You are on page 1of 21

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA A. D. 2013 PETITION NO.

.J1/6/2013 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. 2. 3. AND 1. 2. 3. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION National Headquarters of the Electoral Commission 6th Avenue, Ridge, Accra NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC) Party Headquarters, Kokomleme, Accra NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO House No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA House No. 10, 6th Estate Road Kanda Estates, Accra JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY 24, 4th Circular Road, Cantonments, Accra

Petitioners

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA PURSUANT TO THE COURT DIRECTIONS ON MEMORANDUM OF ISSUES AND MODE OF TRIAL DATED 2ND APRIL 2013.
1

I, DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA, of House No. 10, 6th Estate Road Kanda Estates, Accra, an economist, make oath and say as follows: 1. That I am a citizen of Ghana, the 2nd Petitioner herein, deponent hereto, and have the authority of the 1stand 3rd Petitioners to swear to this affidavit on our joint behalf in respect of matters that are within my personal knowledge and information and which I believe to be true. 2. That I was nominated and agreed to act, as required by Article 63 (1) (d) of the Constitution (1992), as the running-mate/vice-presidential candidate of Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) for the December 2012 presidential election. I was also chosen by the 1st Petitioner and NPP to chair the committee that investigated the results of the 2012 presidential election. 3. That, in the course of my evidence, counsel shall seek leave of the court to enable me do a powerpoint presentation of the figures and the analyses set out in this affidavit. 4. 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: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) John Dramani Mahama Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom Akwasi Addai Odike Hassan Ayariga Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster Jacob Osei Yeboah

5. 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 election, returned John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent herein, as having been validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana. 6. 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
2

(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. 7. 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 figure inexplicably increased by over one million (1,000,000). 8. 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 the Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I.75., which prohibited the establishment of new polling stations within forty-two (42) days of an election. 9. That the total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondent furnished Petitioners party, the NPP, with 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 fourteen million, one hundred and fifty eight thousand, eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890). Furthermore, on the same date, 2nd Respondent posted on its website the total number of registered voters as fourteen million and thirty one thousand, seven hundred and ninety three (14,031,793) showing a clear disparity of one hundred and twenty seven thousand and ninety seven (127,097). 10. That 2nd Respondent failed to provide the Petitioners party, the NPP, with a provisional register of voters for each polling station in breach of Regulation 21 (2) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012 (C. I. 72) thereby disabling Petitioners and their party from effectively verifying the names on the list to ascertain their authenticity. 11. That 2nd Respondent inordinately delayed in furnishing the Petitioners party (NPP) with the final voters register, delivering same in tranches up to a few days before the December 2012 election, which conduct prevented the NPP from
3

scrutinising the said register and thereby contributed substantially in undermining the transparency, fairness and integrity of the December 2012 elections. 12. That, 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 election exceeded that of the registered voters for the parliamentary elections by one hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten (127,210) voters. 13. That I say 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. 14. 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: (i) 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 thirtyone thousand six hundred and eighty (14,031,680) which the 2nd Respondent had furnished the NPP with between 19thNovember 2012 and 2nd December 2012 by as much as one hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten (127,210) votes. (ii) Total votes declared as cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates were as follows: (a) John Dramani Mahama 5,574,761 50.70% (b) Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey 38,223 0.35% (c) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo 5,248,898 47.74% (d) Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom 64,362 0.59% (e) Akwasi Addai Odike 8,877 0.08% (f) Hassan Ayariga 24,617 0.22% (g) Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster 20,323 0.18% (h) Jacob Osei Yeboah 15,201 0.14% Total 10,995,262 100.00%
4

15. That the invisible sleight of hand, which transmogrified the total number of registered voters from fourteen million, 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.
16. The attempt by the 2ndRespondent to explain the difference by reference to the

raw data captured by the late registration of Ghanaian staff on duty at diplomatic missions abroad, Ghanaian students abroad on government scholarship, certain Ghanaians working in international organisations and service personnel returning from peace-keeping duty abroad, failed completely, when 2nd Respondent could provide particulars of only two thousand, eight hundred and eighty-three (2,883).

17. That in the list of 705 names from various diplomatic missions abroad furnished by 2nd Respondent in response to interrogatories the Petitioners served on the 2nd Respondent, there were 51 instances of repeated names to a total of 102. In all these instances but one, the two "identities" had the same name, same age, same gender, same location, same assigned polling station but different voter ID numbers. In one instance the name Abudulai Enusah Jamila, a 22-year old, also with New York as location, and a male is found alongside the name Abudali Enusah Jamila, 22-year old, also with New York location but a female. The two were assigned the same polling station but with different voter ID numbers. 18. That the scrutiny of the some of the voter ID numbers supposedly belonging to some of these foreign registered voters could not be found on the general voters register, that is to say, they were/are fake identities. These fake ID numbers for the multiple names also had a unique pattern. For most of them, the pattern was to add "1" to, or subtract "1" from, the 5th digit of the ID number and subtract 2 from the last digit. For example:
(a) Abudul-Mumin Bashiru (No. 159 on the list) with voter ID number

1852801842; and (b) Abdul-Mumin Bashiru (No. 572 on the list), with voter ID number 1852901840. 19. That the 2nd Respondent also placed the duplicate names far apart from each other, suggesting that the 2nd Respondent sought to hide these duplicates and make their detection difficult. For instance, one Abdul Bassit Ibrahim was placed 11th on the list, while the second Abdul Bassit Ibrahim was placed 465th on the
5

list. Similarly, while a Paul Yaw Essel was placed at No. 338 another Paul Yaw Essel was at No. 603. 20. That in the light of this inexplicable difference and the experience of the discrepancies that arose at Dome-Kwabenya constituency between the results of the NPP parliamentary candidate and the 1st Petitioner, which results were subsequently corrected upon persistent protest by the NPP parliamentary candidate, as well as calls from members of the NPP in a number of constituencies across the country complaining that the results being declared were not accurate, 1st Petitioner and the NPP put together a task force of which I was the head to investigate the results as declared in the presidential election. I was particularly placed to lead and direct this investigation as the running mate of 1st Petitioner and also as a person with proficiency in statistics. 21. That I say that the constituencies from which the said calls were received included Gambaga-Nalerigu, Tamale South, Lower Manya Krobo, Techiman North, Yilo Krobo, Akropong, Berekum West, Kintampo South, Upper West Akim, Mpohor, Yendi, Ledzokuku, Ketu North, Oforikrom and Hohoe North. 22. That the investigation that I presided over and personally directed involved an examination of the Statement of Poll and Declaration of the Results of the Office of President (Pink Sheets) of the polling stations, since the polling stations results as captured on the pink sheets constitute the primary evidence upon which the election results were declared. The pink sheets were given to representatives of the 1st Petitioner as required by Regulation 36 (3) (b) of C. I. 75. 23. The investigation uncovered six (6) main categories of constitutional/statutory violations, commissions, irregularities and malpractices, namely: i. Over-voting, that is to say, widespread instances of polling stations where (a) votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters or (b) votes exceeded the total number of ballot papers issued to voters on voting day in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution and Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75. ii. Widespread instances of polling stations where there were no signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets in clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.75.

iii. Widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75. iv. 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 the will of lawfully registered voters. v. Widespread instances of polling stations where different results were strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station code, when, by 2nd Respondents established procedure, each polling station was assigned a unique code in order to avoid confusing one polling station with another which could not be explained by a reference to special voting. vi. Twenty-three (23) locations where voting took place which were not part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the December 2012 elections. 24. That to compound the problem, the 2nd Respondent inexplicably issued an inordinate number of ballot papers to polling stations relative to the number of registered voters at the polling stations. Whereas the declared policy of the 2nd Respondent for the 2012 elections was to issue each polling station with ballot papers of some 5-10% higher than registered voters, the evidence shows that, in 11,819 polling stations of the total of 11,842 (which includes the 23 unknown locations), 11, 884,991 ballots were issued to 6,146,572 registered voters as per the 2nd Respondents voters register (the 14,031,680 version). This constitutes 93% more ballots issued than the number of registered voters in those polling stations. 25. That the figures from the pink sheets for the 11,819 polling stations indicate that the total number of registered voters was 7,067,129. However the 2nd Respondent's voters register for these same polling stations indicate a voter populations of 6,146,572, a difference of almost one million registered voters, (specifically 920,557) as shown in the table below:

26. That these irregularities create opportunities for electoral malpractices such as over voting and ballot stuffing. 27. That the statutory violations, commissions, irregularities and/or malpractices described in paragraph 21 herein, apparent on the face of the 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 four million, six hundred and thirty-seven thousand, three hundred and five (4,637,305) unlawful and irregular votes, which vitiated the validity of the votes cast and had a material and substantial effect on the outcome of the presidential election, as I shall demonstrate. 28. That prior to the December 2012 elections, the 2nd Respondent and its Chairman emphasised to the general public that any polling station where over-voting occurred would have its results annulled. This was to protect the integrity of the entire elections at the polling stations as any incidence of over-voting undermines the integrity of the polls. It is for this reason that the 2nd Respondent annulled the votes cast in: i. ii. the presidential election in Upper West Akim Arabic Primary School A, Asuokaw polling station with code E121703; in the parliamentary election in Tano North, Tanoso Methodist Primary School, with code G061304.
8

29. That equally, prior to the December 2012 elections, and after the enactment of C. I. 75, Regulation 30(2) of which provides that The voter shall go through a biometric verification process before being allowed to vote, the 2nd Respondent issued the famous directive: NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE (NVNV). This again was to protect the integrity of the voters register and entire elections. 30. That indeed, on 5th December 2012, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, the returning officer in the presidential election, in addressing the public at a press conference held at the Ghana International Press Centre, Accra, stated thus: Let me also share with you some of the firm decisions that we have taken together with the political parties: NVNV NO VERIFICATION, NO VOTING. And by verification we mean everybody will have to be verified biometrically. We have agreed in principle that where the votes found in the ballot box outnumber the persons verified to vote, the results of that polling station will be cancelled. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit MB-A is a video recording of the relevant portions of the press conference. 31. That, in consequence thereof, the total votes cast in the following 4 polling stations in the Nalerigu-Gambaga Constituency in the Northern Region were annulled by the 2nd Respondent, as same were cast without prior biometric verification: i. ii. iii. iv. Police Station polling station, Langbinsi (Code H253105); Nyanyeri polling station (Code H252302); Temporary Booth polling station, Bongni (Code H251504); and DA Primary School polling station, Kulgona (Code H252301)

Additionally, the total votes cast at the Berekum East Constituency, R/C Church Kutre No. 1 polling station code G124201, were annulled by the 2nd Respondent because some people voted without prior biometric verification. 32. That notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous terms of Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75, the then President of the Republic, John Dramani Mahama on 7th December 2012, while the elections were in progress was recorded by the mass media calling for voters to be allowed to vote without prior biometric verification, in gross breach of the electoral laws of the land. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit MB-B is an online publication of same published on 7th December 2012 at 15.33 GMT on www.myjoyonline.com.
9

33. That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to by true that by virtue of Article 49 of the Constitution, especially clause (3) thereof, and also Regulation 36 (2) of C.I. 75, the presiding officer has a mandatory constitutional and statutory duty to sign the declaration form at the polling station before he can lawfully declare the results of the polls at that polling station. 34. That to protect the integrity of the presidential election, the 2nd Respondent established a security system that every pink sheet had a unique serial number to guard against a situation where the same pink sheet is employed for more than one polling station. The unique serial number is thus a security feature, like the unique numbers on cheques, currency notes, and passport numbers. I am accordingly advised and verily believe same to be true that where, as occurred in the 2012 presidential election, pink sheets for different polling stations bore the same serial numbers, the results of those polling stations as captured on the pink sheets ought to be annulled on the ground that the integrity of the votes cast at those polling stations has been compromised. 35. That the investigation, examination and analysis of the pink sheets of the polling stations in question which I directed and supervised demonstrated a variety of constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities, which are set out hereunder. Multiple Categories of Violations, Irregularities and Malpractices 36. That the examination of the pink sheets revealed that in most cases, more than one irregularity occurred at a polling station. There were many instances of various combinations of over voting (OV), voting without biometric verification (NBV), no signature by presiding officer (NS), same serial numbers for different polling stations (DS), and same polling station codes for different polling stations (DP). 37. That while over voting occurred in 2,065 polling stations, in 1,755 of these stations representing 85%, over voting took place along with NBV, DS, NS and DP. It is only in 320 polling stations that the sole irregularity was over voting. 38. That while voting without biometric verification occurred in 2,279 polling stations, in 1,891 of these stations representing 83%, over voting took place along with DS, NS and DP. It is only in 379 polling stations that the sole irregularity was voting without biometric verification. 39. That while there were no signatures of presiding officers in 1,826 polling stations, in 1,533 of these stations representing 84%, this irregularity occurred
10

