IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

ACCRA A. D. 2013

ATUGUBA, JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH, JSC
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC
OWUSU (MS), JSC
DOTSE, JSC
ANIN-YEBOAH, JSC
BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
GBADEGBE, JSC
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC

WRIT No. J1/6/2013

29TH AUGUST, 2013

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF

THE ELECTION OF JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AS PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF GHANA PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
HELD ON 7TH AND 8TH DECEMBER, 2012.

Article 64 of the Constitution, 1992; Section 5 of the Presidential

Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285); and Rule 68 and 68A of the
Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C.I. 74.

BETWEEN:

1. NANA ADDO DANKWA AKUFO-ADDO ]

H/No. 2, Onyaa Crescent, Nima, Accra.

1ST PETITIONER
]

2. DR. MAHAMUDU BAWUMIA

]
2ND PETITIONER
H/No. 10, 6th Estate Road, Kanda Estates, Accra. ]












3. JAKE OTANKA OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY ]
3RD PETITIONER
24, 4th, Circular Road, Cantonment, Accra.

]

AND

1. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA

RESPONDENT
Castle, Castle Road, Osu, Accra.

2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

RESPONDENT
National Headquarters of the Electoral
Commission, 6th Avenue, Ridge, Accra.

1ST

]
2ND

3. N A T I O N A L D E M O C R A T I C C O N G R E S S ( N D C ) ] 3 R D
RESPONDENT
National Headquarters, Accra.



]

JUDGMENT

ATUGUBA, JSC
By their second amended petition dated the 8th day of February 2013 the petitioners
claimed, as stated at p.9 of the Written Address of their counsel;
(1) that John Dramani Mahama, the 1st respondent herein, was not validly
elected President of the Republic of Ghana;
(2)

that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st petitioner herein, rather
was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana;

(3) consequential orders as to this Court may seem meet.

Although the petitioners complained about the transparency of the voters register
and its non or belated availability before the elections, this line of their case does
not seem to have been strongly pressed. In any event the evidence clearly shows
that the petitioners raised no such complaint prior to the elections nor has any
prejudice been shown therefrom. Indeed even in this petition the petitioners claim
that the 1st petitioner was the candidate rather elected, obviously upon the same
register.

So also their allegations that there were irregularities and electoral

malpractices which were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated and executed

ploy or a contrivance on the part of the 1st and 2nd Respondents with the ultimate
object of unlawfully assisting the 1st Respondent to win the 2012 December
Presidential Elections.

Indeed the 2nd petitioner for and on behalf of all the

petitioners, testified that the first respondent did no wrong with regard to the
conduct of the elections but was merely the beneficiary of the alleged malpractices,
irregularities and violations
Eventually the core grounds of their case are as summarised at p.125 of their
counsels Written Address as follows:
I.
II.
III.

over-voting
voting without biometric verification
absence of the signature of a presiding officer
3

IV.

duplicate serial numbers i.e. occurrence of the same serial number on

pink sheets for two different polling stations
V. duplicate polling station codes, i.e. occurrence of different results/pink
sheets for polling stations with the same polling station codes
VI. unknown polling stations i.e. results recorded for polling stations
which are not part of the list of 26,002 polling stations provided by the
2nd respondent for the election.

At conference we unanimously saw no merit in ground IV relating to duplicate

serial numbers i.e. occurrence of the same serial number on pink sheets for two
different polling stations.

We were at a loss as to how the embossment of the same number on more than one
pink sheet whether serial or otherwise in respect of two different polling stations
has impacted adversely on the 2012 electoral process.

Those numbers, on the

evidence of Dr. Afari Gyan the Electoral Commissions chairman, are the offshore
generation of the printers of the pink sheets. Those numbers have no statutory
base. However the decisive fact is that their incidence has not been shown to have
any detrimental effect on the electoral process. We felt that grounds V and VI did
not relate to matters that could have any substantial effect on the declared results.
We therefore dealt mainly with the first three grounds of the petition.

Nonetheless, for the easy future ascertainment of the number and electoral location
of pink sheets in the electoral process their numbering should be streamlined.

ABSENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS SIGNATURE

By far the irregularity which has engaged and sharply divided this court as to its
consequence is absence of the signature of a presiding officer. This irregularity

is anchored in article 49 of the 1992 constitution, which, as far as relevant,

provides thus:
49. Voting at elections and referenda
1. At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret
ballot.

2. Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall,
in the presence of such of the candidates or their representatives
and their polling agents as are present, proceed to count, at that
polling station, the ballot papers of that station and record the
votes cast in favour of each candidate or question.

3. The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and, in

the case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and
the polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating
a. the polling station, and
b. the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or
question,

and the presiding officer shall, there and then, announce the results of
the voting at that polling station before communicating them to the
returning officer.(e.s)

It is undoubtable that in some instances the declared results were not signed by the
presiding officer though the petitioners polling agents did sign.

The crucial

question that has devastated this court is whether those results should be annulled.

To arrive at an answer to this question a number of considerations are relevant. To
some minds the sacred nature of the constitution and the clarity of article 49 so far
as the requirement of the presiding officers signature is concerned warrant the
unmitigated annulment of the votes involved. Quite clearly however this has not
been the approach of this court and its predecessors to constitutional construction
or application.

Clear violation of Constitutional Provisions

Article 157 of the constitution provides as follows:

157. Rules of Court Committee
1. There shall be a Rules of Court Committee which shall consist of

a. the Chief Justice, who shall be Chairman,

b. Six members of the Judicial Council, other than the Chief Justice
nominated by the Judicial Council, and
c. Two lawyers, one of not less than ten and the other of not more than
five years standing, both of whom shall be nominated by the Ghana
Bar Association.

2. The Rules of Court Committee shall, by constitutional instrument, make

rules and regulations for regulating the practice and procedure of all
Courts in Ghana.

It is globally acknowledged that despite such mandatory language in a

constitutional provision, the failure of the Rules Committee to make such
procedure Rules does not debar a litigant from adopting any appropriate method
for approaching the court see Edusei [No. 2] v Attorney-General (1998-99) SCG
LR 753. In Peters v Attorney-General (2002) 3 LRC 32 C. A, Trinidad and Tobago
at 657 de la Bestide CJ said:
There is abundant authority for the proposition that where matters of pure
procedure have not been prescribed in relation to the exercise of a
jurisdiction conferred by statute, the court has an inherent jurisdiction to
approve or direct the procedure to be adopted. In Jaundoo v A-G of Guyana
[1971] AC 972 the
Government proposed to construct a road on a piece of land which was
privately owned without paying the landowner compensation.
The
landowner applied to the High Court under a provision of the Constitution
which gave t he High Court jurisdiction to grant redress for infringement of
constitutional rights. The Constitution further provided for Parliament to
make provision with respect to the practice and procedure to be followed in
the High Court in relation to the exercise of this jurisdiction. Neither
Parliament nor the rule-making authority had made any provision in this
regard. The landowner non the less applied by way of originating motion to
6

the High Court naming the attorney General as respondent. The courts in
Guyana held that in the absence of any provision as to the means by which
proceedings of this kind were to be instituted, the High Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the landowners application. The Privy Council,
however, held that in the absence of any provision prescribing the method of
access to the High Court, a person complaining of an infringement of his
constitutional rights was entitled to adopt any form of procedure by which
the High Court might be approached to invoke the exercise of any of its
powers. In delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, Lord Diplock said
([1971] AC 972 at 982)

The clear intention of the Constitution that a person who alleges that his
fundamental rights are threatened should have uninhibited access to the High
Court is not to be defeated by any failure by Parliament or the rule-making
authority to make specific provision as to how that access is to be gained.

The Privy Council held that an originating motion was an appropriate

procedure in the circumstances and proceeded to remit the matter to the
High Court of Guyana to deal with on its merits.

In Port Contractors v Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union

(1972) 21 WIR 505 the Court of Appeal refused to hold that the power given
by statute to the Industrial Court to order the joinder of a party to
proceedings on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by rules
made by the court was stultified by the failure of the court to make any such
rules. Georges JA said ((1972) 21 WIR 505 at 510:

To hold that the power cannot be exercised in the absence of a

prescribed code of rules would mean that parties to disputes would be
deprived of the benefit of the exercise of the power because of the
courts failure to produce a code- a circumstance over which they
could have no control. I do not think that this could have been
intended.(e.s)

Again he said ((1972) 21 WIR 505 at 510):

I am satisfied also that the preparation of such a code was not a

condition precedent to the exercise of the power of joinder. The
7

provision is directory- not mandatory. The failure to prepare rules

does not stultify the power conferred upon the court to exercise the
power of joinder. (e.s)

Again article 125(1) of the constitution provides thus:

125. The judicial power of Ghana

1. Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the
name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent
and subject only to this Constitution. (e.s)

In the case of Tsatu-Tsikata v Attorney General (No. 1) (2001 2002) SCGLR 189
the majority of this court held that a criminal summons issued in the Fast Track
High Court in the name of the President of Ghana rather than the name of the
Republic contravened this provision and was therefore a nullity. This decision was
reversed on Review by the majority of this court in Attorney-General (No. 2) v
Tsatsu Tsikata (No. 2) (2001-2002) SCGLR 620. At 647 Acquah JSC (with the
concurrence of Wiredu C.J, Sophia Akuffo and Afreh JJSC) held poignantly as
follows:
Constitutionality of the criminal summons
The applicant also complains about the majoritys holding that the criminal
summons served on the respondent was unconstitutional. Now it is true that
the criminal summons was inadvertently issued in the name of the President,
but what harm or threatened harm did that error cause the plaintiff? Did he
as a result of that error go to the castle to answer the call of the President, or
when he came to the court, did he find the President of the nation presiding?
The plaintiff came to court because he knew it was the court that summoned
him, and that whoever issued the criminal summons, obviously made a
mistake. The plaintiff suffered absolutely no harm by the error, neither has
he demonstrated any. That error was one obviously amendable without
prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff-respondent. And the majoritys
declaration on this error was nothing but an exercise in futility. (e.s)

General Demands of Justice and Constitutional Provisions

It is globally established that where a constitutional infraction causes no injustice

by way of injurious prejudice to a person, such infraction should not have an
invalidating effect.

Thus in State v. Shikunga (1998) 2 LRC 82 the Namibian

Supreme Court was faced with a situation in which an appellant convicted of

murder and robbery contended that his said conviction was vitiated by the
reception in evidence of a confession statement in relation to which s.217(1) (b)
(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 had placed on him the burden of proof of
its involuntariness contrary to article 12(1) (a) (f) of the Constitution of Namibia
1990. The court, after considering authorities from Canada, the United States of
America, Jamaica and Australia, held as per holding (2) of the Headnote thus:

(2) In considering whether to quash a conviction resulting from a trial in

which a constitutional irregularity had occurred (in the instant case the
admission of a confession pursuant to an statutory provision found to be
unconstitutional), the court had to balance two conflicting considerations of
public policy, namely, that while manifestly guilty persons should be
convicted, the integrity of the judicial process should also be upheld. Before
the constitutional entrenchment of the rights in question, the test that had
evolved at common law in respect of non-constitutional irregularities was
such that the effect of an irregularity depended upon whether or not a failure
of justice had resulted from it.
Under the common law, where an
irregularity was of so fundamental a nature as to require that the
proceedings in which it had occurred be regarded as fatally defective, any
resulting conviction had to be set aside. Where the irregularity was not of
such a fundamental nature, its effect would depend on the impact of the
irregularity on the verdict and whether the irregularity had in fact tainted
the verdict. It was considered that this common law test should apply with
equal force to cases where the irregularity complained of consisted of a
constitutional breach. In applying the test to the instant case, there was no
justification for interfering with the conviction as the conviction had not
been dependent on the confession, the guilt of the accused having been
proved by other reliable evidence. (e.s)

Similarly in Armah Mensah v The Republic (1971)2 GLR it is stated in the

headnote as follows:
9

The appellant was tried and convicted of stealing by a district court. When
the case was called for the first time the appellant applied for an
adjournment to secure the presence of his counsel. This was disallowed and
the appellant had therefore to defend himself in person. Consequently he
did not adequately put his defence to the prosecution witnesses. When,
however, he put forward that defence when he was himself giving evidence,
he was not cross-examined upon it. A statement made by the appellant,
exhibit B was admitted in evidence although the appellant objected to it on
the ground that it was not on caution, the trial magistrate holding that an
objection to admissibility can only be on the ground that the statement was
not made voluntarily. On appeal,
Held, allowing the appeal: (1) article 20 (2) (e) of the Constitution, 1969,
gives to every person charged with a criminal offence the right to defend
himself or to be represented by counsel of his choice. That choice is not the
tribunals and where the tribunal narrows the choice to one there is an
infringement of constitutional rights.
(2) In depriving the appellant of his rights under article 20 (2) (e) the trial
might have occasioned a miscarriage of justice in that the appellant was
denied an adequate defence and such defence as he put forward was rejected
upon legally indefensible grounds, namely (a) the trial court was not entitled
to disbelieve the appellants story on which he was not cross-examined, and
(b) exhibit B was admitted for the wrong reasons since involuntariness is not
the only ground upon which a statement may be excluded. Further it was
not certain whether the appellants conduct constituted a crime or was
general misconduct. The matter being in doubt, it should be resolved in
favour of the accused. (e.s)

It is thus clear that Taylor J did not mechanically hold that a breach of article 20(2)
(e) of the 1969 constitution ipso facto vitiated the appellants conviction but that
such breach occasioned a miscarriage of justice warranting the quashing of the
conviction.

Purposive Construction of the Constitution and other statutes

10

In Republic v High Court Accra ex parte Attoney-General (Delta Foods case)

1998-99) SCGLR 595, even though the plaintiff instituted his action against the
Minister of Agriculture rather than the Attorney-General as required by article
88(5) of the constitution, this court dismissed the application to quash the
proceedings in the trial court, holding that the conduct of the defence had been
done by state attorneys.
In these circumstances this court per Acquah JSC at 610 stated poignantly thus:
Clearly then, the rationale underlying the need to have the Attorney-General
named as the defendant in all civil actions against the state is satisfied in the
instant situation. Accordingly this court concluded as stated in holding (1) of the
headnote thus:

(1) the effect of article 88(5) of the 1992 Constitution, by directing that the
Attorney-General, and no other else, should be named the defendant in all
civil proceedings against the State meant that in the instant action by the
plaintiffs, the Attorney-General, and not the Minister of Food and
Agriculture, ought to have been made the defendant not to assume liability
but as the nominal defendant. The failure to name the Attorney-General as a
defendant in a suit where he ought to be so named should not, depending
upon the circumstances in each case, be fatal, if the amendment could easily
be effected (as in the instant case) by substituting him for the wrong
defendant in the exercise of: (1) the courts supervisory powers under article
132 of the constitution and section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993 (act 459); (ii)
under the courts general jurisdiction under article 129(4) namely, to exercise
all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in the court whose judgment
or conduct is the subject-matter of the suit before the court; or (iii) in the
exercise of the courts powers in fitting situations and in the interest of
justice to amend the record by substituting a new defendant for the one sued.

It is quite clear that this court in that case applied the PURPOSIVE approach to
constitutional construction which has been enthroned in this court particularly in
the adulated era of Dr. Date-Bah JSC, as the dominant rule for the construction of
our constitution. Two very strong and recent decisions of this court based on the
11

purposive approach to constitutional interpretation should be beacon lights to

constitutional adjudication in this court. In Amegatcher v Attorney-General (No. 1)
& Others (2012) 1 SCGLR this court, had to revisit the starkly clear provisions of
article 88(5) of the constitution that
88. The Attorney-General
x x x

(5) The Attorney-General shall be responsible for the institution and conduct
of all civil cases on behalf of the State; and all civil proceedings against the
State shall be instituted against the Attorney-General as defendant.

This court unanimously held that to avoid the abuse of that power certain
institutions of state could sue and be sued independently of the Attorney-General.
Again in Ransford France (No. 3) v Electoral Commission & Attorney-General
(2012) SC GLR 705 this court was again confronted with the starkly plain
literalistic wording of article 296(c) which provides thus:
296. Exercise of discretionary power
Where in this Constitution or in any other law discretionary power is vested
in any person or authority,
x

(c) where the person or authority is not a justice or other judicial

officer, there shall be published by constitutional instrument or
statutory instrument, Regulations that are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Constitution or that other law to govern the
exercise of the discretionary power

In that case, fastening hard on that provision is consolidation with article 23 and 51
the plaintiff contended as stated in the Headnote:
that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 23, 51 and 296 (c) of
the 1992 Constitution, the Electoral Commission, the first defendant, in the
exercise of its functions and discretionary power in creating new
constituencies, was required to make to make by constitutional instrument,
12

regulations not inconsistent with the 1992 Constitution or any other law to
govern the exercise of its discretionary power. The plaintiff also sought an
order directed at the first defendant compelling the first defendant to, as
required by articles 51 and 296 (c) of the 1992 Constitution or any other law,
regulations to govern the exercise of its discretionary power to create new
constituencies including, in particular, the specification of the formula and
mechanism to be used in the creation of new constituencies.

Dismissing the action this court stated per Dr. Date-Bah JSC, with fluorescent
ability that this Court will not sanction a construction of the constitution that would
lead to a nuclear melt-down of governmental functioning.

In Francis Jackson Developments Limited v. Hall (1951) 2 K.B. 488 C.A at

493-494 Denning L. J (as he then was), delivering the judgment of the Court of
Appeal said thus:

The result would be, therefore, that, by reason of Perkins application for
security of tenure, all of them, including Perkins himself, would lose their
security of tenure. We do not think that we should adopt a construction of
the Act which would produce a result so opposed to the intention of
parliament. If the literal interpretation of a statute leads to a result which
parliament can never have intended, the courts must reject that
interpretation and seek for some other interpretation, which does give effect
to the intention of parliament:

In Coltman v Bibby Tankers Limited (1986) 2 All ER 65 at 68 Sheen J. bluntly

said: ...it is to be presumed that Parliament did not intend to pass an Act which, on
its true construction would be manifestly unjust or absurd.

In Mokotso v H M King Moshoeshoe II (1989) LRC 24 Cullinan C.J sitting in the
Lesotho High Court at 150 quoted Professor de Smith, Judicial Review of
Administrative Action, 4th edn 1980 at 71 as saying that The Courts will
endeavour to construe Acts of Parliament so as to avoid a preposterous result; but
13

if a statute clearly evinces an intention to achieve the preposterous, the courts, are
under an obligation to give effect to its plain words.

In Regina v. Bow Road Justices (Domestic Proceedings Court) Ex parte Adedigba
(1968) 2 QB 572 CA at 583-584 Salmon L.J said: It seams to me that the words of
Lord Blackburn in Tiverton & Nouth Devon Rly Co v Loosemore (1884) 9 ARO.
Cas. 480, 497 can appropriately be applied to the intervening Acts. He said: In
construing an Act of Parliament we ought not to put a construction on it that would
work injustice, or even hardship, or inconvenience, unless it is clear that such was
the intention of the legislature.

Similarly in Kwakye v Attorney-General (1981) GLR 944 SC at 1070 Taylor JSC
(descenting) said:
... In my humble opinion, the function of the Supreme Court in interpreting
the Constitution or any statutory document, is not to construe written law
merely for the sake of laws. It is to construe the written law in a manner that
vindicates it as an instrument of justice. If therefore a provision in a written
law can be interpreted in one breadth to promote justice and in another to
produce injustice, I think the Supreme Court is bound to select the
interpretation that advances the course of justice unless, in fact, the law does
not need interpretation at all but rather specifically and in terms provides
for injustice.

Fraudulent Advantage of a Statute

Our illustrious judicial predecessors here and in England in particular have from
earliest times been alert to prevent the taking of an unfair or fraudulent advantage
of a statute. Thus in Tekyi @ Mensah v Ackon (1980) GLR 779 at 786 Osei-Hwere
J said:
In spite of the prohibition in section 4 of the statute of Frauds, equity has,
since 1686, addressed itself to what has been described as the task of
14

decorously disregarding an Act of Parliament by means of the doctrine of

past-performance.

This stance of the courts in applying statutory provisions in a manner that even
contravene their plainest words in order to avoid grotesque and gargantuan
injustice has had the consistent support of the legislature in statutes passed to back
them, see s.2 of the Conveyancing Act 1975. Indeed the legislature is deemed not
to alter the common law except by very clear words or compelling implication.
This is trite law.

Consequently the vigilant Editor in his preface and Editorial

Review to the (1998-99) SC GLR at p.xiv has hailed at length the decision of this
court in Amuzu v. Oklikah (1998-99) SG GLR 141 thus:
Land registration and equitable doctrine of notice and fraud
In a far-reaching decision in Amuzu v Oklikah, the Supreme Court has
exploded the myth surrounding the long held view of the effect of section
24(1) of the Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122), as determined in Asare v
Brobbey the Court of Appeal held that since the mortgage deed relied upon
by the third respondent had not been registered as required by section 24(1)
of Act 122 at the time the power of sale was exercised, the document was
ineffective and invalid to convey rights under the mortgage deed, and that
the third respondent, as a bona fide purchaser of the disputed house, could
not be protected under the Act. In the words of Archer JA (as he then was):

...there is no statutory provision in the Land Registry Act, 1962,

which protects the third respondent. Nowhere in the Act is it stated
that a purchaser for value of land, the subject-matter of a mortgage
deed which is unregistered shall not be affected by the provisions of
the Act provided he has no notice that the mortgage deed has not been
registered.

It is in the light of the statement of the law as enunciated in Asare v Brobbey,

that the Supreme Courts decision in Amuzu v Oklikah in the present Volume
of the Report becomes very significant. The court unanimously held that the
Land Registry Act, 1962 did not abolish the equitable doctrines of notice and
fraud. It was thus held that a later registered instrument relied upon by Dr.
Oklikah, the plaintiff, could only obtain priority over an earlier unregistered
instrument affecting the same plot of land under Act 122, s.24(1) if it was
15

obtained without notice and fraud of the earlier unregistered instrument In

support of the decision, his lordship Charles Hayfron-Benjamin JSC said:

Asare v Brobbey... cannot stand since it did not take into

consideration any equitable doctrine or rule which could ameliorate
the harshness of the statute. In my respectful opinion, that decision
must, to the extent that it requires the strict application of section
24(1) of Act 122, be overruled ... While a party with an unregistered
document may be unable to assert legal title in court, nevertheless the
document will take effect in equity and will defeat all claims except
the holder of the legal title.

In his contribution to the decision in Amuzu v Oklikah, his lordship Ampiah

JSC admitted that the decision of the court in favour of the defendant, the
first purchaser whose document remained unregistered, amounted to a
revolutionary stance against settled authorities. However, his lordship
added:

But as stated before, if justice is to prevail in the manner lands are

disposed of, the courts must be bold to avoid too strict an application
of the provision of the Land Registry Act, 1962 which gives blessing to
fraudulent land dealers. In other words, justice must not be sacrificed
on the alter of strict adherence to provisions of laws which at times
create hardship and unfairness. (e.s)
The conclusion to be inexorably drawn is that the decision in Amuzu v
Brobbey has, in effect, overruled the long-standing interpretation
placed by the courts on section 24(1) of Act 122.

In this case it would be unfair and fraudulent for the petitioners to authenticate the
results through their polling agents signatures and turn round to seek to invalidate
on the purely technical ground of absence of the presiding officers signature.
Administrative Error

It is judicially acknowledged that failure to sign an official document could be due

to an administrative error. In Practice Note (Guardianship: Justices Signatures) In
re N(A Minor) (1972) I WLR 596 at 597 Sir, George Baker P said:

16

in the present case the justices reasons are signed by two justices. We have
been told by Mr. Eady, who was present before the justices, that in fact three
justices sat and that it appears from a letter from the justices clerk that the
justice who has not signed was the chairman of the justices. The inference
which I would draw from that is that the chairman dissented from the view
of the other two justices. It is not satisfactory that this court should be left to
draw that inference, which may be wrong. It may be that the failure to sign
is simply an administrative error, or because the chairman has been ill or
abroad, or something of that kind. Further, practice varies: some justices
clerks put on the documents the names of the justices who were sitting,
others do not. I would direct, first, that the names of the justices should
always appear either, and preferably, at the top of the reasons or at the top of
the notes. It is very important in many cases, and particularly in cases
concerning children, for this court to know the composition of the bench and
whether a lady or indeed ladies sat. Secondly, if a justice does not sign the
reasons it should be stated either that the cause of not signing is that that
justice did not concur in the decision or reasons, alternatively that there is
some other reason, which need not necessarily be specified, for the absence
of his or her signature.

The Court however did not base its judgment on the absence of the presiding
judges signature but on the merits of the case. It however issued this Practice
Direction for future guidance.

In Plymouth Corporation v. Hurrel (1968)1 QB 455 CA. at 465-466 Salmon L. J

commenting on the signature of a town clerk on a notice to a person in control of a
house under the authority of the local council said Clearly the only purpose of
having the town clerks signature upon the notice is to provide some evidence that
it has been duly authorised by the local authority. The signature in itself has no
magic about it... This being the clear purpose of a signature, in dealing with the
problem of absence of signature of the presiding officers in this case, as sir Donald
Nicholls V-C said in Deposit Protection Board v Dalia (1993)1 All ER 599 at
605-606, the court treading circumspectively, must look at the underlying purpose

17

of the legislation and construe the draftsmans language with that purpose in
mind
Clearly the underlying purpose of the signatures of the presiding officer and the
polling agents on the pink sheets is to provide evidence that the results to which
they relate were those generated at the relevant polling station in compliance with
the constitutional and other statutory requirements, otherwise each signature in
itself has no magic about it. The evidence in this case clearly shows that absent
the presiding officers signature, those of the polling agents are there. In those
circumstances even if the failure by the presiding officer to sign the same is
condemned as unconstitutional yet the polling agents signatures, the public glare
of the count and declaration of the results in question, the provision of copies of
the same to the polling agents and their sustenance at the constituencys collation
centre and all the way to the strong room of the 2nd respondent (the Electoral
Commission) and the cross checking of the same thereat by the parties;
representatives should satisfy the policy objective of article 49(6) regarding
signature. Indeed the petitioners have not on any ground approaching prejudice of
any sort questioned the authenticity of the results which do not bear the presiding
officers signature.

Even though the constitution is undoubtedly the most sacred law of this country,
despite the passion attached to the rebirth of constitutionalism in 1969 it was not
pursued even in those early days to the point of crushing substantial justice. Thus
in Okorie alias Ozuzu v The Reupublic (1974) 2 GLR 272 C.A in reacting to the
reception in evidence at the trial of two confession statements from the appellant
without informing him of his right to consult counsel of his own choice Azu
Crabbe C.J delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal firstly held that that

18

fundamental right could be waived (though today some jurisdictions like India
would disagree). He then held as follows:
There is no proof of any conscious waiver in this case, but counsel for the
Republic, Mrs. Asamoah, has contended that failure to inform the second
appellant of his right did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
In the opinion of this court, it is irrelevant that an infringement of a
constitutional right has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Any breach
of the provisions of the Constitution carries with it not only illegality, but
also impropriety, arbitrariness, dictatorship, that is to say, the breaking of
the fundamental law of the land: see The proposals of the Constitutional
Commission For a Constitution For Ghana, 1968, p. 22, para 88. The
statement in exhibits A and K, were obtained in violation of the second
appellants constitutional rights, and consequently, we hold that they were
inadmissible in evidence at the trial of the second appellant. There is,
however, sufficient evidence aliunde to support the conviction of the second
appellant, and his appeal must, therefore, fail. (e.s)

As I have endeavoured to demonstrate ut supra, absent the presiding officers

signature there is copious evidence intra the relevant pink sheets by way of the
eternal signatures of the polling agents and also aliunde to sustain the authenticity
of those results. Consequently I would adopt the attitude of the Court of Appeal in
Clerk v Clerk (1976) 1 GLR 123 C.A in dealing with the absence of the presiding
officers signature in this case. In that case Archer J.A (presiding) would appear to
have overlooked the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of which he was a
concurring member in Akunto v Fofie (1973) 1 GLR 81 C.A and joined his
brethren in deciding, as stated in the headnote thus:
W. Appealed against a decree of divorce granted H. Under the English
Divorce Reform Act, 1969, s. 2(1) (e) on the grounds that the petition was
signed not by H. But by his solicitor, and that even thought he petition was
amended by substitution of H.s signature for that of the solicitor, the
amendment was filed out of time, thus the whole proceedings should be
declared null and void.
Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) a petitioners failure to sign a petition
was a mere irregularity and not a fundamental defect. It could
therefore under the authority of L.N. 140A, Order 70, be remedied by
19

the substitution of the signature of the petitioner for that of the

solicitor which had erroneously been subscribed especially, as in the
instant case, no disadvantage nor erosion of natural justice as
occasioned by it Armar v Armar, Court of Appeal, 21 April 1969,
unreported; digested in (1969) C.C. 73 followed.
(2) The appellant could not be heard to complain that the amendment
was filed out of time because she participated fully in the hearing
before the trial court and yet failed there to invoke L.N. 140A order
28, r.7 or r. 4.

Even though there is no provision like O.70 the old High Court Civil Procedure
Rules, LN. 140 A or O.81 of the current High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004,
C.147, the principles evolved in Ghana and outside Ghana regarding constitutional
construction which I have set out ut supra, warrant my adoption of the decisions in
Clerk v Clerk.

Again in Pollard v R. (1995) 3 LRC 485 P.C the failure of the appellant to sign his
notice of application for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder which
had rather been signed by his counsel was not such a fundamental error that could
not be cured. As stated in the Hednote:
The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of murder and sentenced to
death. A notice of application for leave to appeal signed by counsel was
taken within the time prescribed by the West Indies Associated States Court
of Appeal Rules 1968 as stipulated by s. 48(1) of the Eastern Caribbean
Supreme Court (St Vincent and the Grenadines) Act but was rejected
because the appellant had not signed it as required by r.44(1) of the 1968
rules. When the co-accuseds appeal came on for hearing the appellant,
having signed a further notice for leave to appeal, moved the Court of
Appeal to extend the time within which to lodge the notice. The Court held
that it had no jurisdiction to extend time under s.48 (2) of the Acct where an
appellant was under sentence of death. The court heard the co-accuseds
appeal and, after considering the poor quality of the sole witnesss evidence,
quashed his conviction on the ground that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The appellant appealed.

20

HELD: Appeal allowed.

Rule 11 of the West Indies Associated States Court of Appeal Rules 1968
should be applied to allow the hearing of a criminal appeal where an
appellants failure to sign the notice of application for leave to appeal was not
wilful and amounted to no more than a technical non-compliance with the
rules and where it would be in the interests of justice to waive the noncompliance, thereby validating the notice under s.48 (1) of the Eastern
Caribbean Suprem Court (St Vincent and the Grenadines) Act from the date
of its lodgement. On the facts, there were compelling reasons in the interests
of justice to apply r.11 with the result that the appeal was validly constituted
so that the court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear it. Accordingly, the
appeal would be remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination.

It is true however that in the Nigerian case of INEC v Oshiomole, supra, the
Nigerian Supreme Court took the view that an unsigned Election petition is a dud
document to be struck out but Election petitions are sometimes treated very strictly
because of the element of protraction over the outcome of the exercise of the
franchise, see Hari Shanker Jain v Gandhi (2002)3 LRC 562 S.G. India. Even
there the court bemoaned the days of technicalities in the administration of justice
and liberally held that where there are several petitioners the signature openly one
of them can support the petition and if a listed solicitors agent signed a petition it
should be accepted as valid.

OVER VOTING
There is a question as to what constitutes over-voting.

The evidence of Dr.

Mamudu Bawumia, the 2nd petitioner, Johnson Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary of
the National Democratic Congress and of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of
21

the electoral Commission the 2nd respondent, is said to establish two types of
overvoting.
The first is where the number of those who voted at a polling station exceeds the
number of voters contained in the relevant polling station register. The second
situation is where the number of ballots in the ballot book exceeds the number of
ballot papers issued to the relevant polling station.

Pondering over these two

categories closely I would think that the second category of overvoting is rather an
instance of ballot stuffing as testified by Johnson Asiedu Nketia.
According to the evidence where the votes in the ballot box are exceeded by even
one vote the integrity of that vote is said to be compromised and must be annulled
and depending on the impact of that vote on the overall results, the election in that
polling station must be rerun.

Burden of Proof
Before tackling the issues of overvoting and voting without biometric verification
at length the question of the burden of proof has to be settled.
It is said that election petitions are peculiar in character hence the question of
burden of proof has evoked various judicial opinions in the common law world.
However, upon full reflection on the matter I have taken the position that the
provisions of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N.R.C.D 323) with the appropriate
modifications, where necessary, suffice.
Presumptive effect of the Instrument of Declaration of Presidential Results
Article 63(9) of the Constitution provides thus:
(9) An instrument which,
a. is executed under the hand of the Chairman of the Electoral
Commission and under the seal of the Commission; and

22

b. states that person named in the instrument was declared elected as

the President of Ghana at the election of the President,
shall be prima facie evidence that the person named was so elected.

This means that unless the contrary is proved the president is presumed to haven
been validly elected. The legal effect of this is governed by ss. 18-21 of Evidence
Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).

On the facts of this case the relevant provision are

sections 20 and 21 (a), this not being a jury trial. The cardinal question therefore is
whether the petitioners have been able to rebut the presumption of validity created
by the presidential Declaration of Results Instrument. The evidence led by the
petitioners is almost exclusively that of the pink sheets. Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia
chiefly in his evidence, relied on his evidential maxim you and I were not there
The evidence is on the face of the pink sheets which to him are the primary
record of the election. The petitioners also sought to rely on extractive evidence
from cross-examination of Johnson Asiedu Nketia and Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan
Chairman of the Electoral Commission and Mr. Nii Amanor Dodoo the KPMG
representative. They also relied on certain aspects of the pleadings supported by
affidavits.
However Dr. Afari Gyan made it clear to this court in his evidence that the entries
on the pink sheets were in such a state of omissions, repetitions etc that one would
have to read them as a whole and construe them carefully and if necessary resort to
the relevant polling station register of voters, the serial numbers of the ballot
papers and even the data base of the biometric verification machines themselves
etc. To see ones way clear as to the course of voting.

On page 35 of the proceedings of the 3rd day of June, 2013 his evidence on the
issue of overvoting was as follows:
23

Q:

In situations like that, can you tell the court whether there is a
procedure that should be followed.

A:

The annulment or you are talking about when there was an excess

Q:

Yes

A:

If they had been reported to us, that would have been a different issue.
We would have taken certain steps to ascertain whether in fact those
things constitute excess. There are all kinds of things that you would
do, because we are dealing with a very sensitive situation so you must
be sure of what you are doing. It is gone over by the claim one and
may be in some places the votes involved are huge. So what do we do
to make sure whether it is really gone over by 1. I will first carry out
a very careful examination of the pink sheet, that will be the starting
point, a very careful analyses of the pink sheet. You have seen that
somebody says that I was given 4 ballot papers when in fact he was
given 325 and in some cases when you check the difference, there
could be a mistake in the addition of the figures. So that is a starting
point check whether the pink sheets have been properly executed. In
addition to that as the returning officer, I will recheck whether all
ballots in contention fall within the serial range of the ballots that
were allocated to the station. I would also cause are check of whether
every ballot paper in contention has the validating stamp of the
polling station. And because our law says that when you vote your
name must be ticked I would cause a count.

Q:

Ticked where.

A:

In the register. Your name must be ticked in the register. I would

cause a count of the ticks in the register and all these things would
have to be done before I take a decision on what to do.
24


Voting without Biometric Verification
The evidence clearly establishes that the 2012 election started on 7/12/2012 and
due to difficulties with the biometric verification machines, continued on
8/12/2012. The evidence also shows that form 1C which was meant for those
voters who had biometric voter ID cards but their names were not on the register,
was not taken to the polling stations due to opposition from the political parties. In
consequence form C3 was not to be filled but a few presiding officers still filled it
in error. Dr. Afari Gyans conflicting evidence as to the date of the printing of the
pink sheets and the instructions concerning form C3 is such a technical error of
recollection that not much weight should be attached to it.
The plaint about voting without biometric verification cannot, in addition to the
foregoing reasons, therefore hold in the absence of some other contrary evidence.

The pink sheets contained errors of omission of e.g. proxy votes, blanks,
repetitions, wrong grammatical renditions, etc.

Indeed Dr. Bawumia admitted

under cross-examination that the pink sheets cannot alone supply answer to issues
arising from them, in all situations.

The pink sheet or its equivalent in other jurisdictions has been judicially regarded
as the primary record of an election. But no one has given it a conclusive effect.
Neither the constitution nor any other statute, substantive or subsidiary has
accorded the pink sheet any particular status.

