DAILY GUIDE

PAGE 6

Monday, December 31, 2012

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 AND 1. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra 2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION National Headquarters of the Electoral Commission 6th Avenue, Ridge, Accra 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 nadaa5781@gmail.com, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia of House No. 10, 6th Estate Road, Kanda Estates, Accra, whose electronic mail address is mahamudu_bawumia@yahoo.co.uk, and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey of House No. 24, 4th Circular Road, Cantonments, Accra, whose electronic mail address is joobetsebi@gmail.com, 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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: (a) John Dramani Mahama (b) Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey (c) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (d) Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom (e) Akwasi Addai Odike (f) Hassan Ayariga (g) Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster (h) Jacob Osei Yeboah 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Petitioners 10. 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. Respondents 11. 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 fortytwo (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: (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 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. (ii) Total votes declared as cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates
Contd on page 7

Monday, December 31, 2012

DAILY GUIDE

PAGE 7

were as follows: (a) John Dramani Mahama (b) Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey (c) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (d) Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom (e) Akwasi Addai Odike (f) Hassan Ayariga (g) Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster (h) Jacob Osei Yeboah ------------------------5, 574, 761. 50.70% 38, 223. 0.35% 5, 248, 898. 47.74% 64, 362. 0.59% 8, 877. 0.08% 24, 617. 0.22% 20, 323. 0.18% -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 (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) That by 2nd Respondents 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. (d) 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. (e) 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. (f) 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 (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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 ninetyseven (127, 210). (d) That there were widespread instances of voting without prior biometric verification; (e) 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 (f) 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:
NUMBER OF VOTES (1) The aggregate of instances of over voting due to total votes 226,808 exceeding ballot papers issued to voters (2) The aggregate of instances of: 154,586 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and (b) votes cast without biometric verification (3) The aggregate of instances of: 9,149 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, (b) voting without biometric verification, and (c) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (4) The aggregate of instances of: 67,721 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters (b) voting without biometric verification, and (c) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets (5) The aggregate of instances of: 1,396 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued 9,149 to voters, (b) voting without biometric verification, (c) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheet, and " (d) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results 67,72 (6) The aggregate of instances of: 406 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, (b) voting without biometric verification, and (c) words and figures on pink sheets not matching p (7) The aggregate of instances of: 8,355 8, (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and (b) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (8) The aggregate of instances of: 149,177 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, (b) absence of presiding officers" or assistants signatures on pink sheets (9) The aggregate of instances of: 1,713 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, (b) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets, and (c) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (10) The aggregate of instances of: 613 (a) over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, (b) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets, and (c) words and figures on pink sheets not matching (11) The aggregate of instances of: 1,587 (a) instances of over voting due to total votes exceeding ballot papers issued to voters, and (b) words and figures on pink sheets not matching (12) The aggregate of instances of voting without biometric verification 306,498 (13) The aggregate of instances of: 17,620 (a) instances of voting without biometric verification, and (b) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (14) The aggregate of instances of: 130,458 (a) instances of voting without biometric verification, (b) absence of presiding officers "and assistants signatures on pink sheets, (15) The aggregate of instances of: 2,397 (a) instances of voting without biometric verification, (b) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets, and (c) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (16) The aggregate of instances of: 358 (a) instances of voting without biometric verification, (b) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets, and (c) words and figures on pink sheets not matching (17) The aggregate of instances of: 575 (a) voting without biometric verification, and (b) words and figures on pink sheets not matching (18) The aggregate of instances of: 586
Contd on page 8

VIOLATIONS OR IRREGULARITIES

"

"

"

DAILY GUIDE

PAGE 8 Contd from page 7

Monday, December 31, 2012

(2)

Statutes

(a) voting without biometric verification, and (b) words and figures on pink sheets not matching (18) The aggregate of instances of: (a) instances of voting without biometric verification, (b) words and figures on pink sheets not matching, and (c) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (19) The aggregate of instances of same serial numbers for different polling stations (20) The aggregate of instances of absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets (21) The aggregate of instances of: (a) absence of presiding officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets, and (b) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results (22) The aggregate of instances of words and figures on pink sheets not matching (23) The aggregate of instances of: (a) words and figures on pink sheets not matching, and (b) same serial numbers on 'pink sheets with different results Grand Total

586

(a) The Presidential Elections Act, 1992, (PNDCL 285). particularly sections 4 & 5 thereof; (b) The Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 72) particularly, regulations 2 (4) & (5) thereof; (c) The Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 75), particularly Regulations 5 (5), 16, 30, 32, 36 & 41 thereof; and (d) The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012, (C.I.74), particularly Rules 68 & 68A. (3) Decided cases (a) Mettle Nunoo & Others v. Electoral Commission [20072008] 2 SCGLR1250. (b) Ahumah-Ocansey v. Electoral Commission [2010] SCGLR 575 at 586, 602 to 603, & 614 (c) Tehn Addy v. Electoral Commission [1996 97] SCGLR 589 (d) Apaloo v. Electoral Commission [2001] SCGLR, 253. (e) Tuffuor v. Attorney General [1980.] GLR 637. (f) The Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte CHRAJ (Dr. Richard Anane - Interested Party). [2007 2008] 2 SCGLR 213. (g) Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241. (h) Agagu v. Mimiko (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140). (i) Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) SCIMLR1, at 108, 152 153. (j) INEC v. Roy (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 265) 1047. (k) Fayemi & Anor. v. Oni (2010) LPELR CA/IL/EPT/GOV/1/10 (l) Obi v. Mbakwe (1984) 1 SCNLR, 192. (m) Orubu v. National Electoral Commission (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 3234 (n) Jalingo v. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 538. (o) Abibo v. Tamunu (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 559) 334. (p) Apeola v. Awoade (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 617) 30. (q) Edomkumoh v. Mutu (119) 9 NWLR (Pt. 620 ( 633). (r) Habib Ullah & Ors. v. Pagel & Anor. (2002) EWCA Civ. 1792 (December 2002). (4) Textbooks (a) Manual on Election Adjudication in Ghana, Second Edition, Judicial Service of Ghana, July 2012; (b) Encyclopedia of Election of Election Law and Practice by Sir T. A. Nwamara, First Edition. (c) Election Law and Practice by Afe Babalola, Vols. 1 and 2, 2nd Edition. 29. Witnesses: Petitioners intend to rely on 25 witnesses.

50,278 198,669 10,256

3,645 196 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 : 916,409;candidates:
"

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

( Dramani Mahama " John ( Henry Herbert Lartey ( Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo Nana Papa ( Kwesi Nduom Akwasi Addai Odike ( Hassan ( Ayariga Michael Abu Sakara Forster ( Jacob Osei Yeboah

:: 916,409; 6,413; :: 395,784; 6,413; :: 395,784; 8,778; :: 8,778; 2,544; 2,544; :: 5,956; 5,956; :: 3,166; 3,166; :: 3,795 : 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 5,574,761 38,223 5,248,898 64,362 8,877 24,617 20,323 15,201 10,995,262 AMOUNT TO BE ANNULED 916,409 6,413 395,784 8,778 2,544 5,956 3,166 3,795 1,342,845 NEW VOTES 4,658,352 31,810 4,853,114 55,584 6,333 18,661 17,157 % OF VOTES 48.26% 0.33% 50.28% 0.58% 0.07% 0.19% 0.18%

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.

John Dramani Mahama Henry Herbert Lartey Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo Papa Kwesi Nduom Akwasi Addai Odike Hassan Ayariga Michael Abu Sakara Foster Jacob Osei Yeboah TOTAL

11,406 0.12% 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 When due account taken of the statutory violations asas well as of the and gross due account is is taken of the statutory violations as well of the gross and widespread irregularities and malpractices, and the necessary deductions effected w 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 Repub" lic 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.

32. The name and address for service of counsel for Petitioners is: Akufo-Addo, Prempeh & Co., 67 Kojo Thompson Road, Adabraka, Accra. 33. 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