together with (i) over-voting, (ii) voting without biometric verification,(iii) same serial numbers for different pink sheets with different results and (iv) polling stations bearing the same codes but bearing different results. It is only in 306 polling stations that the sole irregularity was no signatures of the presiding officers. 40. That while duplicate polling station codes were found in 37 polling stations, in 34 of these stations representing 91%, this irregularity occurred together with (i) over-voting, (ii) voting without biometric verification and (iii) same serial numbers for different pink sheets with different results. Only in 3 polling stations did this irregularity occur without other violations, irregularities or malpractices. 41. That the use of the same serial numbers for different polling station pink sheets was very closely related to the other categories of violations, irregularities and malpractices, duplicate serial numbers account for some 73% of polling stations where over voting took place, 55% of polling stations where voting without biometric verification took place, 50% of polling stations without the signature of the presiding officer, and 30% of polling stations where duplicate polling station codes were used. 42. That in combining these multiple categories statistically, care was taken to avoid double counting. This was achieved by making sure the various categories of irregularities are mutually exclusive so that no polling station where an irregularity occurred could belong to more than one category. 43. That the constitutional and statutory violations, irregularities and malpractices which constitute the basis of this petition have been classified into twenty-four (24) distinct and mutually exclusive categories in which no polling station can belong to more than one category, thereby avoiding double counting. The Specific Combinations of Constitutional and Statutory Violations, Irregularities and Malpractices 44. That there were 320 polling stations where exclusive instances of the constitutional and statutory violation of over voting occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. This completely vitiated all the 130,136 votes cast in those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-C, MB-C1 to MB-C-319 are photo copies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 45. That there were122 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: (i) over-voting and (ii) voting without
11

biometric verification occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. This completely vitiated the 45,497 votes cast at those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-D, MB-D-1 to MB-D-121are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 46. That there were 374 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations and irregularities in the nature of: (i) over-voting; (ii), voting without biometric verification; and (iii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions completely vitiated the147,032 votes cast in those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-E, MB-E-1 to MB-E-373 are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 47. That there were 66 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) overvoting; (ii) voting without biometric verification; (iii) the same serial numbers on pink sheets; with different results and (iv) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions completely vitiated the 32,469 votes cast in these polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-F, MB-F-1 to MB-F-65 are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 48. That there were 20 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) over voting; (ii) voting without biometric verification; and (iii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions completely vitiated the 9,408 votes cast in these polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-G, MB-G-1 to MB-G-19 are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 49. That there were 882 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) overvoting and (ii) the same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions affected the 397,532 votes cast in those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-H, MB-H-1 to MB-H-881are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
12

50. That there were196 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of (i) overvoting; (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; and (iii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 91,129 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-J, MB-J-1 to MB-J-195 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 51. That there were 71 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations and malpractices in the nature of (i) over-voting and (ii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 31,561 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-K, MB-K-1 to MB-K-70 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 52. That there were379polling stations where exclusive instances of voting without biometric verification occurred and can be found on the pink sheets. The combined effect of this infraction vitiated 134,289 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-L, MB-L-1 to MB-L-378 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 53. That there were 1,068 polling stations where instances of combined statutory violations and malpractices in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; and (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 408,837 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-M, MB-M-1 to MB-M-1,067 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 54. That there were 185 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractice and irregularities in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; and (iii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pinks sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 72,953 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-N, MB-N-1 to MB-N-185 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 55. That there were 59 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification;
13

and (ii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pinks sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 19,816 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-O, MB-O-1 to MB-O-58 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 56. That there were 6,823 polling stations where exclusive instances of the malpractice of same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results took place. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 2,614,556 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-P, MB-P-1 to MB-P-6,822 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 57. That there were 907polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations and malpractices in the nature of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; and (ii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the pinks sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 365,676 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-Q, MB-Q-1 to MB-Q-906 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 58. That there were 310 polling stations where exclusive instances of constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 112,754 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-S, MB-S-1 to MB-S-309 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 59. That there were 3 polling stations where exclusive instances of the irregularities and malpractices of polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 687 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-T, MB-T-1 and MB-T-2 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 60. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined malpractices, statutory violations and irregularities in the nature of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results;(ii) voting without biometric verification; and (iii) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these
14

infractions vitiated 581 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-U andMB-U-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 61. That there were 12 polling stations where instances of combined malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; and (ii) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 4,710 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-V, MB-V-1 to MB-V-11 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 62. That there were 4 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; (ii) absence of the signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iii) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 1,261 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-W, MB-W1, MB-W-2 and MB-W-3 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 63. That there were 8 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) overvoting; (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results ; and (ii) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 3,167 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MBX, MB-X-1 to MB-X-7are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 64. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii) absence of signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iii) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 671 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-Y and MB-Y-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 65. That there were 4 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) over15

voting; (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; (iii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iv) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 2,105 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MBZ, MB-Z-1 to MB-Z-3 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 66. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; (iii) absence of signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iv) polling stations with same polling station codes and different results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 793 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-AA and MB-AA-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 67. That there were 23 locations, which were not part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by the 2nd Respondent prior to the December 2012 elections for purposes of the elections but where voting took place. The total number of votes cast in those locations was 9,685. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-AB, MB-AB-1 to MB-AB-22 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred. 68. That the total number of votes affected by the aforesaid constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities is 4,637,305. 69. That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the nature of these constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities require that the entire votes cast at the said polling stations be annulled. 70. That the votes that ought to be annulled from the declared results of each of the candidates were determined by the following method: a) All the polling stations where the violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred were identified. b) To avoid double counting, the violations, malpractices, and irregularities were classified into 24 mutually exclusive categories.
16

c) For each of the categories of infringements, all the votes declared in favour of each of the candidates at the affected polling stations by the 2nd Respondent were totalled. d) The total obtained above by each candidate was then subtracted from the overall total declared by the 2ndRespondent for the specific candidate to arrive at the new total valid votes for that candidate. e) The new totals and the resultant percentages for each candidate represent what the 2nd Respondent should have declared as the results of the presidential elections . 71. That upon the annulment of the votes in the eleven thousand eight hundred and forty-two (11,842) polling stations, the affected number of votes which were originally credited to each candidate in the presidential election and which ought to be deducted from the respective votes declared in favour of each candidate are as follows: (a) John Dramani Mahama (b) Henry Herbert Lartey (c) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (d) Papa Kwesi Nduom (e) Akwasi Addai Odike (f) Hassan Ayariga (g) Michael Abu Sakara Forster (h) Jacob Osei Yeboah 3,084,638 19,629 1,462,471 32,239 4,713 14,129 10,497 8,989

72. That when these figures are annulled and deducted from the total votes declared by the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent for each candidate on 9th December 2012, the results that ought to be declared are as follows:

