Barely a week after he headlined the media landscape with his "corrupt" description of a Supreme Court's verdict, Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko has yet again stirred the hornet's nest with his claim that the court mistakenly read out a reversed judgment.
The Executive Director of Danquah Institute, a pro opposition think tank, remarked that after a careful study of the 588 page-long ruling dated 29th August 2013 on the 2012 presidential election petition, five of the judges agreed with the petitioners' case as against four for the first respondent, John Dramani Mahama.
Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo, the first petitioner and 2012 presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party, and two others filed the petition against the election of President John Mahama.
Justice William Atuguba, president of the nine panel Supreme Court judges, read the verdict in an open court:
1. Duplicate serial numbers of pink sheets: 9�0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED]
2. Duplicate Polling Station Codes &Names: 9�0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED]
3. Unknown Polling Stations: 9�0 [UNANIMOUSLY DISMISSED]
4.Voting without biometric verification: 5�4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED]
5. Over voting: 5�4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED]
6. Non-signing of Pink Sheets by POs 5�4 [MAJORITY DISMISSED]
"In the circumstances the overall effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is therefore dismissed," Justice Atuguba clarified.
But Mr Otchere-Darko, in a six-page statement suggested that what the Supreme Court did was "as if the Court�s main duty was to uphold the presidency of John Mahama rather than to uphold the Constitution of the Republic".
He further contended: "My view, however, is that the decision, in both fact and law, is a 5:4 majority that John Mahama was not validly elected. This is because five justices, Julius Ansah, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, and Baffoe Bonnie, all held that the irregularities found were enough to affect the results and that there should be a second election but in the affected areas. Significantly, they were willing to uphold the law but without totally disenfranchising the voters affected."
Therefore, the Danquah Institute will on Monday, September 16, 2013, in partnership with other civil society groups hold a symposium at the British Council for jurists and other legal and statistics experts to critique the decision of the Supreme Court in the presidential election petition.
Why The Case Of The Petitioners �Succeeded� By A 5:4 Majority - By Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko
On Monday, September 16, 2013, the Danquah Institute, in partnership with other civil society groups will hold a symposium at the British Council for jurists and other legal and statistics experts to critique the decision of the Supreme Court in the presidential election petition filed by Nana Akufo-Addo and two others against the election of President John Mahama in the December 2012 election.
But, last week, as a panellist on two separate current affairs programmes on radio (Oman FM and Joy FM), I provoked an argument, which will be one of the topics that the legal and analytical minds will delve into at the upcoming symposium.
I stated that, going by the reliefs sought by the petitioners and the issues set for determination by the Supreme Court, as the trial court of facts, it is difficult to not describe as perverse the conclusion of the presiding judge, when announcing the decision on August 29, 2013, that, �[i]n the circumstances, the overall (net) effect is that the first respondent was validly elected and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.�
In fact, the Court could not say expressly upon which actual majority the final decision was reached. It chose rather conveniently to sidestep its own issues for determination to do a vote count on the six main categories of infractions from which the petitioners extracted their evidence.
It was as if the Court�s main duty was to uphold the presidency of John Mahama rather than to uphold the Constitution of the Republic. The 1992 Constitution sets out the judicial oath, which concludes, �I will at all times uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana.� This leads Justice Anin Yeboah to pose the question at page 472 of the judgment, �if a court of law does not give effect to the law, who will.�
Again, US Supreme Court judge, Justice Benjamin Curtis, dissenting in Dred Scott, warned the country against letting judges make up new constitutional provisions, in these famous words: �When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.� Dred Scott was an African-American
Source: myjoyonline/Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |