The Electoral Commission of Ghana, the first Respondent in previous President John Mahama’s political decision appeal, has affirmed that “the full consequences of the 7 December 2020 official political decision” were “known to the Petitioner and that the cases in the request are invented, have no lawful premise and should be excused in limine”.
The EC likewise denied “all charges of vote-cushioning contained in the appeal”.
In its reaction to the appeal of the official applicant of the fundamental resistance National Democratic Congress in the as of late held general races, the political race the board body expressed that “despite all the assets and preparing conveyed and the offices set up, there is a chance of minor disparities because of computational and numerical blunders made throughout the gathering of the outcomes yet these didn’t materially affect the general outcomes as proclaimed.”
The EC, on 10 December 2020, a day subsequent to announcing the official outcomes, affected an adjustment of the all out substantial votes by means of a press articulation.
It said rather than the 13,434,574 declared by EC Chair Jean Mensa as the complete number of legitimate votes, it was 13,121,111, adding that Mr Mahama was, in this manner, “very much aware that 13,434,574 was a blunder”.
“first Respondent expresses that the request should be excused likewise on the grounds that the Petitioner doesn’t challenge the legitimacy of the political race led all through the 38,622 surveying stations and the 311 unique democratic focuses in the nation, or challenge the legality of votes got by any of the gatherings to the political race”.
“first Respondent adds that the applicant has neglected to show the specific number of votes and rates that he or different competitors should have gotten in contrast with the quantity of votes and rates pronounced by the first Petitioner”.
“The first Respondent, in like manner, brings up a fundamental legitimate criticism regarding the appeal as being uncouth and not, as needed by article 64(1) of the Constitution and Rule 68(1) of the Supreme Court rules 1996 (CI 16), as revised, adding up to a test of the legitimacy of the official political decision led by the first Respondent on 7 December 2020”.
“Wherefore, the first Respondent supplicates the appeal and all the grounds in help thereof, be immediately excused by this decent court for not uncovering any sensible reason for activity”, the EC’s reaction implored the court.
Mahama contends that lone the public assertion made by Mrs Mensa on 9 December 2020 is ensured by the Constitution, and further that all the resulting redresses were unlawful, and regardless announced through unsigned reports, which make them no statements by any stretch of the imagination.
Mahama further asserts that any such revisions ought to have been done within the sight of the delegates of the competitors and that the blunders go past incidental mix-ups.
The case will be gotten with 14 January and judgment is required to be conveyed by 10 February.
please share and comment below.