I would not infer from the

constitution and Electoral laws that its reputation as the primary record of the
election means anything more than that it is the ready and basic document to resort
to, for a start, when one wants to ascertain how the elections fared in a particular
polling station.
25


I am not aware of any judicial University that has awarded or conferred a graduate
or doctoral degree on the pink sheet. Some of the Nigerian authorities filed by the
petitioners are in point. Thus in INEC v. Oshiomele (2008) CLR 11 (a) S.C the
Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NEC) was subpoenaed by
the petitioners and did produce inter alia forms, voters registers, ballot papers and
records of counting and sorting of the ballot papers in the challenged election,
and the Supreme Court held that such documents largely established their case in
addition to oral evidence.

Again in I.N.E.C v Ray (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) the Court of Appeal (Enugu
Judicial Division) held as per the headnote (4) as follows:
ELECTION PETITION ALLEGATION OF HOLDING OF
ELECTION:
How allegation that election took place in a particular ward or Constituency
can be proved.
...a party who alleges that election took place in a particular ward or
Constituency is required, in order to prove that allegation; ...to call at least
one person who voted at any of the polling units in the two wards whose
registration card would show the stamp of the presiding officer and the date
confirming that he had voted at the election. In the alternative, the presiding
officer or any other official of INEC who participated in the conduct of the
election, could give evidence to that effect and support that evidence by the
production of the register of voters and other official documents of INEC
prepared, signed, and dated by him, showing that election had taken place in
all or some of the units of the wards concerned. Per OGUNBIYI, J. CA

Indeed in DTA v Prime Minister (1996) 3 LRC 83 High Court, Namibia OLinn J
presiding, vigorously dissented from the validity of a law prohibiting the opening
or inspection of sealed electoral material by any person except by order of court in
criminal proceedings, saying as stated in the Headnote that it was an absurdity that

26

a complainant be given the right to come to court only to be deprived of the

procedural right of discovery and inspection once there.

It appears that the petitioners rather belatedly, towards the end of the case, realised
the need for the adduction in evidence of such vital documents like the voters
registers, collation sheets, etc and tried to do so, sometimes with the indulgence of
this court, through cross-examination of Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, Chairman of the
Electoral Commission and also through unsuccessful applications for leave to
serve on him notices to produce such documents.

It is felt, and the petitioners so submit, that the pink sheets do operate as estoppel
as to the facts therein contained and therefore, inter alia, extrinsic evidence is
inadmissible. The shortest answer to this is that the constitution being the supreme
law of the land doctrines of estoppels do not apply to constitutional litigation, see
Tuffuor v Attorney-General (1980) GLR 637 C.A (sitting as the Supreme Court),
New Patriotic Party v Attorney-General (1993-94) GLR I. do not think that it
makes a difference that such estoppels are contained in statutes, since such statutes
cannot derogate from the supremacy of the constitution. In any case estoppels do
not apply where the parties, as here, possessed common knowledge of the real facts
involved such that no party can mislead the other as to them, see Ghana Rubber
Products Ltd v. Criterion Company Ltd (1982-83) GLR 56 C.A, Odonkor v
Amartei (1992) 1 GLR 577 S.C and in Re Fianko Akotuah (Decd); Fianko v Djan
(2007-2008) SC GLR 170. I also need not waste time demonstrating that extrinsic
evidence, were estoppels applicable here, is admissible under the exceptions
thereto, see Dua v Afriyie (1971) 1 GLR 260 C.A and Koranteng II v Klu
(1993-94) 1 GLR 280 SC.

27

In the circumstances I do not think that the petitioners have established their
allegations of overvoting and voting without biometric verification, except to the
limited extent admitted by the Electoral Commissions chairman, which cannot
impact much on the declared results.

POLLING AGENTS
It was sought to devalue the status of the polling agents to that of mere observers.
That is certainly unacceptable. If they were such passive attendants at an election
it is inconceivable that the constitution would have considered their signatures to
the results sheet significant enough to merit express constitutional requirement.
Before exiting the constitution to seek for other signs of their powers one is met
squarely with article 297 (c) as follows:
297. Implied power
x
(c)

where a power is conferred on a person or authority to do or enforce

the doing of an act or a thing, all such powers shall be deemed to be
also given as necessary to enable that person or authority to do or
enforce the doing of the act or thing;

Also under the Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 75) Regulation s.19, as far
as relevant is as follows:
Polling agents
x

(2)

A candidate for presidential election may appoint one polling agent in

every polling station nationwide.

(3)

An appointment under subregulations (1) and (2) is for the purpose of

detecting impersonation and multiple voting and certifying that the
poll was conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations
governing the conduct of elections.
28

(4)

(6)

(8)

(9)

A presiding officer shall give a polling agent the necessary access to

enable the polling agent to observe election proceedings at a polling
station.
x

The returning officer shall set a date on which the polling agents shall
appear before the returning officer to swear an oath to the effect that
the polling agent shall abide by the laws and regulations governing
the conduct of elections.
x

The polling agent shall present the duplicate copy of the letter of
appointment to the presiding officer of the polling station to which the
agent is assigned on the day of the poll.
Despite subregulation (5) a candidate may change an agent under
special circumstances and a new agent appointed by the candidate
shall swear an oath before the presiding officer in charge of the
polling station where that agent is assigned. (e.s)

In Jayantha Adikari Egodawele v Commissioner of Elections (2002) 3 LRC 1, the

Sri Lanka Supreme Court per Fernando J commenting extensively on the important
role of polling agents in an electoral system which is very similar to that of Ghana,
said at 19 thus:
Would potential voters not lose confidence in the ability of the law
enforcement authorities to protect them against unlawful acts and/ or to duly
investigate them if they did occur? Ballot-stuffing and driving out polling
agents go hand-in-hand with violence or the threat of violence which, in
turn, will have a deterrent effect on electors in the vicinity as well as on
those still in their homes. Impersonators will not have an easy task if there
are polling agents present who might challenge them (and demand
declarations under s.41). Obviously, polling agents are not chased away
because they are disliked, but because they hinder impersonation. Further,
the practice of seizing polling cards from electors must not be forgotten.
That is seldom an end in itself, because it does not prevent those electors
from voting. However, if those electors can somehow be deterred from
29

voting, and if there are no polling agents likely to object, a seized polling
card will be a passport to impersonation. Thus driving away polling agents
is a classic symptom of graver and more widespread electoral malpractices,
ranging from the intimidation of electors and the seizure of polling cards to
large-scale impersonation. (e.s)

Continuing at 21 he said:

Polling agents have a special role to play in a free, equal and secret poll,
and this court emphasised the need to ensure their security shortly before the
disputed poll. Their right to be present at the polling station is expressly
recognised by s.33, in the same breath as the right of election staff, the
police and candidates. Their duties commence from the time the empty
ballot box is sealed; and, inter alia, they have the right to challenge
suspected impersonators. An election, ultimately, is determined by the
number of ballots cast. It is the polling agents who play a leading part in
ensuring that only those entitled to vote do cast ballots. Chasing away
polling agents makes a poll cease to be equal.(e.s)

Indeed in Mcwhirter v Platten (1969)1 All ER 172 serious discrepancies in the

declared results of the Enfield borough local elections were taken up by an election
agent called Harris and this led to the pursuit of criminal process. At 173 Lord
Parker CJ said:
On 9th May 1968 local elections took place, amongst other places, in the
borough of Enfield. There are thirty wards, each returning two candidates,
and in one of those wards, West Ward with which we are concerned in the
present case, there is no doubt that the elected candidates wee Conservatives.
There were in addition two Labour candidates, two Liberal candidates and
two Independent candidates, the two Independents being Mrs. Bradbury,
who is one other appellants, and her husband, Mr. Bradbury. The count in
this ward took place in the presence of the election agents of the various
candidates. The matter with which we are concerned came to light as the
result of something that was said to Mr. Harris, who was the electing agent
of the two Independent candidates. The counting officer, or his deputy, told
Mr. Harris at the end of the count that broadly speaking, subject to checking,
the Conservative candidates had 2,600 votes each, the Labour candidates
170, and the two Liberal candidates had 140 votes. So far as Mr. Harriss
candidates, Mr. And Mrs. Bradbury, were concerned, he was told that
30

subject to minor adjustment, Mr. Bradbury had got 525 and Mrs. Bradbury
519; in other words, they came second to the Conservatives and above the
Labour and Liberals.

To Mr. Harriss amazement, when the formal announcement was made of the
result, he found that the two Labour candidates had been given votes which
exceeded those in respect of Mr. And Mrs. Bradbury, in other words the
Labour candidates had come second. As a result, the returning officer, the
respondent, looked into the matter, and he came across a very curious state
of affairs- a shocking state of affairs really- as the result of which he felt
constrained to make an announcement in the press, and on 24th May the
following announcement was made by the respondent:

Following publication of the detailed results of the recent Borough

Elections my attention has been drawn to apparent arithmetical
discrepancies in the figures for [not merely West Ward, but Craig park
and High field Words] I have discussed these matters with the Agents
of the candidates primarily concerned and such enquiries as I have
been able to make, have regard to the provisions of Electoral Law
designed to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, lead me to the
following conclusions: (i) There has been no case in which there has
been a failure to include in the Count any votes cast, but the total
number of votes appears to have been miscalculated, with the result
that in two cases candidates as a whole appear to have been credited
with more votes than were actually cast. (ii) In the third case
candidates as a whole appear to have been credited with fewer votes
than the total votes cast but in such proportions as not to affect their
relative positions (iii) In no case does it seem that these matters affect
the result of any election. ... (e.s)

This shows that misrepresentations of electoral results do not necessarily invalidate

them when the real ascertainable truth can establish the contrary. So let it be with
our pink sheets herein.

Continuing at 175 he said:

Let me say at once that there is no question whatever of an election

petition. The Conservatives were elected by a very large majority, and there
is no question of Mrs. Bradbury or any body else bringing an election
31

petition. Therefore the sole ground advanced, and it is advanced by Mr.

McWhirter and Mrs. Bradbury is the first one, namely that the order is
required for the purpose of instituting a prosecution for an offence in
relation to ballot papers. Both Mr. McWhirter and Mrs. Bradbury have
sworn that is the object, in their affidavits. (e.s)
The certification of the results by the polling agents without any complaint at the
polling station or by evidence before this court shows that certain recordings on the
pink sheets should not readily be taken as detracting from the soundness of the
results declared but rather point to the direction of administrative errors which at
the worst, as demonstrated supra, can be corrected by the defaulting officials.
By analogy, though a company law case, I adopt substantially and mutatis
mutandis the reasoning in Marx v Estates and General Investments Ltd. (1976) I
WLR 380 as set out in the Headnote as follows:
A merger agreement between C. Ltd. and the defendant company was
entered into, whereby the defendant company should acquire the share of the
former in return for approximately 5.500,000 new ordinary stock units in the
defendant company. The agreement was conditional on a resolution being
passed by a general meeting of the defendant company approving the merger
and increasing the authorised capital. A meeting was convened for June 12,
1975, for that purpose but, as a substantial number of shareholders objected
to the merger, the meeting was adjourned. The dissentients distributed
unstamped forms of proxy providing for the appointment of a proxy vote at
the adjourned extraordinary general meeting of the company ... or any
further adjournment or adjournments thereof or at any new extraordinary
general meeting of the company during 1975 dealing with the matter. The
meeting was reconvened for July 16 and was adjourned to July 30. At that
meeting the resolution approving the merger was defeated on a show of
hands and a poll was demanded. The chairman accepted the votes tendered,
appointed scruitineers and adjourned the meeting until the result of the poll
could be declared. Article 66 of the companys articles provided that no
objection should be raised as to the admissibility of any vote except at the
meeting at which it was tendered and every vote not disallowed at such
meeting shall be valid for all purposes.

On August 4, when the count was almost concluded, objections were raised
as to the validity of the proxy forms on the ground that as they related to
32

more than one meeting they should have been stamped 50p. In accordance
with the Stamp Act 1891. The validity of the votes cast by the proxies
appointed on the unstamped forms determined whether the resolution had
been passed. The opinion of the Controller of Stamps was obtained that the
forms of proxy were not chargeable.

On a motion, treated as the trial of the action, by the dissentient shareholders

to restrain the defendant company from treating the resolution as having
been passed:

Held, giving judgment for the plaintiffs, that since the proxy forms were
capable of being used to vote not only at adjournments of the meeting of
June 12 but at any new extraordinary general meeting in 1975, even though
they might have been intended only for use at one meeting, they were liable
to a 50p. stamp and the chairman would have been entitled to reject them at
any time at or before the July 30 meeting, but he was entitled to accept the
votes of a proxy because the unstamped proxy votes were not void and were
valid authorities capable of being stamped; and, accordingly, since the
company had accepted them without objection at the meeting the votes cast
by the proxies were valid (post, pp. 386H 387a. 388A-B, C-D, 391D-E);
and that in all the circumstances the dissentient shareholders were entitled to
their costs on a common fund basis under R.S.C., Ord. 62 r. 28 93) (post, pp.
392D-F, H-393A).

Held, further, that by virtue of article 66 the objection taken several days
after the meeting at which the votes were tendered was made too late to
invalidate them (post, pp. 389H-390A) . . .(1) Adjudication by the Controller
of Stamps does not prejudice rights asserted and relied upon prior to
adjudication (post, pp. 387H-388A).

Prudential Mutual Assurance Investment and Loan Association v Curzon

(1852) 8 Exch. 97 considered.
(2) There is much to commend an article in a companys articles of
association to the effect that an objection to the admissibility of a vote
should only be raised at the meeting at which it is tendered (post, p. 390AE)

At 390 Brightman J said:

33

If an objection is raised to the form of proxy, there may be an explanation if

only it can be heard. What is more sensible than to provide that an objection
must be voiced at the meeting where the vote is to be cast so that there is at
least the opportunity for it to be answered?

In The King v Robert Llewelyn Thomas (1933) 2 K.B 489 C.C.A where a verdict in
a criminal trial, at which the evidence was given partly in English and partly in
Welsh, was delivered in the sight and hearing of all the jury without protest, the
Court of Criminal Appeal refused to admit affidavits by two of the jurors showing
that they did not understand the English language sufficiently well to follow the
proceedings.

The signatures of the polling agents to the declaration of results therefore have
high constitutional and statutory effect and authority, which cannot be discounted.

The Dimensions of an election Petition

An election petition is multidimensional. There are several legitimate interests at

stake which cannot be ignored.

In Ghana this is fully acknowledged.

The

fundamentality of the individuals right to vote and the need to protect the same
have been stressed by this court in several cases Tehn Addy v Electoral
Commission [1996-97] SC GLR 589 and Ahumah-Ocansey v Electoral
Commission, Centre for Human Rights & Civil Liberties (CHURCIL) v Attorney
General & Electoral Commission (Consolidated) [2010] SCGLR 575.

Indeed in Azam v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1974) AC 18 at 75
HL Lord Salmon (dissenting) said that the right to vote is so fundamental that if a
person entitled to vote in the House of Lords managed to enter the chamber
without a pass as required his vote should not be invalidated.
34


Beyond the individuals right to vote is the collective interest of the constituency
and indeed of the entire country in protecting the franchise, see Luguterah v
Interim Electoral Commissioner (1971) 1 GLR 109.

In Danso-Acheampong v

Attorney-General & Abodakpi (2009) SCGLR 353 this court in upholding the
validity of s. 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284) and
rules 41(1) (e) and (3) of the Supreme Court rules 1996 (C 116) suspending the
effect of a disqualification pending the determination of an appeal from a
conviction, this court, ably speaking through Dr. Date-Bah JSC at 360 said: what
is at stake is not just the member of Parliaments private interest. There is the
public interest which requires that the constituents choice should not be defeated
by the error of a lower court (e.s)

Indeed in Cyprus voting is compulsory. In Pingoura v The Republic (1989) LRC
201 CA the Cyprus Court of Appeal held that compulsory voting was designed to
reinforce the functioning of a democracy, an important constitutional objective.
In Langer v Australia (1996) 3 LRC 113 the High Court of Australia upheld the
validity of a law, backed by criminal sanctions, which requires a voter to mark his
ballot paper by showing his order of preference for all candidates, on the ground
that it was meant to further or enhance the democratic process.

In Peters v Attorney-General (2002) 3 LRC 32 C.A., Trinidad and Tobago at 101
Sharma J.A Said:
An election petition is not a matter in which the only persons interested are
candidates who strive against each other in elections. The public are
substantially interested in it and that it is an essential part of the democratic
process. It is not a lis between two persons, but a proceeding in which the
constituency itself is the principal party interested. The characteristics of an
election petition are fundamentally different from civil proceedings. Hence
35

for example there was the need for special rules concerning, for example, the
notice and publication, which is outside the courts ordinary jurisdiction and
procedures.

An election petition is quite unlike any of the initiating proceedings in the

High Court. It is not a writ, or originating summons, nor is it in any way
close to say a petition in bankruptcy or a petition for divorce which
respectively have their own rules of procedure. In a sense an election
petition can be described as sui generis.

In Jayantha Adokari Egodawole v Commissioner of Elections (2002) 3 LRC 1 the

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka at 26 stated per Fernando J thus:

The citizens right to vote includes the right to freely choose his
representatives, through a genuine election which guarantees the free
expression of the will of the electors: not just his own. Therefore not only is
a citizen entitled himself to vote at a free, equal and secret poll, but he also
has a right to a genuine election guaranteeing the free expression of the will
of the entire electorate to which he belongs. Thus if a citizen desires that
candidate X should be his representative, and if he is allowed to vote for X
but other like-minded citizens are prevented from voting for X, then his right
to the free expression of the will of the electors has been denied. If 51% of
the electors wish to vote for X, but 10% are prevented from voting- in
consequence of which X is defeated that is a denial of the rights not only
of the 10%, but of the other 41% as well. Indeed, in such a situation the
41% may legitimately complain that they might as well have not voted. To
that extent, the freedom of expression, of like-minded voters, when
exercised through the electoral process is a collective one, although they
may not be members of any group or association. (e.s)

These judicial pronouncements as to the national dimension of a public election

have been justified in this case. About 360 registered voters applied in initio litis
to join in this petition in order to protect their vote. Failing in that move several of
them have filed affidavits to protect their vote.
demonstrations calling for their votes to count.

Others took to lawful

They are entitled under the

constitution so to do. They are also particularly entitled under article 23 of the
36

constitution to relief from administrative errors of public officials that affect their
rights. It provides thus:
23. Administrative justice
Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and
reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by
law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions
shall have the right to seek redress before a court or other tribunal.

