Charlotte Osei, EC Chairperson
A little over a month to the December 7 elections, the Electoral Commission (EC) has been saddled with a series of court cases, obviously leaving it with less time to prepare for the polls.
The EC was yesterday shuttling between courts following five suits slapped on the commission by disqualified presidential aspirants who are running against time to get their names on the ballot paper.
As at the last count, not less than five disqualified aspirants, including Progressive People’s Party’s (PPP’s) Papa Kwesi Nduom, National Democratic Party’s (NDP’s) Nana Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings and People’s National Convention’s (PNC’s) Dr Edward Mahama, all of who have their running mates from the Volta Region, want their names to be printed on the ballot paper to contest the December election.
The other aspirants challenging the EC are Hassan Ayariga of the All People’s Congress (APC) and Kofi Percival Akpaloo, the Independent People’s Party (IPP).
The applicants in their respective suits are asking the court to compel the EC to add their names on the ballot paper for the presidential election.
In the case of the PNC, the court had ordered the parties to file their statements of case by Friday.
The judge, Justice Norvisie Afua Aryene, awarded a GH¢500 cost against the EC which was not represented in court when the case was called because the commission’s lawyer was pursuing another case in court.
Ayariga’s 30 Errors
In the case of Ayariga, the EC claims to have spotted over 30 errors on his nomination forms.
According to Thaddeus Sory, lawyer for the EC, the commission offered Ayariga the opportunity to correct the errors prior to the submission of his nomination forms.
In the view of the lawyer, the errors which have triggered the current suit, were detected after the forms had been submitted by the applicant.
In Mr Ayariga’s suit against the EC, he is praying the court to quash the decision by Charlotte Osei’s commission regarding his disqualification from the presidential race.
The APC presidential hopeful contends that the EC has no power to disqualify him and as such, seeking an order for judicial review to compel the commission to accept his nomination forms and include his name on this year’s presidential poll.
Mr Sory, who was responding to the motion before the court, said the court ought to dismiss the application.
He said the rights of Ayariga to make amends were granted him within the nomination period, which was different from the nomination day, even if they so coincide.
The EC’s lawyer was emphatic that the perception that the commission ought to see every mistake on the nomination forms of nominees and point them out to them was inaccurate.
He said the EC could not perform its mandate outside the laws that established it, the very laws the lawyers were in court to assert.
Justice Barbra Tetteh-Charway, who said she had read the statements of case of both parties, wondered when the EC set the nomination period.
Maxwell Korbina Loghan, lawyer for Ayariga, indicated that the nomination day was extended to October 10, adding that he has evidence to show that the exercise was indeed extended.
He stated that the EC did not fix a nomination day as it was required to do, but Sory rebutted, arguing that the issue of nomination date was not a case for the applicants.
Mr Sory in an answer to a question stated that he did not have any evidence in court to show because it was not an issue for the applicants; more so, because the parties knew the period the EC had clearly indicated regarding the close of nomination to the parties.
He said that at all material times, the parties knew the nomination period, stressing that at no point in time did the party say it did not know about it.
Sory noted that the arguments by the lawyer were based on the ruling of a court case they are challenging at the Supreme Court.
The EC’s lawyer contended that the issue before the court was about whether or not the nomination period was extended.
Meanwhile, Justice Tetteh-Charway has set Friday, November 4 for a ruling on the case.
Earlier, Maxwell in moving the application for judicial review, said among other things that, the duty arose on the EC after their deposits had been submitted.
He said the EC on the receipt of the forms should have examined same and drawn their attention to the errors but not disqualify his client.
By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson