The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Thursday, October 27, 2016 on a case that seeks to compel the Electoral Commission (EC) to allow candidates or their agents to append their signatures on the constituency collation sheets and also be given copies.
Already, the commission is facing a number of cases in court initiated by disqualified presidential aspirants.
The EC is not willing to give presidential candidates collated results from the constituencies, raising suspicion about the transparency of the electoral process.
The case, filed by a lawyer and former Director of Research at Parliament, Kwesi Nyame-Tease Eshun, exposes a serious loophole in the new Public Elections Regulations 2016 (CI 94), which came into force only last month.
The Supreme Court is being asked to declare as inconsistent with the Constitution and the duties of the EC the commission’s “failure to make provision in CI 94 requiring the Returning Officer and the contesting candidates or their representatives or counting agents to sign the Parliamentary Elections Results Collation Form and the Presidential Elections Collation Form.”
Per the new law, no candidate or political party will be allowed to access a copy of the 275 collation sheets, which hold the critical evidence as to whether the votes counted and declared at the 29,000 polling stations are the same as the collated results to be transmitted to the National Collation Centre where the results will be tallied and the winner of the presidential elections declared.
Not only are the candidates and/or their agents not entitled to a copy, there is no provision for either the Returning Officer or agents to sign and endorse the vital form.
The writ, filed on September 27, describes this failure as puzzling since the collation sheet is “strategic and critical” and it is “the endorsement of the signatures” that will validate the collation sheet “as an authentic record of the election.”
Mr Eshun, represented by Akoto Ampaw, reminds the Supreme Court that in the 2013 presidential election petition, even though the collation sheet was shown to be critical, only the EC had exclusive custody of it and denied the plaintiff’s request for all 275 sheets containing the results from the constituencies and the court supported the EC at the time and as it turned out, under the false impression that all candidates or their agents were entitled to copies of the collation sheet.
“It defies reason and constitutes an absurdity for [the EC] not to make provision for furnishing the candidates or their agents with copies thereof at the constituency collation centre,” the writ states.
Signatures
In fact, the new law is even somewhat silent on agents signing the Summary Sheet, which was usually faxed to Accra with the sum total of votes obtained by presidential candidates at the constituency level.
The EC, over the weekend, indicated that the absence of signatures on the pink sheets doesn’t invalidate the results since the tallying of the pink sheets results makes the collation sheets.
CI 94 was meant to deal with flaws in the previous law (CI 74), as exposed in the 2013 election petition.
To correct it, the Electoral Reforms Committee, recommended that the Constituency Collation Sheet, which contains the results from all polling stations in a constituency as captured on the pinks sheets, should be endorsed by agents of the candidates and copies given to them.
However, Regulation 3(1) (m) of CI 94 only directs the Returning Officer at the Constituency Collation Centre “to collate and forward to the Commission the endorsed writ and collated provisional results and “post a copy at the constituency collation centre.”
The candidates or their agents are completely left out of the process where the collation of the presidential results is concerned.
But Regulation 42 gives detailed directives on what should happen regarding the parliamentary election results at the collation centre and the involvement of “the candidates or the representatives of the candidate or not more than two counting agents appointed by each candidate.”
But, at the Polling Station, the writ makes the point that all agents, for parliamentary and presidential candidates, are allowed to sign the Statement of Poll, given copies before a copy is posted at the Polling Station.
“The processes and procedures therefore permit of little legal loophole that may be easily exploited,” the writ stresses.
“From a period of relative transparency, fairness and involvement of the candidates, and/or their agents at the polling station, the election process, to the extent that it relates to the presidential elections, is thrust into a phase of opaqueness with a significantly reduced participation of candidates and/or their agents.”
It stated that “it is contention that it is grossly unreasonable, arbitrary and non-transparent for Regulation 38(3) of CI 94 to require [the EC’s] Presiding Officer at the polling station to furnish the contesting candidates, their representatives or agents, with signed copies of the declaration of results (nor popularly called pink sheets) at the polling station, while not requiring the equally important, if not more strategic, full record of election results in the constituency to the candidates, their agents or representatives at the constituency collation centre.”
The writ points out at a lot of confused directives at the constituency collation centre, even with the parliamentary results.
Unlike the presidential election results where no role of agents is stated, for the parliamentary results, Regulations 42(1)(d) says that the Returning Officer shall “invite the counting agents of the candidates to sign the declaration of result [sic] form and when signed, post a copy at the constituency collation centre.”’
But, the Schedule section of CI 94 provides samples of all the relevant forms, yet the ‘Declaration of Result form’ mentioned here cannot be found anywhere in the Schedule. The confusion is compounded because it is not clear whether it is the collation sheet or the mystery declaration from that must be posted.
For the provisions in CI 94 to promote credible elections, the writ says, “It is eminently necessary for both the Parliamentary Elections Result Collation Form (Form One EL 23A) and even more so, for the Presidential Elections Result Collation Form (Form One EL 23B) to be furnished to the contesting candidates or their agents. For, armed with Form One EL 23A and Form One EL 23B, contesting candidates will easily and readily have the means of determining by themselves the outcome of the elections and thereby reduce to the minimum the deep suspicion, palpable tension and fear that seize the contestants and the electorate between the close of the poll and the declaration of the results.”
Source: Daily Guide
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Seriously, I am surprised at the MP's especially those on the Opposition. Thank God better late than never. I raised this issue some 5 months ago. I should be able to follow the TRAIL of Results announced by EC from the Polling Station -- To the Constituency -- To the Regional -- To the National. All we are asking for is TRANSPARENCY & FAIRNESS, period. We are praying and counting on the Judges for a GOOD WORK. God bless Ghana.
IT'S BECOMING INCREASINGLY CLEAR THAT THE EC AND THE NDC ARE UP TO SOMETHING DIABOLICAL. THIS IS TOTALLY ABSURD AND DEFIES LOGIC THAT CANDIDATES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SIGN NOR GIVEN COPIES OF THESE VITAL DOCUMENTS. THIS KANGAROO PROCESS MUST BE RESISTED AND OVERTURNED EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT FAILS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, PERIOD!!!
So the PEACE council thinks we will have peace with their message on television, radio and social media when Majority of Ghanaian are not convinced that the EC was not fair? They must be joking. Even among married couples, when one fell cheated,out of pain he/she kills the partner. Have 3D minds to check on early sign warnings so called Peace council. Your plot as backfired. A big shame to them. These are the issues they must be addressing to ensure free and fair election.
It seems most of the current NPP MPS' and the aspiring ones are only concern for how they can win and enter parliament not about Nana Addo winning. This what happened in 2012. Majority of them ***barred word*** about the presidential polls. These mps were the cause of Nana Addo lost in 2012. After they got their results figures they don't care about the presidential. How on earth do they approved tho CI 94? They talk too much and does nothing..
Alata Charlotte Osei, a Nation wrecker, a daughter of the devil. Onyame 3huno wo oooooooo
REMEMBER, The Battle Is The Lords. This woman wants to plunge the country into a state of anarchy and run to USA. lol smh
No wonder those who know this EC woman have made their points on her hopelessness. One would have thought that as a nation we would be moving forward. How come that when the whole world is going forward this lady is drawing Ghana backwards? Common sense dictates that people in public service should strive to excel by being fair to all, regardless of tribe, party, creed or any other criterion that differentiate one from the other. However, this lady has constantly shown her stubbornness, arrogance and inefficiency that does not befit a public servant. She should know that neither she or the president is greater than Ghana. What are the "GENDER PROPONENTS" saying about her attitude, character and posture? Is this what gender equality entails? Verily, this contradicts the very spirit of gender equality. Since she took over the commission, controversy, inconsistency,inefficiency and all the other negative accolades have been the best adjectives to qualify the outfit. Thanks to anyone who joins the fight against this EC 'Boss'.
Did I not say that this EC boss Charlotte Osei was put there intentionally to rig the elections? Just look at the machinations and deception of the EC. God save Ghana.
GHANAIANS SHOULD WATCH EC WAYS VERY WELL. EC IS DOING ALL TO RIG THE ELECTION FOR MAHAMA. (1) EC HAS DISQUILIFIED THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN FAVOUR OF MAHAMA TO MAKE IT ONE TOUCH (2) EC IS PLANNING TO PRINT PINK SHEET IN GHANA SO THAT NDC COULD PRINT ANOTHER COPY WHICH THEY WILL USE TO RIG THE ELECTION (3) EC IS TESTING THE MINDS OF GHANAIANS TO ALLOW UNSIGNED PINK SHEET TO BE ACCEPTED SO THAT NDC CAN PLAY THEIR MISCHIEF (4) ON THE 7TH, NDC WILL FILL THEIR OWN PINK SHEET AND SUBMIT TO COLIATION CENTRE. EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT SIGNED EC HAS SAID THEY WILL BE VALID SO GHANAIANS SHOULD WATCH THE MOVES OF ELECTORAL COMMISSION BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE ELECTORAL PROCESS CAREFULLY. THERE ARE SOME DIRECTORS IN EC PLANNING WITH NDC TO FIND WAYS TO RIG THE ELECTIONS. THEY SELECTED A WOMAN FOR EC BOSS SO THAT THEY PUSH THE EC BOSS TO ACCEPT THEIR DUBIOUS WAYS. THE NEXT PLAN IS TO SILENCE THE MEDIA
I can't believe our parliamentarians especially those of the Npp couldn't detect this anomaly and passed the CI 94. How can this happen at this time that we are anxious and determined to get rid of this govt that has brought untold hardships to the nation. I can only thank the applicant for his patriotism and diligence. May the good Lord bless him abundantly.