The administrative error of the presiding officers to sign the pink sheets was not
only properly corrected at the collation centres in some instances but can still be
corrected by order of this court by way of relief against administrative lapses under
article 23 of the constitution or pursuant to s.22 of the Interpretation Act, 2009 (Act
792). It provides thus:
22.

(1) Where an enactment confers a power or imposes a duty on a

person to do an act or a thing of an administrative or executive
character or to make an appointment, the power or duty may be
exercised or performed in order to correct an error or omission in a
previous exercise of the power or the performance of the duty.
2.

The substantive right of, or the procedure for redress by a person

who has suffered loss or damage or is otherwise aggrieved as a
result of an omission or error corrected as is referred to in
subsection (1) shall not be affected as a result of the correction of
that omission or error and an investigation, a legal proceeding or a
remedy in respect of a right, a privilege, an obligation or a liability
shall continue as if the omission or error had net been corrected.

Even though this Act, despite s.10(4) thereof, professes not to be applicable to the
Constitution the principle involved in s.22 thereof conduces to good governance
and so can be adopted by this court under s.10(4) thereof.
The memorandum on Act 792 states with regard to this section as follows:

It is not unknown for an authority on which or a person on whom a power

is conferred to make a mistake or an error in the exercise of that power. In
37

an important case it may require an Indemnity Act or a Validating Act to

solve the problem. Clause 22 of the Bill thus seeks to make it an ancillary
power for that authority or person to correct the error or omission in the
previous exercise or performance of the power or function. It should be
emphasised, though, that the correction of an error or omission will not
affect the substantive rights or procedures for redress by a person who has
suffered loss or damage or is otherwise aggrieved as a result of the error or
omission that has been corrected. In the circumstances, an investigation, a
legal proceeding or a remedy in respect of a right, a privilege, an obligation
or a liability will continue as if the omission or error had not been
corrected. (e.s)

I should think that the implied powers in article 297(c) could even cater for this
situation.

All these steps advocated here are warranted, inter alia, by the principle of
constitutional interpretation that the constitution be construed as a whole so that
the constitution be construed as a whole so that its various parts work together in
such a way that none of them is rendered otiose. The oft quoted words of Acquah
JSC (as he then was) in J H Mensah v Attorney-General (1996-97) SC GLR 320 at
362 repay constant resort to them. He said:
I think it is now firmly settled that a better approach to the interpretation of
a provision of the 1992 Constitution is to interpret the provision in relation
to the other provisions of the Constitution so as to render that interpretation
consistent with the other provisions and the overall tenor or spirit of the
Constitution. An interpretation based solely on a particular provision
without reference to the other provisions is likely to lead to a wrong
appreciation of the true meaning and import of that provision. Thus in
Bennions Constitutional Law of Ghana (1962) it is explained at page 283
that it is important to construe an enactment as a whole: (e.s)

...since it is easy, by taking a particular provision of an Act in

isolation, to obtain a wrong impression of its true effect. The dangers
of taking passages out of their context are well known in other fields,
and they apply just as much to legislation. Even where an Act is
properly drawn it still must be read as a whole. Indeed a well-drawn
38

Act consists of an inter-locking structure each provision of which has

its part to play. Warnings will often be there to guide the reader, as for
example, that an apparently categorical statement in one place is
subject to exceptions laid down elsewhere in the Act, but such
warnings cannot always be provided.

Therefore in the exercise of this courts original jurisdiction, which does not
include the fundamental human rights, it does not mean that when such rights arise
incidentally or are interlocked with matters falling within our original jurisdiction
the same should be prejudiced or ignored, see Tait v. Ghana Airways Corporation
(1970) 2 G&G 1415(2d), Benneh v The Republic (1974)2 GLR 47 C.A (full bench)
and Ogbamey-Tetteh v Ogbamey-Tetteh (1993-94) 1 GLR

Furthermore to negate the constitutional inelasticity of Re Akoto (1961) GLR 523 I
would hold that since article 33(1) provides for the right to resort to the High Court
for redress of the fundamental human rights is without prejudice to any other
action that is lawfully available, the steps of some citizens of Ghana, in filing
affidavits herein, inter alia, to protect their right to vote and the lawful
demonstrations in that direction cannot be ignored by this court.

PRINCIPLES FOR ANNULLING RESULTS
For starters I would state that the Judiciary in Ghana, like its counter parts in other
jurisdictions, does not readily invalidate a public election but often strives in the
public interest, to sustain it. Thus in Seyire v Anemana (1971) 2 GLR 32 C.A. the
appellant sought to invalidate a petition against his election on the ground that the
respondents petition was not accompanied by a deposit for security of costs since
the said security had been paid not to the High Court but through a bank. On
appeal from the trial courts rejection of that contention the Court of Appeal
unanimously held as stated in the head note as follows:
39

Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) Per Azu Crabbe J.A.in the ordinary course
of things a person who is required by law to make a payment into court
cannot make a bank the agents of the court to receive such payment on
behalf of the court. A bank, in those circumstances, would become the
agents of the payer only. But when the registrar of the court, whose duty it
is to receive the payment, directs the payer to pay the amount through a
bank, he makes the bank the agent of the court. Therefore the registrar of
the High Court, Tamale, constituted the Ghana Commercial Bank his agents
for the purposes of receiving the amount paid on 10 October on behalf of the
respondent as security for costs, and there was nothing fundamentally wrong
in his having done so. Hodgson v Armstrong [1967]1 All E.R. 307, C.A.
considered.
(2) Per Azu Crabbe J.A. Although the payment of security for costs
through the bank would not be payment according to Order 65, r.4, this was
a procedural error which, because it can be waived by the other party
without any injustice to him, can be considered as an irregularity and the
court was able to cure the defect by applying Order 70, r.1. MacFoy v United
Africa Co., Ltd. [1962] A.C. 152, P.C. and dictum of Lord Denning M.R. in
In re Pritchard [1963]1 Ch. 502 at p. 516, C.A. applied.

Per Amissah J.A. Since the respondent had divested himself of the funds at
the appropriate time, the registrar had consented to the method of payment
and the appellant had not been prejudiced by the act or the method adopted,
then the respondent had, on 10 October, given security in the required
amount and within the time limited.

Again in Osman v Tedam (1970) 2 G&G 1246 (2d) C.A and Osman v Kaleo (1970)
2 G&G 1380 C.A. the Court of Appeal held that though the respondents were
members of the Convention Peoples Party whose constitution made all members
of Parliament of the Convention Peoples Party members of the partys Regional
Executive Committees, that did not without more, make the respondents members
of such committees and therefore disqualified to contest the 1969 parliamentary
elections, which they had won.

The Osman v Kaleo case is even more striking.

Though the respondent had

secured exemption from disqualification from contesting the parliamentary

40

elections, it was submitted that since his exemption had not been published in the
Gazette, upon which publication it would have effect, under paragraph 3(5) of
NLCD 223, 1968, the same was inoperative, notwithstanding that under paragraph
3(7) of that Decree the decision of the Exemptions Commission was final and
conclusive. The Court of Appeal rejected that contention. At 1385 Sowah J.A held
as follows: Amongst the procedure adopted by the commission was the
announcement of its decision after hearing an applicant.

There is not much

substance in the argument that since there was no publication in the Gazette the
exemption was not valid.

At 1391 Apaloo J.A trenchantly held as follows:
That the defendant appeared before the commission and satisfied it that he
was deserving of exemption, is beyond question. He produced a certificate
to that effect signed by all the members of that commission. After this, the
defendant need do no more. A mandatory duty is cast upon the commission
to notify the National Liberation Council of this fact and the latter is under
an obligation no less mandatory to publish this fact in the Gazette. Both
these statutory duties are mere ministerial acts with which a successful party
before the commission is not concerned. But in his favour, it ought to be
presumed that all these official acts were properly performed. Omnia
praesumuntur rite esse acta. It would indeed be odd if a person who
satisfied the commission and was so informed were to be said to be still
under the disability from which he was freed because either the commission
or the National Liberation Council failed to perform its official duties. I
think the defendant gained exemption under paragraph 3(5) of N.L.C.D. 223
and I am in disagreement with Mr. Bannerman on this point. (e.s)

This reasoning should restrain this court from nullifying the otherwise sacred votes
of citizens due to the oversight of the presiding officers in not signing the Results.
Also in Nartey v Attorney-General and Justice Adade (1996-97 SC GLR 63 this
court after declaring the second defendants continued stay in office beyond one
year of the extension of tenure as unconstitutional under the 1992 constitution
41

further held that that declaration should not affect prior judgments delivered or
participated in by him, so as to protect third parties rights. This is in line with
article 2(2) of the constitution which empowers this court thus:

2. Enforcement of the Constitution

(2) The Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration under
clause (1) of this article, make such orders and give such directions as
it may consider appropriate for giving effect, or enabling effect to be
given, to the declaration so made. (e.s)

As to the general principles for determining an election petition various tests have
been formulated. The English approach was extensively evaluated in Evov. Supa
(1986) LRC (Const) 18 but the court eventually concluded in much the same way
as the Kenyan Supreme Court did in Raila Odinga v the Independent Electoral and
Boundaries Commision and Others namely, Did the petitioner clearly and
decisively show the conduct of the election to have been so devoid of merits, and
so distorted as not to reflect the expressing of the peoples electoral intent? It is
this broad test that should guide us in this kind of case, in deciding whether we
should disturb the outcome of the Presidential election.

Mr. Quashie-Idun, counsel for the 2nd respondent urged on us that the provisions
relating to the validity of an election in the Representation of the Peoples Law,
1992 (PNDCL 284 are applicable to a presidential election petition.

Having

pondered over the matter I cannot uphold that submission. The preamble to that
law shows that it relates to parliamentary elections. Mr. Quashie-Iduns contention
is piously based on only the Representation of the People (Amendment) Law, 1992
which amends the definition of election which in s.50 of PNDCL 284 related to
parliamentary elections only, to mean any public elections.

The original

definition excluded from its purview District level elections, etc which the High
42

Court could also handle. The amendment will now cover such elections also. The
definition of Court though as a court of competent jurisdiction is referable to courts
which under the provisions of PNDCL 284 have various roles to play.

This however is somewhat academic since the principles laid down in Re Election
of First President Appiah v Attorney-General (1970) 2 G&G 2d 1423 C.A at
1435-1436 when determining a presidential election under provisions of the 1969
Constitution which are in pari material with article 64 of the 1992 Constitution are
substantially the same as those in PNDCL 284.
The Court said:

We wish to conclude with the words of Kennedy, J. in the Islington West

Division Case, Medhurst v. Laugh and Casquet (1901) 17 T.L.R. 210 (at
page 230):
An election ought not to be held void by reason of transgressions of
the law committed without any corrupt motive by the returning officer
or his subordinate in the conduct of the election where the court is
satisfied that the election was notwithstanding those transgressions, an
election really and in substance conducted under the existing election
law, and that the result of the election, that is, the success of the one
candidate over the other was not and could not have been affected by
those transgressions. If on the other hand the transgressions of law by
the officials being admitted, the court sees that the effect of the
transgressions was such that the election was not really conducted
under the existing election laws, or it is open to reasonable doubt
whether the candidate who has been returned has really been elected
by the majority of persons voting in accordance with the laws in force
relating to elections, the court is then bound to declare the election
void. It appears to us that this is the view of the law which has
generally been recognised and acted upon by the tribunals which have
dealt with election matters.
And again, the judgment in the case of Woodward v Sarsons (1875)
32L.T(N.s.) 867 at pp.870-871:

43

... we are of opinion that the true statement is, that an election is to be
declared void by the common law applicable to Parliamentary
elections, if it was so conducted that the tribunal, which is asked to
avoid it, is satisfied, as a matter of fact, either that there was no real
electing at all, or that the election was not really conducted under the
subsisting election law: . . But if the tribunal should only be satisfied
that certain of such mishaps had occurred, but should not be satisfied
either that a majority had been, or that there was reason to believe that
a majority might have been prevented from electing the candidate they
preferred, then we think that the existence of such mishaps would not
entitle the tribunal to declare the election void by the common law of
Parliament.

This is much the same as Canadian case of Opitz v. Wrzensnewskyj 2012 SCC
55-2012-10- in which the court said as follows:
The practical realities of election administration are such that imperfections
in the conduct of elections are inevitable ... A federal election is only
possible with the work of thousands of Canadians who are hired across the
country for a period of a few days or, in many cases, a single 14-hour day.
These workers perform many detailed tasks under difficult conditions. They
are required to apply multiple rules in a setting that is unfamiliar. Because
elections are not everyday occurrences, it is difficult to see how workers
could get practical on-the-job experience... The current system of electoral
administration in Canada is not designed to achieve perfection, but to come
as close to the ideal of enfranchising all entitled voters as possible. Since
the system and the Act are not designed for certainty alone, courts cannot
demand perfect certainty.

Rather, courts must be concerned with the

integrity of the electoral system.

This overarching concern informs our

interpretation of the phrase irregularities ...that affected the

result. (Rothsterin and Moldaver JJ).

44

The petitioners through their counsels written Address, at p.88 rely on Besigye
Kuza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Election Commission [2001] UGSC 3
Judgment dated 20th April 2001 quoted Odoki CJ of Uganda saying:

From the authorities I have cited there is a general trend towards taking a
liberal approach in dealing with defective affidavits. This is in line with the
constitutional directive enacted in article 126 of the Constitution that the
courts should administer substantive justice without undue regard to
technicalities...

At p. 89 counsel also submitted as follows:

In the Nigerian case of Dr. Chris Nwebueze Ngige vrs Mr. Peter Obi and
436 Others [2006] Volume 18 WRN 33, it was held by the Court of Appeal
at holding 30 that, election petitions are by their nature peculiar from the
point of view of public policy. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to
endeavour to hear them without allowing technicalities to unduly fetter their
jurisdiction.

Consequently the petitioners seek equity from this court (which they deny to the
pink sheets) as follows:
It is therefore submitted that since the affidavit of the 2nd petitioner to
which the pink sheets were annexed was duly executed and sworn to, the
unavoidable errors of pink sheet exhibits, where the authenticity is not
disputed by the respondents, ought to be treated and waived as mere
irregularity, so that the said pink sheets exhibited which are already in
evidence can be considered and evaluated in the interest of substantial
justice.

CONCLUSION

In modern times the courts do not apply or enforce the words of statutes but their
objects purposes and spirit or core values. Our constitution incorporates its spirit
as shown for example, in article 17(4) (d). This means that it should not be applied
45

to satisfy its letter where its spirit dissents from such an application. Thus in Black
v Value Capital Ltd.(1975) 1 WLR 6 Goulding J held as stated in headnote 2 thus:

That although he plaintiffs proposed amendments could technically be

brought under paragraph (f) or (i) and (j) of Order 11, r.1(1), they should
not be allowed since to do so would be an application of the letter but not of
the spirit of the rule, in that it would allow the trial in England of a dispute
between foreigners merely because it concerned money in the hands of
English bankers whose only interest therein was their proper bank charges,
or because the agreements were expressed to have been executed in London,
although the disputant companies were neither incorporated, resident nor
trading in England, and the agreements were expressly to be governed by
and enforced in accordance with Bahamian law (post, pp. 15G-16A); that in
all the circumstances the only court that could effectively exercise
jurisdiction was the Bahamian court which could act in personam against
PRL and VCL and compel the use of their names and seals, and which was
already seised of the winding up petitions, and leave to amend would
therefore be refused (post, p. 16D-F)

The Mischief rule of construction is much the same as the spirit of a statute. In
Catherine v Akufo-Addo (1984-86) 1 GLR 96 C.A at 104 Mensa Boison J.A in
delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said:

It is a sound rule, where the words admit, that an enactment should be

construed such that the mischief it seeks to cure is remedied, but no more.

Further allied is the rule of construction relating to absurdity, see Brown v

Attorney-General (2010) SC GLR 183.

It would indeed be absurd for the courts to hold as was done in Republic v
Chieftaincy Committee on Wiamoasehene Stool Affairs; Ex parte Oppong Kwame
and Another [1978] 1 GLR 467 C.A (Full Bench) and do otherwise in this case. As
stated in the headnote to that case:
Having been destooled by the Agona Ashanti Traditional Council, the
Wiamoasehene appealed, and the National Liberation Council (N.L.C.)
46

acting under Act 81, s.34 appointed a chieftaincy committee to inquire into
the matter. The committee found the destoolment null and void and
recommended that the appeal be allowed. The N.L.C. confirmed the
findings by a notice in the Local Government Bulletin which also included
the phrase that the appeal be dismissed. A corrective notice repeating the
confirmation but using the phrase That the appeal be allowed was
published in a subsequent Local Government Bulletin. This attempt at
correction was challenged by certiorari proceedings on the grounds that
when the second notice was published the N.L.C. was functus officio and
had no right to effect corrections after the first publication; and even if it had
such right, the party adversely affected should have been given an
opportunity to challenge the correction. The High Court held that the N.L.C.
was precluded from re-opening the matter and this decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeal.

On an application for review by the full bench,

Held, allowing he application: (1) on the facts, far from having a change of
mind, the N.L.C. had from the outset been desirous of giving force to the
decision of the chieftaincy committee. The deliberate and repeated use by
the N.L.C. of the term confirmed made it clear that not only was the first
publication contrary to the findings and recommendations of the chieftaincy
committee, but also that an obvious mistake had occurred. The argument
that a word once inscribed in print was beyond recall was contrary to good
sense. Even the finality of res judicata permitted the correction of clerical
mistakes by the contrivance of the slip rule. (e.s)

Indeed when the constitution itself or any statute commits an error this court
rectifies it see Agyei Twum v Attorney-General Akwety (2005-2006) SC GLR 732
where a constitutional omission relating to the procedure for the removal of the
Chief Justice was rectified by reading into the relevant provisions, the necessary
addition.

To sum up the result sought by the petitioners in this case would involve what
Mackinnon J protested against in British Photomaton Trading Company, Limited v
Henry Playfair, Limited (1933) 2 K.B 508 at 520 when he said: this is a result
47

against which one is inclined to struggle, because it tends to outrage both common
sense and what is fair.
REFORMS
This petition however has exposed the need for certain electoral reforms.

mention same of them.

The Voters register must be compiled and made available to the parties as
early as possible.
A supplementary register may cater for late exigencies.
The calibre of presiding officers must be greatly raised up.
The pink sheet is too elaborate, a much simpler one to meet the pressures of
the public, weariness and lateness of the day at the close of a poll etc.
The carbon copying system has to be improved upon.
The Biometric Device System must be streamlined to avoid breakdowns and
the stress on the electorate involved in an adjournment of the poll.
Invalidating wholesale votes for insignificant excess numbers is not the best
application of the administrative principle of the proportionality test.

The South African biometric system as judicially reviewed in The New National
Party of South Africa v The Government of the Republic of South Africa, Case CCT
9/99 dated 13/4/1999 may be instructive.
However it is judicially acknowledged that the Electoral Commission is the body
mandated by the constitution to conduct Elections and Referenda in Ghana and
their independence must be respected as required by article 46 of the constitution.
Their subjection to judicial control under articles 295(8), 23 and 296 (a) and (b)
must be operated within the well known principles of judicial review of
administrative action.

48

The case of Appiah v Attorney-General, supra therefore cautions that the

reasonable exercise of a discretion by them in situations that may confront them
ought not to be judicially impeded.

KPMG
I do not know how to express the gratitude of the judiciary and indeed of Ghana to
KPMG for their unprecedented selfless and patriotic service so fully rendered this
court with such professionalism and dedication. They are a rare species of Lover
of Ghana and the cause of justice and democracy.

We are also grateful to counsel for their industry.

But in the end I am driven by the sheer justice of this case which hinges much on
technicalities of the pink sheet, to dismiss the same subject to the useful electoral
reforms it has exposed as necessary to enhance the transparency of the Electoral
process of Ghana.

(SGD)

W. A. ATUGUBA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

49



















ANSAH,J.S.C

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The facts surrounding this suit have been fully played out in near epic
dimensions before the public.
However, there is no way this suit can be seen as a likeness of the
numerous cases on various aspects of our 1992 Constitution. Indeed, I
venture to say it cannot be compared to any of the cases touching on
various aspects of all our previous Constitutions.
By virtue of its peculiar nature and potential effects, many commentators
have rightly described this suit as one posing a test of the structural
maturity of our democratic ethos, causing all eyes worldwide to focus,
even if only briefly, on our polity to see if and how we can surmount this
unique challenge.

50

Without doubt, the resolution of this case portends much for the future path
of our democratic development.
On 7th December, 2012, Ghana underwent its sixth general elections under
the 1992 Constitution. On account of factors which led in part to the present
suit, the elections for the first time in the post-1992 Constitution era spilled
over into the next day, that is, 8th December, 2013. Whiles the
parliamentary results from the elections were largely unchallenged, the
results of the presidential elections have come up for judicial scrutiny
through this action.
On 9th December, 2012, the Electoral Commissioner, the constitutionally
designated returning officer in presidential elections, announced the results
of the Presidential elections as follows:
a. John Dramani Mahama

b. Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey

0.35%

5, 574, 761

50.70%

38, 223

c. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo 5, 248, 898

d. Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom
0.59%

47.74%

64, 362

e. Akwasi Addai Odike

8, 877

0.08%

f. Hassan Ayariga

24, 617

0.22%

g. Dr. Michael Abu Sakara Forster

0.18%
h. Jacob Osei Yeboah
0.14%

20, 323

15, 201

Based on these results, the 2nd respondent declared John Dramani

Mahama, the 1st Respondent in this case, as the winner of the Presidential
elections. Subsequently, on 7th January, 2013, the Chief Justice of the
51

Republic of Ghana swore the 1st Respondent to assume office as the

President of the Republic of Ghana.
THE PETITIONERS ACTION
The petitioners seek in this action to set aside the election and swearing in
as president of the 1st Respondent.
The 1st and 2nd petitioners had contested the 2012 general elections on the
ticket of the New Patriotic Party (hereinafter referred to as the NPP) as that
partys presidential and vice presidential candidates. The third respondent
is the chairman of the NPP.
By their petition, the petitioners themselves proceeded against the first and
second respondent. The first respondent is the current President of the
Republic of Ghana, whereas the second respondent is the body set up
under Chapter Seven (7) of the Constitution to inter alia, conduct and
supervise all public elections and referenda. The National Democratic
Congress (hereinafter referred to as the NDC) was joined as the third
respondent herein after a successful application to this Court.
The petitioners seek a one hundred and eighty degree twirl from the events
of 9th December, 2012 and 7th January, 2013. In their own words, they seek
from this Court:
(1) A declaration that John Dramani Mahama, the 1st respondent herein,
was not validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana;
(2) A declaration that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo , the 1st petitioner
herein, rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana;
(3) Consequential orders as to this Court may seem meet.
The grounds for these reliefs were inextricably linked to various alleged
deviations from the prescribed procedures for the conduct of presidential
elections which said deviations, according to the petitioners, incurably

52

vitiated the election and swearing in of the 1st respondent as president of

Ghana.
The petitioners stated the said Grounds in their second amended petition in
these terms:
Ground 1: There were diverse and flagrant violations of the statutory
provisions and regulations governing the conduct of the December 2012
Presidential elections which substantially and materially affected the
result of the elections as declared by the 2nd Respondent on 9th
December, 2012.
Ground 2: That the election in 11,916 polling stations was also vitiated
by gross and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices which
fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in those polling
stations as declared by 2nd Respondent.
I consider it essential to set out the petitioners particulars of this Ground
2 as these indeed embody several of the irregularities relied on by the
petitioners in their challenge of the 2012 presidential election results.
The petitioners couched the said particulars thus:
(a) That the results as declared and recorded by the 2nd Respondent
contained widespread instances of over-voting in flagrant breach of the
fundamental constitutional principle of universal adult suffrage, to wit,
one man one vote.
(b) That there were widespread instances where there were the same
serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper
and due procedure established by 2nd Respondents required that each
polling station have a unique number in order to secure the integrity of
the polls and will of the lawfully registered voters.
(c) That, while the total number of registered voters as published by the 2nd
Respondent and provided to all political parties or candidates for the
Presidential and Parliamentary elections was fourteen million thirty-one
53

thousand, [six hundred] and eighty (14,031,680), when 2nd Respondent

announced the result of the presidential election on 9th December 2012, the
total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondent announced
mysteriously metamorphosed to a new and inexplicable figure of fourteen
million, one hundred and fifty eight thousand, eight hundred and
ninety (14,158,890). This, thereby wrongfully and unlawfully increased the
total number of registered voters by the substantial number of one
hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten votes
(127,210).
(d) That there were widespread instances of voting without prior biometric
verification.
(e) That there were widespread instances of absence of the signatures of
presiding officers or their assistants on the Declaration Forms known as
pink sheet; and
(f) That there were widespread instances where the words and figures of
votes cast in the elections and as recorded on the pink sheets did not
match.
The petitioners added a Ground 2 (a) as follows: That there were 28
locations where elections took place which were not part of the twenty-six
thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by the 2nd Respondent
for purposes of the December 2012 elections. (emphasis in the original)
Ground 3 of the petition was: That the statutory violations and irregularities
and/or malpractices described under Grounds 1, 2 and 2a herein, which
are apparent on face of the Declaration forms (pink sheets), had the direct
effect of introducing into the aggregate of valid votes recorded in the polling
stations across the country, a whopping figure four million six hundred
and seventy thousand five hundred and four (4,670,504) unlawful and
irregular votes which vitiated the validity of the votes cast and had a
material and substantial effect on the outcome of the
election. (emphases in the original).
54

Thus stated, the Grounds of the petition show that it was centrally based on
alleged irregularities, namely, duplicate pink sheets, over voting, voting
without biometric verification, pink sheets lacking signatures by presiding
officers or their assistants and that voting took place at unknown polling
stations, that was outside the 26002 created by the Electoral
Commissioner.
The petitioners initially included in their case allegations that votes had
been unlawfully varied such that votes for the first respondent were
increased whereas those for the first petitioner were decreased. The
petitioners also claimed initially that the STL Company acted in cohort with
the first respondent to increase his votes, and to reduce those for the first
petitioner. Both claims were subsequently withdrawn by the petitioners on
grounds of lacking adequate evidence. In the result, I shall consider them
no further in evaluating the case of the petitioners.
THE RESPONDENTS CASE
The respondents denied all the petitioners averments.
The respondents did not deny the fact that serial numbers had been
repeated on some pink sheets. However, they vehemently disagreed with
the petitioners on the effect of the various repetitions. This was based on a
supposed crucial difference between pink sheets and polling station codes
and numbers the latter are security features whereas pink sheets are not
generated by the 2nd respondent but by printers and thereafter randomly
assigned to polling stations. In the result, according to the respondents, the
lack of distinctive serial numbers on pink sheets did not occasion any
irregularity in the presidential elections.
The petitioners claim of over voting was also denied by the respondents.
The respondents stated that no evidence was shown, proving any incident
of multiple voting at any polling station and that no one had voted when he
was not entitled to vote. Indeed, the petitioners themselves, under crossexamination, recanted parts of this claim here by removing certain polling
55

stations from the list of polling stations where they alleged over voting
occurred. Further, the petitioners polling station agents were not only
present at the polling stations but had participated in counting and
declaring the votes there and signed the declaration of results, all without
raising any protests of over voting.
As regards the claim of some persons voting without prior biometric
verification, the respondents contended that some faulty equipment which
prevented biometric verification were repaired and this allowed biometric
verifications of all persons before voting. Further, the second respondent
claimed that some presiding officers erroneously made entries in column
C3 on pink sheets contrary to instructions on completing the pink sheets.
Concerning the claim of the lack of presiding officers signatures on pink
sheets, the respondents case was that given that the Constitution did not
specify the result of that failure, it was unconstitutional to rely on this
ground to invalidate votes on those pink sheets. In any case, this lapse
could be remedied through compelling the concerned presiding officers by
way of an order of mandamus to undertake their official duties. For the third
respondent, it was argued that qualified voters having stood in queues to
cast their votes, quashing their votes solely on grounds of this lapse by
election officials, which lapse the voters had no control over, entailed
imposing a retroactive penalty on the voters in breach of the constitutional
prohibition. That was also for no wrong done by the innocent voters; in fact
it would amount to visiting the punishment of presiding officers on the
voters.
Finally, the respondents also denied the petitioners claim of unknown
polling stations. Here, they rightly pointed to the petitioners changing
reckoning of the number of these unknown polling stations, beginning with
a number of 28, changed to 26 and eventually given as 22. Although the
petitioners claimed these polling stations were unknown, they dispatched
polling agents there to witness voting there on the strength of appointment
letters signed by no person other than the first petitioner himself.
56


ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT
The Court ordered the parties to agree on the issues for trial. However, the
parties were unable to agree on the issues following which issues were
settled by the Court for the resolution of the petition thus:
1. Whether or not there are statutory violations in the nature of omissions,
irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the Presidential Elections
held on the 7th and 8th December 2012.
2. Whether or not the said statutory violations, if any, affected the results of
the elections.
Upon distilling the case of the petitioners and that of the respondents in
answer, the issues I shall seek to address in resolving the above issues
and ultimately evaluate the reliefs sought by the petitioners are as follows:
a. Whether the petitioners have proved the claim that voting occurred at
unknown polling stations;
b. Whether the petitioners established the allegation of unsigned pinked
sheets by presiding officers or their assistants;
c. Whether the petitioners established the allegation of duplicate serial
numbers and polling station codes;
d. Whether the petitioners proved the claim of over-voting;
e. Whether the petitioners proved the allegation of voting without the
required biometric verification;

BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS
These are governed by statute and are provided in the Evidence Act, 1975,
(NRCD323).
57

From the Evidence Act (supra), the burden of proof comprises the burden
of persuasion and the burden of producing evidence.
Section 10 of the Act defines the burden of persuasion thus:
10. Burden of persuasion defined
1. For the purposes of this decree, the burden of persuasion means the
obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning
a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court.
2. The burden of persuasion may require a party
a. to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or nonexistence of a fact, or
b. to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a
preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable
doubt.
In civil cases such as the instant petition, the burden of producing evidence
is covered by Section 11 (1) and (4) of the Act which state that:
11. Burden of producing evidence defined
(1) For the purpose of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence
means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a
ruling against him on the issue.
(4) In other circumstances, the burden of producing evidence requires a
party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a
reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of a fact was more
probable than its non-existence.
The standard of proof to be satisfied by a party is by a preponderance of
probabilities save where a contrary requirement is created by law. This is
by virtue of Section 12 (1) of the Act which is in these terms:
12. Proof by a preponderance of the probabilities
58

(1) Except, as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion

requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.
This standard is defined under Section 12 (2) thus:
(2) Preponderance of the probabilities means that degree of certainty of
belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced
that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.
On whom does the burden of persuasion rest?
This is based on Section 14 of the Act which provides that:
14. ALLOCATION OF BURDEN OF PERSUASION
Except as provided by law, unless it is shifted a party has the burden of
persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is
essential to the claim or defense that party is asserting.

The allocation of the burden of producing evidence on the other hand is
governed by Section 17 which is in these terms:
17. ALLOCATION OF BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE
Except as otherwise provided by law,
(a) the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party
against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of
further proof;
(b) the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the
party with the burden of persuasion as to that fact.

THE PRESUMPTION OF PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY
Rebuttable presumptions are described under Section 20 of the Evidence
Act (supra) as:
59

20. Effect of rebuttable presumption

A rebuttable presumption imposes upon the party against whom it operates
the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion as to the
non-existence of the presumed fact.
It results from certain facts and operates to establish a prima facie case.
Unlike conclusive presumptions, it may be rebutted by the introduction of
contrary evidence.
To start with, the law is settled that official duty is presumed to have been
regularly performed; see section 37 (1) of the Act.
It reads:
37. Official duty regularly performed
1.It is presumed that an official duty has been regularly performed.
As stated already, a rebuttable presumption means evidence can be led to
show that what is purported to obtain is not really so. In other words a party
can lead evidence to show that some official duties were not regularly
performed. In that situation the onus of proof lies on the person seeking to
rely on the rebuttable presumption, such as the petitioners in this case, to
prove the contrary assertion as a fact. I shall presently revisit this issue.
The second respondent submitted in its address to this Court that:
The Representation of the People Law, PNDC 284, as amended by the
Representation of the People (Amendment Law), 1992, to apply to any
public elections in its Section 20 (2) (b) provides as follows:
Where at the hearing of an election petition the High Court finds that there
has been failure to comply with a provision of this Act or of the Regulations,
and the High Court further finds:
i. That the election was conducted in accordance with this Act and
Regulations, and
60

ii. That the failure did not affect the results of the election,
the election of the successful candidate shall not, because of the failure be
void and the successful candidate shall not be subject to an incapacity
under this Act or the Regulations.
In the view of the second respondent, the effect of this provision is that it
requires that it is not enough to allege and indicate a failure, but that it must
also be demonstrated that the failure affected the results of the election.
I have no doubt about the truthfulness of this submission as that was the
very issue we set down for determination by this court in these
proceedings. However, it was obvious the law quoted applied to
Parliamentary elections, but not to presidential elections. It may apply to all
public elections which comprise both types of elections.

It is needless to repeat that this is an election petition which was a civil suit
and therefore partook of all the incidents known to it; flowing from these
provisions (quoted supra) and backed by the well known principles
governing civil procedure and practice in civil trials like the present case
before this court, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove the facts
alleged against the respondents. This is because the law is well settled
that:
the burden of proof in election petition lies on the petitioner; and a
petitioner who sought to annul an election bears the legal burden of proof
throughout the proceedings. In other words, he who asserts is required to
prove such facts by adducing credible evidence in support and if he fails to
do so his case must fail; on these general principles of burden of proof,
see Yorkwa v Duah [1992-93] GBR 280, CA; Buhari v INEC (2008)12 SC
1; Ackah v Pergah Transport Ltd. [2010] SCGLR 728;
GIHOC
Refrigeration v Jean Hanna Assi [2005-2006] SCGLR 198; Dr. Kwame
Appiah Poku & ors v Kojo Nsafuah Poku ors. [2001-2002] SCGLR 162;
In Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris [2005-2006] 882, I said concerning
these provisions at page 896 of the report that: A great deal of the
61

submissions made on behalf of the second defendant in support of the

grounds of appeal centered on the burden of proof, or the onus probandi,
by which it is the duty of the party who asserts the affirmative to prove the
point in issue. This was expressed in classical terms ei incumbit probatio
qui dicit , non qui negat. As it was the plaintiff who made a claim and
asserted the positive, he had to adduce evidence sufficient to establish a
prima facie case a required by section 14 of the Evidence Decree, 1975,
because in law a fact is essential to a claim, the party who asserts the
claim has the burden to persuade the court of the existence of that fact.
The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the probabilities: see
section 12 (1) of the Decree. Section 17(1) states that the burden of
producing any particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that
issue would be required in the absence of further proof.
The standard of proof in especially election petitions, a species of a civil
case, is on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of probabilities.
I return to the issue on the presumption of regularity of the performance of
official acts and state that in election matters there is a presumption that
the results declared by the Electoral Commission, are correct until the
contrary is proved. This is on account of Section 37 (1) of the Evidence Act,
1975 (NRCD323) which provides that:
It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed.
This is rendered with some classical flourishes or latinism as Omnia
praesumuntur rite et solemnite esse acta all things are presumed to be
done in proper and regular form; the principle applies to the performance of
public functions, no less presidential elections like where the Electoral
Commission created by the Constitution and vested with the power to
conduct all public elections and referenda in Ghana. They are public
functions when it declares results of such elections such declarations are
presumed to be correct. Our law goes on to stipulate that such
presumptions are rebuttable. Therefore anyone who asserts the results so

62

declared are incorrect or are invalid, bears the onus of proving that
assertion. He places himself under section 20 of the Evidence Act (supra).
The inference is that the petitioners were required by law to allege sufficient
facts to support their claims; secondly, when that is done, the court will
have to consider how it was satisfied that the petitioners adduced sufficient
evidence to support the facts. This is because they would have succeeded
in discharging the evidentiary burden on them.
If the petitioners are able to establish the facts they rely on to ask for their
reliefs, the onus will then shift to the respondents to demonstrate the nonexistence of that fact. This was because the court bases its decision on all
the evidence before it; the petitioner and the respondent alike have a
burden to discharge so as to be entitled to a claim or a defence put up.
The respondents submitted the petitioners failed to discharge the
evidentiary burden that lay on them, for they pleaded they had filed about
11,916 pink sheets in support of their case, yet in their oral evidence in
court, they kept reducing the figure till they ended up saying they produced
11, 138, a far less figure at that. Even there they said they were no longer
relying on 704 pink sheets. The respondents submitted on account of this,
the petitioners failed to discharge the onus of proof or the evidentiary
burden on them and so should lose the action.
I am not in the least impressed by that submission. A party may plead a
higher figure for a claim but may reduce it or even further reduce it in the
course of proceedings; it will be unreasonable to say because of these
reductions in initial figures he should lose the entire action. Rather I incline
to the view that the party will be judged on the quality of evidence he
produced on the figures he finally quoted. I also believe in matters of this
nature it is not the number of pink sheets that will tilt the scales one way or
the other, but rather the weight to give to each. What benefit will one
derive if one should produce tons of pink sheets but found to be of little
weight when put in the imaginary pair of judicial scales? The number of
pink sheets produced, just like witnesses called at a trial, will be weighed
63

but not counted. If a party put up a case and supported it with a certain
number, but no longer relied on them or only on some part, or a lesser
part, that per se, did not or should not spell the doom of the entire case. A
trial court would be within its rights to consider its judgment on the residue.

In their affidavit filed, the petitioners complained of breach of Regulation 30
(1) and (2) of C.I. 75, in respect of which they provided particulars pursuant
to orders of further particulars and following memorandum of issues and
mode of trial as follows:
52. That there were 379 polling stations where exclusive instances of
voting without prior biometric verification occurred and can be found on
pink sheets. The combined effect of this infraction vitiated 134,289 votes.
Attached herewith and marked Exhibits MB-L-1 to MB-L-378 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where there these
infractions occurred.
The duty of the court was to determine how the evidence supported the
facts alleged. The court will subject the evidence before it to a microscopic
analysis to determine its probative value. Before then, I must observe that
the petitioners no longer relied on some of the allegations they made such
as:
i.

that votes for the first respondent from some polling stations were
illegally padded in his favor, whilst some for the first petitioner were
reduced all geared towards securing a favorable verdict for the first
respondent;

ii.

allegations of fraud and conspiracy leveled against the first

respondent and others were abandoned for lack of sufficient
evidence in support thereof;

iii.

allegations of clandestine activities by the STL Company to receive,

doctor and manipulate results before transmitting them to the second
64

respondent to declare results were also abandoned for the same

reason above;
iv.

some allegations of over-voting at some polling stations were

abandoned for lack of sufficient evidence in support;

v.

no evidence was led on ballot-stuffing by anybody during the voting;

vi.

there was no allegation made that somebody who wanted to vote

was prevented from doing so, or that

vii.

that a voter whose name was not on the register nevertheless

attempted to vote.

I note that the respondents denied each and every averment of the
petitioners in the petition. This imposed on the petitioners the duty of
proving every single allegation they made in order to obtain a favorable
finding thereof by this Court.
I will next proceed to discuss seriatim the various categories of irregularities
raised by petitioners in this case.

CATEGORIES OF IRREGULARITIES
A.UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
The petitioners claim here concerns the 22 so-called unknown polling
stations. This was a reduction of the petitioners initial allegation of 28
unknown polling stations.
The 2nd respondent showed that the flag bearer of the political party to
which the petitioners belong, who is also the 1st petitioner herein, himself
signed letters appointing polling agents to these same polling stations. It is
65

difficult to fathom how in light of this the petitioners could maintain a claim
that these polling stations were unknown.
I find the petitioners case in this respect not satisfactory. There was
evidence that following the aforesaid appointment letters, the petitioners
sent their agents to the polling stations, voting took place there, the votes
were counted and results declared, and finally the agents signed the result
forms. In the face of these overwhelming evidence, no one will doubt that
the allegation of voting taking place at stations outside the 26,002 polling
stations created by the second respondent was ill founded and remained
unproven at the end of the trial.
For these reasons, I also like my respected brethren, dismiss that part of
the petitioners claim against the 2012 presidential elections founded on
that ground.

B.

PINK SHEETS NOT SIGNED BY PRESIDING OFFICERS OR

THEIR ASSISTANTS

The petitioners alleged there were widespread instances of polling stations

where there were no signatures by the presiding officers or their assistants
on the pink sheets in clear violations of Article 49(3) of the Constitution and
Regulation 36(2) of CI 75. These are contained in Paragraphs 33, 47 and
58 of the affidavit by Dr. Bawumia. He deposed that (quoted in extenso
below):
33. That I am advised and verily believe same to be true that by virtue of
Article 49 of the Constitution, especially clause (3) thereof, and also
Regulation 36 (2) of C.I.75, the Presiding Officer has a mandatory
constitutional and statutory duty to sign the declaratory form at the polling
station before he can lawfully declare the results at the polls at that polling
station.

66

47. That there were 66 polling stations where instances of constitutional

and statutory violations malpractices and irregularities in the nature of (I)
over voting, (ii) voting without biometric verification; (iii) the same serial
numbers on pink sheets with different results and (iv) the absence of
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets
occurred and can be found on the pink sheet , the combined effect of these
infractions completely vitiated the 32,469 votes cast in these polling
stations. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits MB-F, ,B-F-1 TO MB-F-65
are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.
58. That there were 310 polling stations here exclusive instances of
constitutional and violations in the nature of absence of signatures of
polling presiding officers and their assistants on the pink sheets occurred
and can be found on the pink sheets. The combined effect of these
infractions vitiated 112,754 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit
MB-S to MBS-1 to MB-S-309 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling
sheets where the infractions occurred.
The constitutional provision relied on in connection herewith is Article 49,
which provided that:
(1) At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret
ballot.
(2) Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall, in
the presence of the candidates or their representatives and their polling
agents as are present, proceed to count, at that polling station, the ballot
papers at that polling station, the ballot papers of that polling station and
record the votes cast in favor of each candidate or question.
(3) The presiding officer, the candidates or their representative and, in
the case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the
polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating
(a) the polling station, and
67

(b) the number of votes cast in favor of each candidate or

question,
and the presiding officer shall, there and then announce the results of the
voting at that polling station before communicating them to the returning
officer.
Another relevant statutory provision is Regulation 36 (2) of the Public
Elections Regulations 2012, C.I. 15 which read:
(2) The Presiding officer, the candidates, or their representatives and the
counting agents shall then sign a declaration stating
a. the name of the polling station;
b. The total number of persons entitled to vote at that polling station;
c. The number of votes cast in favor of each candidate; and
The words of Article 49 (3) and Regulation 36 (2) of C.I.75 are the same. In
fact the constitutional provision was lifted word for word in C.I.75. They are
in pari materia one with the other.
I would say of these provisions that they are some of the safeguards of the
right to vote; the signature by the persons named in the statutes
authenticates the document and its contents and by the rules of
interpretation are to be read as enforcing each other.
It may be recalled that the Director of Finance and Administration of the
Electoral Commission, Mr. Amadu Sulley, swore an affidavit to challenge
the claim by the petitioners that some pink sheets were not signed. The
second respondent commission in these proceedings said 1,009 pink
sheets were signed by the Presiding officers at the polling station or at the
instance of the Returning officer at the collation center; but 905 pink sheets
were found to have been left unsigned. Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan said in his
evidence in chief that it is only the presiding officers and the candidates
agents who can sign the pink sheets lawfully. The petitioners submitted
68

there were more than 905 unsigned pink sheets. Dr. Afari Gyan conceded
these facts, and that they were more than that. In fact in his address,
counsel for the petitioners said he was relying on 1638 unsigned pink
sheets, involving 65,9814 votes.
It is not difficult to interpret the meaning of these provisions. They mean
that the persons named therein, namely the presiding officer, the
candidates or their representatives and the counting agents, shall sign the
declaration form stating the particularized items. There was no mention
made of polling assistants in the two provisions let alone requiring them to
sign the declaration form. If therefore they did not sign the forms they
committed no irregularity; none could therefore use that failure to found or
support a case of irregularity or violation of any law. But the presiding
officer was not relieved from the duty to sign the declaration forms; it was a
mandatory duty cast on them by the constitutional and statutory provisions
governing elections in the country; the legitimate inference is that failure by
the presiding officer to sign the declaration form is an irregularity which
cannot be excused or waived on the grounds that the pressure of time,
prevailing atmospheric condition, etc, etc, did not simply allow or permit
them to sign the forms and thereby comply with the constitutional duty.
The duty cast on the presiding officers to sign the declaration was couched
in mandatory terms and deserves obedience and not meant to be
disobeyed. An election much more so, Presidential Elections, are serious
matters governed by well laid rules to preserve sanctity and integrity of the
elections, especially where a specific duty is imposed on election officials. A
breach of any of those duties meant the integrity of the election was
compromised and ultimately affected the exercise of the right to vote as
well as jeopardizing the sovereign will of the people.
Because of this, I am unable to accept the alibi put up by the respondents,
like pressure of work, nature of carbon paper making the signatures look
faint through over use, and pressing the pen too often, too hard.
In paragraph 47 of the affidavit, the petitioners deposed that:
69

47. There were 66 polling stations where violations of constitutional and

statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the nature of (i) over
voting,( ii) voting without biometric verification, (iii) same serial numbers on
pink sheets with different results and( iv) absence of signatures of the
presiding officers and their assistants occurred and can be found on the
same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions completely
vitiated 32,469 votes cast in these polling stations. Attached herewith and
marked as Exhibit MB-F, MB-F-1 to MB-F-65 are photocopies ..
Paragraph 58 of the affidavit of Dr. Bawumia read:
58 That there were 310 polling stations where exclusive instances of
Constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: absence of
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 112,754 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-S to MB-S-1 to MB-S 309 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions
occurred.
These paragraphs of the affidavit spoke of the same thing, namely the
absence of signatures of the presiding officers on the face of the pink
sheets; paragraph 58 went on to show where these infractions occurred
and also to provide the exhibits affected pink sheet by pink sheet as well as
the number of votes vitiated thereby.
Article 49 (3) of the Constitution read:
(3) The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and, in
the case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the
polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating
a. The polling station, and
b. The number of votes cast in favor of each candidate or question ,

70

and the presiding officer shall there and then announce the results of the
voting at that polling station before communicating them to the returning
officer,

The Regulation referred to also read:
36 (2) The presiding officer, the candidates, or their representatives and
the counting agent shall then sign a declaration stating
a. The name of the polling station;
b. The total number of persons entitled to vote at that polling station;
c. The number of votes cast in favor of each candidate; and
d. The total number of rejected ballots.
I shall return to this ground again in this delivery for the issues involved are
of prime importance in conducting elections in the country. For the
meantime it is sufficient to say that the real meaning of the combined effect
of these constitutional and statutory legal provisions, is that they cast a
mandatory duty on the presiding officer, the candidates or their
representatives are to sign the declaration form before the presiding officer
announces the results at the polling station. Signing a document like a
declaration means the person wrote it or part of it, that he agrees with what
it says, or that it is genuine; see the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary,
p 1366. The authors of the pink sheets, the framers of the constitution and
the legislature really meant to do a serious business when they made the
law and couched it in these mandatory terms. By the use of the word
shall, the legislature intended that the duty to do the act specified and cast
on the presiding officer must be honored in obedience than the letter.
I am fortified in this view because of the interpretation given of the word
in our Interpretation Act, 2009, (Act 792) which provided that:
27 Shall and may

71

In an enactment made after the passing of this Act, shall, shall be

construed as imperative and may as permissive and empowering.
Shall connotes an obligation, or mandatory duty conveying a command
bereft of a discretion: see Blacks Law Dictionary (supra) at page 1407.
The unreported judgments of this court in Suit No. J1/23/2013, Martin
Amidu v Attorney General & 2 ors 2013 unrep. dated 21st June 2013, SC;
(commonly called the Isofoton case.); Writ No. Writ No. J1/15/2013 Martin
Amidu v Attorney-General, Waterville and Woyome (the Woyome case),
S.C. unrep. 14TH June 2013, SC; Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd.
[2005-2006] SCGLR 271 support the proposition that where an enactment
uses the word shall, it means mandatory or imperative.
In consideration of this well known interpretation, when the petitioners
alleged these violations of the constitution and enactments and went on to
provide evidence in support by way of the Exhibit MB-S series, the onus
shifted by law on to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal or to admit
the allegations.

The second respondent deposed to an affidavit in response to this
allegation that when it received the allegation of no signature by the
presiding officer or his assistant on the pink sheet it proceeded to examine
them (pink sheets) and found that out of the 2009 pink sheets alleged by
the petitioners that were not signed, 1099 were in fact signed by the
Presiding Officer at the polling station, or at the instance of the Returning
Officer at the Collation Center, 905 were unsigned representing 3.5% of the
total number of pink sheets nationwide.
When Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission,
who gave evidence for and on behalf the Commission second respondent,
was cross examined on his evidence he said there were instances where
some pink sheets in addition to the 905 admitted not to have been signed,
there more unsigned pink sheet, but which were signed at the collation
center at the instance of the Returning officer. Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia
72

made a similar admission that presiding officers did not sign the pink
sheets as was required of them by the law.
If it was accepted that the law cast a mandatory duty on the presiding
officer to sign the pink sheet, then he could not neglect to perform that act;
excuses like the officer had a lot of work to do that day, and signing the
pink sheet was only one of them, the prevailing weather, the crowd at the
polling station shouting tsoo boi (see the evidence of Asiedu Nketia), could
not be good enough reasons to relive him from discharging his legal duty.
Considering the importance the nation attaches to the exercise of
conducting a national election, sustaining the integrity of the election should
be zealously guarded; this could best be done by the presiding officer in
charge of affairs at the polling station appending his signature to the
declaration to testify that the events on the face of the pink sheet took place
there.
In Presidential elections, a polling station is but a microcosm of the country
at large where the whole country is a one constituency. A presiding officer
at a polling station in a constituency is like a returning officer for the whole
country in Presidential elections where there is only one constituency. If the
presiding officer at a polling station shall fail to sign a declaration form at
the end of a poll what shall it mean? Can the Returning officer in a
Presidential election refuse to sign the declaration form and announce the
results of the election and still hope it will still be accepted as valid? If the
answer is in the negative, then it is to the same effect where a presiding
officer fails to sign the declaration of results portion of a pink sheet at a
polling station and so do I hold.
I hold in my concluding comments on this ground, that the failure to sign
the pink sheet was a monumental irregularity unmitigated by any
circumstances. I am further fortified in this view by the observation that in
establishing the duty for presiding officers to sign pink sheets before
proceeding to declare the results of the polls at the polling station, Article
49 (3) of the Constitution does not merely constitute a mandatory
73

constitutional duty on presiding officers to do so prior to announcing the

election results, but it is also one of the entrenched provisions of the
Constitution. In the face of the full force of this entrenched constitutional
requirement, I am unable to make any exception to save the pink sheets
impugned by the omission of the presiding officers on the basis of the
explanations offered by the respondents. I am emboldened to come to this
conclusion following upon the holding that:the Ghana Supreme Court has
recognized the concept of the spirit of the constitution as a tool of
constitutional interpretationto ensure that Ghana succeeds in her
fourth attempt at democratic and constitutional system of government, both
the government and the people should observe not only the written
provision of the constitution but its spirit as well. See The Law of
Interpretation in Ghana, Exposition and Critique by S.Y.Bimpong-Buta
Chapter 10 p373.

All things considered, I am of the candid opinion that the failure by the
presiding officer to sign the pink sheet before announcing the results
constituted an omission to perform and a breach of his constitutional duty. It
vitiated the votes cast at the polling station, a more monstrous irregularity
no one can imagine.
I may remark that it was as unpardonable as it was inexcusable that
presiding officers should fail to sign declaration portion of pink sheets they
worked with on the polling day from the beginning to the end of polls on
the election day.
Based on the foregoing discussion under this head of irregularities, I find
that all votes cast and declared during the 2012 presidential elections
which involved pink sheets not signed by presiding officers or their
assistants are to be nullified and I so declare.
C. DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS AND POLLING STATION CODES
The petitioners deposed in their grounds for the petition that:

74

40. There were widespread instances where different results were

strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing
the same polling station codes, when by the second respondents
established practice each polling station was assigned a unique code in
order to avoid confusing one polling station with another which could not be
explained by a reference to special voting.
In their affidavit in affidavit filed pursuant to the court directions and
memorandum of issues and mode of trial dated 2nd April 2013, the second
petitioner deposed in paragraph that:
40. That exclusive polling station codes were found in 37 polling
stations in 34 of these stations, representing 91% of this irregularity
together with i) over voting, ii)voting without biometric verification and iii)
same serial number of different pink sheets with different Only in 3
polling stations did the irregularity occur without other violations,
irregularities or malpractices.
It was further deposed on the grounds of the petition that:
59 That there were polling stations where exclusive instances of
irregularities and malpractices of polling stations with some polling station
codes and different results occurred and can be found
The respondents agreed that what differentiates one polling station from
the other is the polling station code. Dr. Afari-Gyang said at page 12 of the
record of proceedings of 31 May 2013, that:
the code is unique; first in the sense that no two polling stations ever have
the same code number or code. It is also unique in the sense that the code
is consciously crafted to contain information that directs you the location of
the polling station. And the system is alpha-numeric, that is to say, it
combines the letters of the alphabets and numbers, and the system is a
letter followed by 6 digits and it may end or may not end with another
letter.

75

a. The petitioners also complained of the use of serial numbers for

different polling stations with different results. They stated this
irregularity affected polling stations and votes. I have
considered the defence to this allegation that there is no
constitutional or any other statutory backing for the serial numbers,
which were not generated by the EC for any purpose except that
they were created by the printers and randomly assigned to the
constituencies and onward to the polling stations. In the absence
of any such constitutional and statutory foundations, their use as
alleged by the petitioners did not amount to any breaches such as
will attract the draconian effect of being used to annul votes
affected thereby.
In the result I hold they could not be used to annul the votes in the polling
stations specified. I rather dismiss the claim based on that ground, just as
my brethren have done.
D. OVER VOTING AT POLLING STATIONS
In paragraph 44 of the affidavit filed by the petitioners (infra), they alleged
over voting took place in over 320 polling stations. I must observe that the
electoral laws of the land, the Constitution itself or any other enactment, did
not define the term. The petitioners pleaded over voting as an irregularity in
the conduct of the elections and said it tainted the results and invited the
court to so find and annul the votes thereby affected. Over voting was
pleaded as either standing alone or being exclusive of any other
irregularity, or violation etc, etc (see paragraph 44 of the affidavit by Dr
Bawumia) where he deposed that:
44. That there were 320 polling stations where exclusive instances of the
constitutional and statutory violations of over voting occurred and can be
found on the same pink sheets. These completely vitiated all the 130,136
votes cast in those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as
Exhibit MB-C, MBC 1 to MB-C-319, are photocopies of the pink sheets of
the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
76

It was the petitioners speaking through the second petitioner their

spokesman, who gave evidence on their behalf and said in his evidence
that:
First, over voting would arise if the total votes in the ballot box as recorded
on the face of the pink sheet exceeds the voters register at the polling
station as recorded on the face of the pink sheet. Secondly, over voting
would arise if the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the face of the
pink sheet exceed the total ballots issued to voters as recorded in Section
C1 and C2 including proxy voters. So the total votes in the ballot box, if
they exceed the number of voters you have given ballots to, to vote, then
there is over voting. (See a copy of a pink sheet quoted below for ease of
reference.)
Giving evidence on behalf of the first and third defendants, Mr. Johnson
Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress,
said:
We have come to know over voting to mean an occurrence where the
number of votes found in the ballot box exceed the number of people who
are entitled to vote at that polling station.
Continuing his evidence under cross-examination the following took place:
Q. In your evidence you gave a definition of over-voting which excludes a
situation where if there are 100 ballots issued and it turns out that there are
110 ballots in the ballot box, you exclude that as over-voting. Am I right?
Ans. Yes you are right.
Q In such a situation what will you term it?
Ans. When such a situation arises, my lord it is an indication that some
unidentified material is in the box and there is a procedure of locating that
unidentified material during sorting and it is removed and the other valid
votes are counted.

77

The Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan also

said concerning over voting that:
I think I am not too clear in my own mind what the connotation of over
voting is so at this time I think it is subject to further clarification. Oh yes
my lords the classical definition of over votes is where the ballot cast
exceeded the number of persons eligible to vote at the polling station or if
you like, the number of persons on the polling stations register, that is the
classical definition of over voting. Two new definitions have been
introduced there is nothing wrong with that but I have problems with this
new definition proposed and the problem is that they limit themselves
visibly to what is on the face of the pink sheet as I understand the
definition.

A careful reading of the evidence by Mr. Asiedu Nketia and Dr. Afari Gyan
revealed a marked difference between their definitions and that provided by
Dr. Bawumiah. It was that unlike theirs, the petitioners talked about the
number of ballots issued to voters. Another real difference inherent in the
definition by Dr Bawumia which did not seem to find favor with Dr Afari
Gyan was that it limited itself to what was on the face of the pink sheet.
That compelled me to take a close look at the face of the pink sheet, which
is otherwise called by its full name and title of what has been called a pink
sheet in these proceedings, a word which has gained a wide usage or
currency and enriched our vocabulary, is Electoral Commission of Ghana.
Statement of Poll and Declaration of results for the office of President.(see
the heading of a typical pink sheet, quoted in full infra.) A study of an
anatomy of the face of a pink sheet shows it contains a great lot of
information including the following (I am not ashamed to be pedantic
enough to provide a panoramic view of a pink sheet hereunder, if to do so
will provide relevant information so as to drive home the opinion I am about
to make of the definition of over voting, or some of the grounds of the
petition).
A. Ballot information on (to be filled in at start of poll).
78

1 What is the number of Ballots issued to this polling station?

A1 [

2 What is the range of serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the
polling station? A2 [
[
B. Information at the Register and other lists at the polling station? B1 [

1 What is the number of voters on the polling station register? B2 [

2 What is the number of voters on the proxy voters list? B3 [

]
]

3 What is the TOTAL voters eligible to vote at this polling station? (B1 plus
B2) B3 [ ].
C. Ballot Accounting (to be filled in at end of poll before counting
commences).
1 What is the number of ballots issued to voters on the polling station
register? C1 [ ]
2 What is the number of ballots issued to voters on the Proxy Voters list?
C2 [ ]
3 What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of
Form 1C but not by the use of BVD? C3 [ ]
4 What is the TOTAL number of SPOILT ballots? C4

[ ]

5 What is the Total number of UNUSED Ballots? C5. [ ]

6 What is the TOTAL number of C1, plusC2, plus C3, plus C4, plus C5
(This number should be equal to A1 above) C6 [ ].
D is on Rejected ballots report to be filled in at the end of poll after counting
is complete.
The point I am striving to make is that the pink sheet is a very vital
document to consider when determining several issues in this matter like
the issue as to whether or not there was over voting at a polling station; it
contains a summary of information on what exactly took place during the
79

voting and the number of ballots issued for the day, what use they were put
to and the results of voting at the end of the poll. Apart from the pink sheets
there is no other comprehensive record of how the polls were conducted at
the polling stations and the counting of the ballots. These vital pieces of
information are found on the face of the pink sheet. The pink sheet contains
information on the number of people registered to vote at the particular
polling station; the respondents did not show by any evidence how a
register shows more information on ballots, let alone the events at a
particular polling station.
It is for all these reasons that I prefer the definition of over voting, as
given by Dr. Bawumia to what the respondents gave. Undoubtedly, I accept
that in the web of electoral laws, over voting is where the number of ballots
in the ballot box after a poll exceed the number of ballots issued before a
poll. These are discernible from the face of the pink sheet, an electoral
document which I agree with Dr. Bawumia, is the primary document for the
2012 Presidential elections. Of course, other documents like the register for
a polling station, collation forms, etc, etc may come in handy.
The register may contain names of people registered to vote at the polling
station, but on the election date for one reason or the other, not all of them
may turn out to vote. It is not always that all may do as empirical studies
show that a 100% voter turnout is a rare occurrence in our municipality
nowadays. This is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken.
On the other hand a criterion like ballots issued, is a certainty for the
ballots will be issued to voters present a sure ascertainable number. It
was for these reasons that I prefer the definition by Dr. Bawumia to any
other put before me in these proceedings.
Dr Afari Gyan did not supply the source of his so called classical definition,
of over voting and his self confessed confusion and lack of clarity in mind
made it extremely impossible to accept his definition. Indeed, I reject it just
as I do of the definition by Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketia. Both definitions were
short, simple but very wrong. There was nothing classical about it. Both
80

should have referred to the ballots issued before the voting began, if they
desired to make their definitions credible.
When I considered the definition of over voting by the respondents I found
that they were mere distinctions without any difference, for both ended up
referring to the register something Dr Bawumia did earlier in his definition; I
still wonder why the respondents did not readily agree with him but tried to
create the impression they were bringing something new to assist the court
determine whether there was any over voting or not in the elections. They
failed abysmally and left Dr. Bawumias definition intact.
Almost everything about voting is premised on the right to vote, and it is
gratifying to note that the petitioners referred to article 42 of the constitution
and Regulation 24 (1) of CI 75 as the constitutional and statutory violations
which had a close link with over voting. I respectfully quote them in extenso
hereunder for their full import and effect:
42. The Right to Vote.
Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound
mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the
purposes of public elections and referenda.
Regulation 24 (1) is as follows:
The poll
Number of votes and place of voting
24 (1) A voter shall not cast more than one vote when a poll is taken.
The two enactments are to be read together because, the right to vote is
the pivot around which political rights revolve; it is the heart beat and
crescendo of democracy. The real meaning of these legal provisions above
is that where a citizen decides to go to the poll to exercise his/her
undoubted right to vote, he casts his vote only but once. Anything more
than that is unlawful and if found out attracts the penalty of having that
81

extra vote declared null and void. Before proceeding further, I must state
that the right to vote under our constitution, is governed by qualifications,
some of which are that the person must be:
i. a Ghanaian citizen;
ii. of eighteen(18) years of age or above;
(iii)
(iv).

of sound mind; and

be or is entitled to be registered as a voter

Thus in the Ghanaian law, the right to vote is not automatic. It is hemmed in
by qualifications as to citizenship, age, soundness of mind and the fact of
registration.
The pith of the ground of over voting is the right to vote set out above. If
Article 42 (supra) created the right, Regulation 24 (1) (supra) showed how
to exercise it; the Preamble to the Constitution laid the roots and foundation
as it pointed to the principles of Universal Adult Suffrage and The Rule of
Law.
There is no paucity of case law on the topic and the local cases of TehnAddy v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 589, and Ahuma-Ocansey
v Electoral Commission and others; Centre for Human Rights & Civil
Liberties (CHURCIL) [2010] SCGLR 575, expatiated on the principles
which cumulatively said that where the right to vote has been conferred on
the citizen of Ghana by the 1992 Constitution, whatever is provided for by
law to enjoy the right, should aim at complementing to the full, promote,
enforce, facilitate and encourage that right to vote. Anything done by any
person or authority to fetter that right is inconsistent with the constitution
will attract the sanction of being declared unconstitutional, null and void, to
the extent of the inconsistency; see Article 2 (1) of the constitution. In
election matters, it is to be annulled.

82

I like to clinch the deal by taking a leaf from the ruling by the US Supreme
Court, in the recent case of George Bush v Al Gore 531 US 98,where it was
,held at page 148 that:
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the
franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise.
Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by
a later arbitrary and desperate treatment, value one persons vote over that
of another.
This case underscores the principle that one persons vote is not more
important than that of another and therefore a person cannot be made to
win elections where the results are flawed by over voting, the implication
being that a citizens vote has been preferred or upgraded over the vote of
another.
The right to vote, I must remark, did not come as a matter of course or
given on a silver platter. It came as a result from the struggles, sweat, blood
and toil of others till we in Ghana became the benefactors thereof. A
reading of the Tehn-Addy (supra), Ahumah-Ocansey (supra) and Apaloo v
Electoral Commission [2001-2002] SCGLR 1 cases, to name only these
few ones, throw much light on the point I am seeking to make.
The legal provisions quoted above provided the basis for the allegation of
constitutional and statutory breaches or violations spoken of by the
petitioners. The true import of these statutes is that where they confer
powers on any person, it must be exercised in terms of the enabling
statute: see Apaloo v Electoral Commission [2001-2002] SCGLR 1 at 14,
and more recently, Nii Tetteh Opremreh v Electoral Commission [2011]
SCGLR1159. The upshot of this is that where there is proof of over voting
at any polling station, it will attract the full effect of declaring the results of
that polling station null and void in which case the results will be annulled.
Therefore over voting cannot be trifled with in any election much less a
Presidential election and so if the petitioners were to make out a case of
over voting they are required by law to furnish this court with all the pink
83

sheets in the MB-C series and to also demonstrate that on the face of the
pink sheets there was a real case of over voting.

If I may respectfully revisit the issue of proof in law, I may remark that the
law was settled that where a party makes an averment which was capable
of proof the positive way, but the averment was denied by his adversary, he
succeeds in his proving his case by producing the proof in court by
evidence; in this case by producing the evidence in the pink sheets in court.
A bare allegation bereft by any probative evidence does not and cannot
amount to proof of that allegation: See Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa & other
v The Attorney General and another .; Dogo Dagarti v The State [1964]
GLR 653, and the oft -cited case of Majolagbe v Larbi [1959 GLR] 199.
As said already, the petitioners mentioned that the exhibits supporting the
allegations of over voting was in 320 polling stations exhibited by the MBC-1 to MB-C-319 series. However, in his evidence the witness said that
some of them had been deleted and were no longer relied upon. In other
words, they were no longer part of the case supporting the allegation of
over-voting.
they made up a total of 83), 57 in the over voting category, 1 each in the
over voting and no signature of presiding officer category, over voting,
voting without biometric verification and no signature of presiding officer
category]. The names of the Region, constituency, polling station, code,
serial number and exhibit number as well as the category were given. The
evidence which the petitioners put before the court must carry a great deal
of weight; their probative value must be borne by the contents discernible
on the face of the pink sheet, bearing in mind that you and I were not at the
polling station, to borrow the words of Dr. Bawumia. Evidence on the
deleted pink sheets in the over-voting and the various categories was given
in Exhibit C, C1-C11; C3. Exhibit C4 was showed the polling stations
deleted from the over voting category.

84

In the result, all pink sheets deleted from the exhibits relied on as proving
over voting will not be considered in so far as that irregularity is concerned.
I must state that notwithstanding this, all other exhibits that were not
deleted are relied upon and will be considered, just as those that were
admitted no longer supported allegations of over-voting.
I also find it from the evidence under cross-examination by the second
petitioner given on 24th April 2013 that the petitioners admitted that on the
face of the pink sheets, (eight of them), some polling stations were found to
have been wrongly described as over voting in the Exhibit MB-C category.
When the petitioners conducted a quality control exercise over the exhibits,
they ended up no longer relying on 704 pink sheets.
In addition to this, when the evidence of the respondent was studied
carefully, it tended to show that under cross-examination, that
i.

Dr. Bawumia admitted some pink sheets did not support a case of
over voting at some polling stations;

ii.

others were simply cases of arithmetical errors. In my assessment of

the defence by the respondents, I am able to conclude that there
was no evidence that any voter voted more than once at any
polling station; in fact that was not the case by the petitioners;

iii.

no person voted who was not entitled to vote; that was also not part
of the case by the petitioners;

iv.

agents who were deployed to the polling stations signed the

declaration of results forms after the votes had been counted in
full public view after the voting, but,

v.

none of them ever lodged a complaint against the declaration of

results;

vi.

Notwithstanding these admissions, the petitioners succeeded in

proving on the preponderance of probabilities that there was over85

voting in some polling station results and I so find as a fact. That

would also support a finding that the irregularity affected the
results of the polling station. The evidence would tend to show
that the number of polling stations mentioned in paragraph 44 of
the affidavit as being 320 for the over voting category, was
reduced by 57.
vii.

The petitioners removed some polling stations as result of what they

termed a quality control and removed 83 of them from the over
voting category; they were listed in evidence in exhibit C, C1 and
C2. The total number of votes affected in the exercise was 33,
972.

viii. The petitioners relied on 1722 polling stations as presented in Table

10 of Volume 2B; the number of votes affected was 745,569.
CREDIBILITY OF SECOND PETITIONER AS A WITNESS
Counsel for the third respondent cast a serious aspersion on the credibility
of the second petitioner, on the grounds that his own evidence was that he
was not at the polling station when the irregularities took place and for that
reason could not be a witness to the events he testified about in court.
Well could that be true but, as stated Dr. Bawumia left no doubt that he
was not at any polling station to observe proceedings and the evidence he
gave did not stem from personal observation, ocular or any such other
personal perception. That being so, the respondents submitted he could
not be a witness properly so called. The reason was that he was a witness
who satisfied the requirement in section 60 of our Evidence Act, 1975, that:
60. (1) A witness may not testify to a matter unless sufficient evidence is
introduced to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of
the matter.
(2) Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not consist of the
testimony of witness himself.

86

(3). A witness may testify to a matter without proof of personal knowledge if

an objection is not raised by a party.
Thus, under the law of evidence, a witness may testify if he had a personal
knowledge of what he is testifying about. Aside of that a person who does
not have any personal knowledge of what he testified about because he
was not at the scene or shown that he has some extra-sensory power of
perception, may still be a witness if his adversary did not raise any
objection to his giving evidence on the matter.
Section 6 of the Evidence Act (supra) was that:
6 (1) In every action, and at every stage thereof, any objection to the
admissibility of evidence by a party affected thereby shall be made at the
time the evidence is offered.
2. Every objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be recorded and
ruled upon by the court as a matter of course.
Despite the confession by Dr. Bawumia summed up pithily in his refrain
you and I were not there he could still testify about the matters he testified
about because no objection was raised by the respondents. That he was
truthful in saying so was not far to rationalize, for how, he bereft as he was
of any power of omnipresence, or ubiquity, could be at the over 26,000
polling stations parri passu, or at all, could be doubted. He could only rely
on what was on the face of the pink sheet and still qualify as a witness,
especially when counsel did not raise any objection against his giving
evidence when he did so, the court will be perfectly entitled to use the
evidence led.
I will base my findings on the admissibility of Dr. Bawumias oral evidence
on the pink sheets on another separate point. Even though a witness may
not testify in respect of a matter outside his personal knowledge, this bar
does not apply to official or public records.
On this, Section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides that:
87

126 OFFICIAL RECORDS

1. Evidence of a hearsay statement contained in writing made as a
record of an act, event or condition is not made inadmissible by
section 117 if
a. the writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public
officer;
b. the writing was made at or near the time the act or event occurred
or the condition existed; and
c. the sources of information and method and time of preparation
indicate that the statement contained in the writing is reasonably
trustworthy.
In application of this exception to the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the
evidence concerning the pink sheets are admissible since they are
duplicates of the original pink sheets, which are the official primary records
of the election. The pink sheets being duplicates, they are as good as the
originals, unless their authenticity is successfully challenged.
There being no such challenge, the fact that Dr. Bawumia was not present
at any of the polling stations from whose results were captured on the pink
sheets, does not detract from the admissibility of his testimony in respect of
the pink sheets. To put it bluntly, as I saw and heard Dr. Bawumia as he
gave his evidence on oath in the witness box my impression about him was
that he was a witness of truth. He frankly admitted salient facts and
answered questions put to him freely and unhesitatingly.
I like to consider another point raised by the respondents which I think
bordered on the credibility of Dr. Bawumia. The first was that he said polling
agents were mere observers at the polling stations. I think he
underestimated the role of polling agents at elections; they were more than
that. Polling agents are appointed and assigned specific functions to
perform at elections under C.I.75. They act under an oath and when they
88

breach their oaths or perform their duties willfully, they suffer penalties for
that; (see Regulation 19 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I.75).
Secondly, the respondents submitted nobody complained at the polling
stations that infractions took place there during the voting and the polling
agents signed the pink sheets to demonstrate their approval at events at
the polling stations. Studying the evidence closely, it was clear nobody
complained against anything at the polling stations, but I do not infer from
that that the petitioners had no basis to complain. As Dr Bawumia said the
polling agents only signed to acknowledge what took place there but not as
to its legality or that everything was done regularly.
Where it is shown that relevant legislation and regulations governing
elections were breached in the course of voting, the fact that polling agents
did or did not complain against the events or signed pink sheets would not
invalidate that which was invalid, or regularize that which was irregular. The
result would be that the evidence on record will be evaluated for its
probative value to be assessed.
It was said in the KPMG report that paragraph 44 of the affidavit of the
second petitioner alleged 320 pink sheets were filed but 318 Exhibits were
counted in the Exhibit MB-C- series: see Appendix A.1: Report Summary of
Pink Sheet Count: see Page 5 of the KPMG Report. Appendix A.2.1
contained the details of data captured for the MB-C Series of exhibits in the
paragraph stated. The summary stated clearly there was a difference of two
pink sheets in support of the allegation of over-voting.
The respondents did not impugn that these were documents in support of
allegations of over voting. In the law of evidence, documentary evidence
prevails over oral evidence: Fosua & Adu-Poku v Adu-Poku Mensah
[2009] SCGLR 310. The reason is not far to see. Documentary evidence if
not challenged, is often the best proof of matters in controversy. In fact it
should prevail over oral evidence.