17

73. That if the only violations complained of in this petition were the over-votes in the 2065 polling stations and the votes in those polling stations were annulled as required by law, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have 49.1% of the valid votes cast, and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have 49.3% of the valid votes cast. 74. That if the only violations complained of were voting without biometric verification in the 2,279 polling stations and the votes in those polling stations were annulled, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have obtained 49.13% of the valid votes cast, and 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 49.38% of the valid votes cast. 75. That if the only malpractice complained of were the instances of same serial numbers for different polling stations with different results in the 10, 533 polling stations and the votes in the polling stations where these occurred were annulled the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have obtained 41.1% of the valid votes cast, and the 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 57.55% of the valid votes cast. 76. That if the only violations complained of were absence of the signatures of the presiding officers in the 1,826 polling stations and the votes in these polling stations were annulled, the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, would have
18

obtained 49.45% of the valid votes cast, and the 1st Petitioner, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo would have obtained 49.03% of the valid votes cast. 77. That as a matter of fact, however, these violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred in different combinations in as many as 11,842 polling stations. In the result, I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that what must be taken into account is the impact of the combined effect of these violations, irregularities and malpractices on the outcome of the election as declared by the 2nd Respondent. 78. That I say if the impact of the combined effect of these violations, irregularities and malpractices on the outcome of the election as declared by the 2nd Respondent is taken into account, the 1st Petitioner is the person who ought to be declared as having been validly elected as President of the Republic of Ghana. 79. That in some instances, votes obtained 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. Particulars (1) That at Open Square New market polling station in the Atebubu-Amantin constituency, Brong Ahafo Region, with code G230509, ninety-seven (97) votes were declared as having been cast in favour of 1st Petitioner, however, on the results collation form this was for no reason reduced to seventeen (17). (2) That at the Baptist JHS New Tafo polling station in the Manhyia South constituency, Ashanti Region, with code F150506 A, ninety-six (96) votes were recorded as having been cast in favour of 1st Respondent, however, this was increased to nine hundred and sixty (960) on the results collation form. (3) That at the Nana Buabasa polling station in the Manhyia South constituency, Ashanti Region, with code F150306 B, four hundred and fifty (450) votes were recorded as having been cast in favour of 1st Petitioner, however, on the results collation form, this figure was reduced to four hundred and five (405). 80. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that when due account is taken of:
19

a. The constitutional and statutory violations, as well as the gross and widespread irregularities and malpractices that characterized the polls at these polling stations; and b. The nullification, as required by law, of the results declared at the polling stations where these violations, irregularities and malpractices occurred; and c. the necessary deductions are effected from the votes wrongfully credited to the 1st Respondent and the other candidates, the 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. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent ought not to have been declared validly elected as president. 81. That I am further advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that on the contrary, it is the 1st Petitioner herein, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, who obtained more than fifty per cent (50%) of the valid votes cast in the 2012 presidential election and ought in the circumstances to have been declared the duly and validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana. 82. That in consequence of the aforesaid constitutional and statutory violations, 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 the 1st Respondent's favour. This thereby subverted the sovereign will of the electorate, contrary to the preamble of the Constitution, Articles 1 (1), 42 and 63 (3) of the Constitution, 1992. 83. That, I have reviewed on behalf of my co-petitioners - the 1st and 3rd Petitioners and on my own behalf, the evidence of constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the December 2012 presidential election as aforesaid, and have summarized same in the form of power-point presentation for the sake of further clarification, and same is attached hereto in hard copy and marked as Exhibit MB-AC. Wherefore I swear to this affidavit in proof of our petition seeking the following reliefs: a. That John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent herein, was not validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana; b. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein, rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana; and
20

c. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet. Sworn in Accra this day of April 2013 BEFORE ME ) ) DEPONENT

COMMISSSIONER FOR OATHS The Registrar, Supreme Court, Accra.

1. 1ST RESPONDENT OR HIS COUNSEL, TONY LITHUR ESQ., LITHUR BREW & CO.; NO. 110B KADE AVENUE, KANDA ESTATES, ACCRA. 2. 2ND RESPONDENT OR ITS COUNSEL, LYNES QUASHIE-IDUN & CO, H/NO. E128/2, KOJO THOMPSON, ROAD, ADABRAKA, ACCRA 3. 3rd RESPONDENT OR ITS COUNSEL, SAMUEL CODJOE, LAW TRUST COMPANY, 5TH FLOOR, TRUST TOWERS, ACCRA

21