The Supreme Court by a unanimous decision has ruled the 2020 election petition against the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama.
In a ruling delivered by the Chief Justice Anin Yeboah, “the petition is dismissed as without merits”.
According to the Supreme Court the petitioner did not present to the court any figure to prove his case.
He further indicated that the burden of proof lied on the petitioner to prove that the declaration of results was flawed.
“The petitioner did not demonstrate how the alleged errors affected the validity of the declaration on the 9th. The petitioner has not produced any evidence . . . we have therefore no reason to order a re-run, we accordingly dismiss the petition,” the final ruling indicated.
He described the testimonies of the two witnesses by the petitioner as a fanciful tale and that it was only the statement given by the General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) that had something to do with the petition.
He emphasized that their testimonies didn’t carry any weight and that they have to blame themselves for abandoning their post.
The court therefore found it unworthy of consideration.
Address of issues to be determined
1. Whether or not the petition discloses any reasonable cause of action
The court said there was a reasonable cause.
The Chief Justice said the court is convinced that the petitioner raised a cause of action and that the argument to dismiss the case by the respondents because it was weak did not hold.
2. Whether or not based on the data contained in the declaration of the 1st Respondent (EC), no candidate obtained more than 50% of the valid votes cast as required by article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution
The Chief Justice said even though there is no doubt that the Chairperson made a mistake while announcing the figures, it was corrected.
The Chief Justice the went through some questions put to Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the star witness of the petitioner.
it is wrong for the petition to hold on to the errors made by the 1st respondent and that the threshold to declare a president is based on total valid votes cast and not the total vote cast
there is evidence on record to show that the second respondent obtained more than 50 percent and so the second issue does not find favour before the court.
The court insists the EC had the right to make the changes.
3. Whether or not the 2nd Respondent still met the article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution threshold by the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South constituency Presidential Election Results of 2020
The Chief Justice said the second respondent made more than the 50 percent threshold with the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South results
4. Whether or not the declaration by the 1st Respondent dated the 9th of December was in violation of article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution
The Chief Justice indicated that the error in the declaration on 9th December did not affect the results and that it is insufficient to state that there was a violation of Article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
The court is satisfied and states that the figures announced were right and they did not violate Article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
It said the petitioner did not provide enough evidence to back their claim that the declaration by the EC Chairperson was wrong.
“The errors made by the EC cannot take away the true will of the people,” the Supreme Court stated.
5. Whether or not the alleged vote padding and other errors complained of by the petitioner affected the outcome of the Presidential Election results of 2020.
The Chief Justice said the petitioner did not prove his vote padding allegation.
“We find the allegation of vote padding very serious . . . we have observed that this allegation was not proved”.
“We are settled in our minds that the allegation was not proved by credible evidence. Even if it took place it was not substantial to change the results,” Chief Justice Anin Yeboah said.
“The petitioner did not demonstrate how the alleged errors affected the validity of the declaration on the 9th. The petitioner has not produced any evidence . . . we have therefore no reason to order a re-run, we accordingly dismiss the petition”.