are dealing with the presidential election petitions before them. In that respect, Ghana is nowhere near Kenya at all. In fact, Ghana is millions of miles behind Kenya and we, Ghanaians, ought to be ashamed.

In writing this short piece of article, I have confined myself to the presidential election petitions before the Supreme Courts in both countries and the manner in which those petitions are being dealt with. I must therefore emphasise that this article does not compare the economic success or democratic success of both countries.

Having set out my intentions clearly, it is my opinion that Ghana is not Kenya because Ghana is far behind Kenya and also because Read more…

The Chix Files: Test In Election Petitions


The jurisprudence on election petitions make it clear that where there has been substantial non compliance with constitutional provisions and the law, which substantial non compliance affected the outcome of the elections, the results would be overturned. The Petitioners therefore have to show that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the law and that the Electoral Commission’s non compliance was substantial and further that the Electoral Commission’s substantial non compliance with the law affected the outcome of the 2012 elections.

The law for the 2012 Elections inter alia required biometric verification prior to voting and that presiding officers must sign the pink sheets. The Petitioners allege that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the requirement of biometric verification prior to voting thereby allowing 743,415 votes to be added to the total valid votes, which votes are invalid and ought to have been disregarded in the final tally. The Petitioners also allege that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the requirement that all pink sheets must be signed by the presiding officer and thereby allowed 751,528 votes to be added to the total valid votes, which votes were invalid and ought to have also been disregarded in the final tally.

The Petitioners must also demonstrate that the addition of these invalid votes, amongst others, substantially affected the outcome of the 2012 presidential elections. According to the Petitioners, the non compliance with the law by the Electoral Commission was substantial and affected the outcome of the 2012 elections in that if the alleged irregularities are removed, the 1st Petitioner ought to have been declared President of Ghana with 59.69% of the valid votes cast.

That in my opinion satisfies the test in election petitions, subject to evidentiary proof.

via The Chix Files: Test In Election Petitions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,745 other followers

%d bloggers like this: