Contract Me For Victory Like Nduom Ayikoi Otoo

Lead Counsel for the presidential candidate of the Progressive Party (PPP), Lawyer Ayikoi Otoo says the other disqualified candidates in the 2016 elections could have celebrated together with Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom if they had resorted to him.

He was addressing the media shortly after the Accra High ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to give his client an opportunity to amend the errors on his nomination forms. Lawyer Ayikoi Otoo explained, the candidates could have filed a joint suit and the ruling delivered today would have their favour as well.

According to him, having led the PPP to win its case against the Electoral Commission, he would have consolidated all the cases and represented the parties if they had consulted him.

“If they had come to me, I would have done one case for everybody, I would have consolidated it because I’ve been the lawyer in the case and today victory would have smiled at all on all of us. Well they’ve gone to other lawyers but those who want to come…I’m available.” Mr Ayikoi Otoo said.

The Accra High Court presided over by Justice Eric Kyei Baffour ordered the Electoral of Commission of Ghana (EC) to give Dr. Nduom an opportunity to correct the anomalies on his nomination forms.

The candidate was disqualified by the Commission for failing to meet the requirements some few weeks ago. But he [Nduom] filed a suit at the Accra Court challenging his disqualification.

The EC explained that : “the number of subscribers to his forms did not meet the requirements of Regulation 7 (2) (b) of CI 94." One subscriber Richard Aseda (‘Asida’ on the Voters’ Register), with Voter ID no 7812003957) endorsed the forms in two different districts (pages 21 and 39).

The court said the EC did not give Dr Nduom the fair opportunity to amend mistakes on his nomination forms. The subscriber was found to be on the Voter’s Register in one district thereby disqualifying his second subscription and reducing the total number of subscribers to below the minimum required by the Law.

The same subscriber (Richard Aseda (‘Asida’) endorsed the form with different signatures in both portions of the nomination form. This raises questions as to the legitimacy of one or both signatures.