89

I have read the evidence of the second respondent several times over and
on some occasions, he impressed me as telling the truth; one was when he
readily conceded that working with a large number of personnel who were
trained over a very short period of time, blunders were bound to occur;
blunders did in fact occur which he explained was more of arithmetical
errors than deliberate or out of mischief. But it was on the basis of these
errors that he declared the results. These errors he also labeled excess
votes. So arithmetical errors, trans-positional errors, excess votes and
the result is over-voting. Mr Asiedu Nketia even spoke of unidentified
materials in the box whatever he meant by that. My observation is that in
these proceedings no party had an exclusive monopoly over arithmetical
challenges or any other such challenges.
There was credible evidence that where there was proof that there was
over voting, the Electoral Commission annulled the votes at the particular
polling station. This step by the commission was justified because they
apparently were violations of statutory provisions quoted above in this
opinion. That much was also admitted by the second respondent; he only
sought to mitigate the effect of these errors when he made a half hearted
effort by saying that he was not made aware of those cancellations and if
he had been he would have checked the records further before cancelling
the results. The fact that they had been cancelled for over voting was not
doubted; by that the second respondent set an example he ought to follow
wherever there was an over-voting.
I am of the view that our electoral laws will be given a lot of impetus and
strength and respect if they are given teeth to bite and all breaches are
given uniform treatment; what is good for the goose is equally good for the
gander. Reduced to simple practical terms polling stations where over
voting took place the results were cancelled, and there was no reason why
the same thing ought not to be done to where the same thong took place.

90

My overall assessment of the evidence on the ground of over-voting is that

the petitioners proved their case on the preponderance of evidence and
that looking at the weight of the votes affected by that irregularity, it affected
the outcome of the results so much that I have no option other than
annulling those votes and I do so annul them.

E. VOTING WITHOUT PRIOR BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION
The petitioners pleaded in their paragraph 29 of the affidavit by Dr
Bawumia that:
29. That equally, prior to the December 2012 elections, and after the
enactment of C.I. 75, Regulation 30 (2) which provides The voter that shall
go through a biometric verification process. Before being allowed to vote,
the second respondent issued the following directive NVNV . This again is
to protect the integrity of the voting register, and the entire elections. The
Chairman of the Electoral Commission stated it and four polling stations
had their votes annulled for No verification no vote at the NaleriguGambaga constituency, Kutre (No 1) polling station, Code Number G
124201.
The second respondent submitted that the petitioners did not produce a
single piece of evidence of anyone voting without being biometrically
verified. Thus the issue arose as to whether or not anybody voted without a
prior biometric verification and the burden of proof of this fact was cast on
the petitioners.
Voting after a biometric verification was governed by Regulation 30 of the
Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I, 75. It is not a long provision and I
would like to quote the whole of it here. It was that:
30 (1) A presiding officer may before delivering a ballot paper to a person
who is to vote at the election, require the person to produce
a. a voter identification card, or
91

b. any other evidence determined by the Constitution

in order to establish by fingerprint or facial recognition that the person is the
registered voter whose name and voter identification number and
particulars appear in the register.
(2) The voter shall go through a biometric verification process.
Everything Biometric, registration and verification, burst on to the
Ghanaian electoral landscape only just recently. It followed a thorough
debate by political parties as a result of lots of agitation and clamor for
reforms in the system so as to generate public confidence and integrity in
the electoral system by checking impersonation, multiple voting and
provide a quicker method of registering voters, amongst others. On the
voting day, after a voter had gone through the essentials in Reg. 30 (1),
then he was required to go through a biometric verification exercise.
I am persuaded that regulation 30 (2) of C.I.75 was a mandatory provision
in our enactment regulating the conduct of elections in the country.
Regulation 30 (2) (supra), stated that biometric verification is a process to
verify the identification of a voter which may involve fingerprint or facial
recognition that the particular voter standing or appearing before the
presiding officer, is the person whose name and voter identification number
and particulars appear in the register. Biometric verification is only by the
use of an electronic device called the biometric verification device (bvd) or
equipment, interpreted in C.I. 75 as:
47. (1) biometric verification equipment means a device provided at a
polling station by the Commission for the purpose of establishing by finger
print the identity of the voter.
It was gratifying to learn that exceptions were made to the application of the
mantra for it was readily recognized that there was an inherent limitation to
the use for either through an act of God or natural causes over which no
one had any control or any other cause like human activity, many a people
may either have no fingers at all, like lepers and amputees, accident
92

victims, called those with permanent trauma; some may have finger prints
which could not be captured by the biometric verification device like those
whose fingers prints have been worn out with age or repeated human
activities like the use of that part of their members. The law made room for
these people so they did not lose the franchise for any reason whatsoever.
The Electoral commission crafted a special dispensation for them and they
were identified by their face only and labeled FO. The letters FO were
inscribed against their names in the register, but even such persons had to
undergo a form of biometric information. FOs had to swipe the barcode on
their voters identity card through the biometric verification device.
Successful verification thereafter occurred where the photograph of the
FO popped up. When this happened then to all intents and purposes such
a person was deemed biometrically verified so there would be no need to
proceed further to ask that voter to still put a finger on the device. He would
proceed to vote by casting his ballot for his/her preferred candidate.
All witnesses before this court testified on this and sang the same song in
court to underscore the veracity in it. Dr Bawumia said there were about
700 of such people in the country, Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyang said that figure
was an understatement for they were more than that.
The second respondent referred to the Public Elections (Registration of
Voters) Regulation, 2012, C.I. 12, and submitted that sub-regulation 12
stated that
A registration assistant shall capture the biometric data made up of the
ten finger prints and the photograph of the head, showing the face and two
ears without any obstruction of the applicant
Also, sub-regulation (9) stated that
the Commission shall make alternative arrangements in relation to
biometric data for a person who has no fingers.
Regulation 31 explained that

93

bio-data refers biographic and biometric information of a person required

for the purpose of establishing that persons identity.
The second respondent submitted that in view of these provisions biometric
verification could not be limited to only finger prints.
I am unable to agree with that submission. A reading of regulation 30 of C.I.
75 shows that the voter shall mandatorily go through a biometric verification
process by a biometric verification equipment for the purpose of
establishing the identity of the voter by finger print. In order to ensure that
those who through no fault of theirs have no fingers at all, or have fingers
but whose finger prints could not be taken for one reason or the other,
special provisions/arrangements were made for them. Those voters are
labeled FOs and are excused from undergoing biometric verification by the
equipment.

I note there was a difference between identifying and verifying a voter. I
agree biometric verification is a process under our electoral laws. It begins
with the process in regulation 30(1) and continues at regulation 30(2). The
two provisions mention identification and verification of voters and truly they
are to be read as forming one scheme even though it is a process involving
several steps, voters are verified with biometric verification devises which
establishes the identity of the voter by his her fingerprints.
Apart from them I do not know of any other exception recognized by statute
or regulation. It would therefore be wrong for anybody advocating that there
could be voting without verification biometrically, where even the machine
failed to function. Evidence put before this court had it that when political
parties suggested this could be done the suggestions were rejected. Other
persons including chiefs who made similar suggestions were equally
rebuffed. My heart missed a beat when Dr Afari Gyan said if a chief popular
in the area appeared at a polling station to vote, he could be excused from
undergoing biometric verification. He did not provide data of those who
benefitted from that dispensation and it could safely concluded that it did
not happen, for it was wrong, dangerous to accept and follow.
94

I am satisfied from the KPMG Report that in Appendix A.2.9, Details of data
capture for MB-L Series of Exhibits, 382 pink sheets were counted.
I conclude on the issue of voting without biometric dispensation that where
power is conferred, it ought to be exercised in terms of the enabling statute.
Anything done outside the power stands the risk of being affixed with the
ultra vires stamp and declared null and void: see Apaloo v E.C. [2001-2002]
SCGLR 1, at 14; Nii Tetteh Opremreh v E.C. [2001-2002] SCGLR 1159;
The petitioners were obliged to give evidence to prove their allegation that
people voted without going through biometric verification. Dr. Bawumia
stated the evidence is on the face of the pink sheet, tendered in evidence,
marked and stamped with the commissioner of oaths stamp. They were
tendered in evidence and accepted without any objection. They were
photocopies of the originals, which were in the custody of the second
respondents.
It may be asked, how does the biometric verification device (bvd) infringe
on the right to vote? The onus is on those alleging the infringement to
establish it. There is a presumption of regularity of legislation until it is
proved otherwise. Article 63 (2) of the constitution emphasizes that
presidential elections shall be based on universal adult suffrage; the
biometric verification device ensures that voting is done by universal adult
suffrage. Therefore it promotes the enforcement of the principle of universal
adult suffrage.
Whether or not anybody voted without biometric verification is an issue of
fact.
The petitioner sought to prove their case by relying on the contents of the
pink sheets tendered in evidence. He pointed to column C3 of the pink
sheet and the entry made as to the number of voters who voted without
being verified by Form 1C, or the biometric verification device (bvd)
machine. On the other hand the respondents did not tender any pink sheet
to counter the case for the petitioners. They gave evidence through Dr.
95

Afari Gyan who said when it was suggested voters could be allowed to use
the card in Form C1 to vote for it was generated from data collected by the
EC but was lost through no fault by the voters but rather by the EC. This
was because the EC. did not want any voter to lose his/her franchise, or,
her right to vote. However political parties strenuously opposed the idea till
the EC agreed to stick to the idea of voting only by the biometric verification
process. He then said he told the presiding officers not to fill the column 3C
on the forms.When Dr. Afari Gyan was asked how he gave that instruction
to the presiding officers not to fill column C3, he could not tell positively. In
my assessment of his creditworthiness on this wise, I found him wanting. I
gave him zero marks. The conclusion I came to was that no such
instructions were given to the presiding officers and they filled the pink
sheets as truthfully as they could. I therefore found no reason to disbelieve
the evidence of Dr. Bawumia. I accept and find that some voters voted
without undergoing the biometric verification. Again, I think they should
have to challenge the veracity of the genuineness of what the petitioners
tendered in evidence. If it is considered that the second respondent had
custody of all the pink sheets and only gave photocopies to the parties
according to Regulation 36 (3) of C.I. 75, then the petitioners pink sheets
tendered in evidence remained the only evidence before the court, and
their authenticity could not be impugned by the respondents. The pink
sheets in evidence provided the best evidence of what transpired at the
polling station in the absence of better evidence must be accorded the best
regard. Their contents are conclusive of the facts in issue, and no oral
evidence is admissible to add to, subtract from or vary them.
Arguing in support of this legal point, the appellants relied on Section 25 (1)
of the Evidence Act which provided that:
Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, the facts
recited in a written document are presumed to be true as between the
parties to the document, or their successors in interest.

96

This means that after filing the numbers of pink sheets and given oral
evidence in support, the onus shifted to the respondents to lead evidence
to challenge it or to leave doubts on the existence of those facts.
I believe that the petitioners have the duty to prove the irregularity alleged,
and also that they affected so many polling stations. In their effort to
discharge this burden they gave evidence relying on the face of the pink
sheet. In column c figures were to be filled as to the number of voters who
voted without being verified biometrically. The evidence supplied was that
where figures were not written but were only left blank, that was an attempt
to cover over voting, or any other irregularity. A blank space therefore was
construed to mean zero. In Table 10 B of Volume 2B, Page 360 it was
stated that 223 polling stations were affected, and it covered the various
categories. The total number of votes affected was 93, 273. Forty three (43)
of these polling stations were in the over voting category alone. I must be
quick to state that I do not think the construction by the petitioners that a
blank means zero can be correct, for I did not see any real justification for
that; I simply reject that interpretation by the petitioners.
In evaluating the evidence by the petitioners, I note that when the
petitioners were ordered by the court to provide further and better
particulars on the allegation of voting without biometric verification, they
stated the irregularity took place at 2,279 polling stations. However, by the
close of trial and addresses stage, they deleted 148 of them from the list
relied on 2,131 polling stations. I have said these reductions in figures did
not prove fatal to the petitioners case and will be considered by the court.
In the result, I declare that all votes cast at the 2012 presidential elections
which were affected by this irregularity of voting without prior biometric
verification are nullified.

ANNULLING ELECTION RESULTS BASED ON IRREGULARITIES

97

I now consider some of the principles upon which a court considers

whether or not to annul an election results have been discussed in several
cases and a few will be considered.
In Re Election of First President Appiah v The Attorney General,
1970, reported at pp 1423-1436, A Sourcebook of Constitutional Law of
Ghana, Bannerman Acting.C.J said, citing Medhurst v Lough Casquet
[1901] 17 LTR 210, where ,Kennedy J said (at p 230) that:
An election ought not to be held void by reason of transgression of the law
committed without any corrupt motive by the returning officer or his
subordinate in the conduct of the election where the court is satisfied that
the election was, notwithstanding those transgressions, the election, an
election really and in substance conducted under the existing election law,
and that the result of the election, that is the success of the one candidate
over the other was, or could not have been affected by those
transgressions. If on the other hand the transgressions of law by the
officials being admitted, the court sees that the effect of the transgressions
was such that the election was not really conducted under the existing
election laws, or it was open to reasonable doubt whether these
transgressions may not have affected the result and it [was] uncertain
whether the candidate who has been returned has really been elected by
the majority of persons voting in accordance with the laws in force relating
to elections, the court is then bound to declare the election void. It appears
to us that this is the view of the law which [was] generally been recognized
and acted upon by the tribunals which have dealt with election matters.
And again the judgment in the case of Woodward v Sarsons 1875 32
L.T(NS) 867 at pp. 870-871; L.R. 10 C.P. 733: we are of opinion that the
true statement is, that an election is to be declared void by the common law
applicable to Parliamentary elections, if it was so conducted that the
Tribunals, which is asked to avoid it, is satisfied, as a matter of fact either
that there was no real election at all, or that the election was not really
conducted under the subsisting election laws but if the Tribunals should
only be satisfied that certain of such mishap had occurred, but should not
98

be satisfied either that a majority had been, or that there had been reason
to believe that a majority might have been prevented from electing the
candidate they preferred, then we think that the existence of that mishap
would not entitle the Tribunal to declare the election void by the common
law of Parliament. We do not think that it can be said or even suggested
that in the election under review the candidate returned had really been
elected by the majority of electors and are satisfied that that the election
was really and in substance conducted in accordance with the existing
election law.
Woodward v Sarsons, L.R. ; was also reported in L.R.10 C.P. 733, and
cited in Morgan and others v Simpson and another [1875] 3 WLR 517;
[1975].

Another case cited to us by all the parties herein was the Canadian case of
Ted Opitz (Appellant) v Borys Wrzesnewskyj 2012 SCC 55. The
Supreme Court of Canada held in an election petition that:
The practical realities of election administration are such that imperfections
in the conduct of elections are inevitable. As recognized in Camsell v
Rabesca, [1987] N.W.T.R. 186 (S.C.), it is clear that in every election a
fortiori, those in urban ridings, with large numbers of polls irregularities will
virtually always occur in one form or another (p.198). A federal election is
only possible with the work of tens of thousands of Canadians who are
hired across the country for a period of a few days or, in many cases a
single 14-hour day. These workers perform many detailed tasks under
difficult conditions. They are required to apply multiple rules in a setting that
is unfamiliar. Because elections are not everyday occurrences, it is difficult
to see how workers could get practical, on-the-job experience.
The Opitz case (supra), went on to say that:
Lower courts have taken two approaches to determine whether votes
should be invalidated on accounts of irregularities. Under the strict
99

procedural approach, a vote is invalid if an official fail to follow any one of

the procedures aimed at establishing entitlement. Under the substantive
approach, an election officials failure to follow a procedural safeguard is
not determinative. Only votes cast by persons not entitled to vote are
invalid. The substantive approach should be adopted, as it effectuates the
underlying Charter rights to vote, not merely the procedures used to
facilitate that right. The substantive approach has two steps under s.524(1)
(b). First, an applicant must demonstrate that there was a breach of a
statutory provision designed to establish the electors entitlement to vote.
Second the applicant must demonstrate that someone not entitled to vote,
voted. He may do so using circumstantial evidence. The second step
establishes that the irregularity affected the result of the election. Under
this approach an applicant who has led evidence from which an irregularity
could be found will have met his prima facie evidentiary burden. At that
point the respondent can point to evidence from which it can be inferred
that no irregularity occurred or that despite the irregularity, the voter was in
fact entitled to vote and prevent those not entitled to vote from voting.
After-the-fact evidence of entitlement is admissible. If the two steps are
established, a vote is invalid. Finally, although a more realistic test may be
developed in the future,.. the magic number test is used for the purpose of
the application. It provides that an election should be annulled if the
number of invalid votes is equal to or greater than the successful
candidates plurarity.
In Morgan & others v Simpson & others [1974] 3 WLR 517; [1975] Q.B.
151, the English Court of Appeal had occasion to consider the conditions
where electoral results could be nullified on grounds of violations of
statutory electoral rules. The facts were that at an election, the number of
votes in the ballot box were 23,691, 44 of which had been rejected because
the polling officials at 18 polling stations had inadvertently omitted to stamp
them with the official stamps. After some recounts the candidate declared
winner had a majority of 11. If the rejected votes had been counted, he
would have had a majority of 7 votes. The candidate and four others
100

petitioned for a declaration against the successful candidate and the

returning officer that the election was invalid for the reason that the issue of
unstamped papers was an act or omission in breach of the officials duty
and that as it had affected the result the court ought under section 37 (1) of
the Peoples Representation Act 1949, to make the declaration. The court
dismissed the petition holding that as the election was conducted
substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, the fact that a small
number of errors had affected the result was not a sufficient reason for
declaring it invalid.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the earlier decision and ruled that
the election was to be declared invalid even though it had been held
substantially in accordance with the law governing elections. In so ruling,
the Court of Appeal recognized two circumstances in which election results
could be nullified. In his judgment, Lord Denning M.R. said collating all the
relevant cases together, he could make the propositions that:
1. If the election was conducted so badly that it was not substantially in
accordance with the law as to elections, the election is vitiated irrespective
of whether the result was affected or not(that is for example, where two
out of 19 polling stations were closed all day).
2 If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance
with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a
mistake at the polls provided it was not affected by the results.
But even though the election was conducted substantially in accordance
with the law as to elections, nevertheless if there was a breach of the rules
or a mistake at the polls and it did affect the results then the result is
vitiated.
I approve of the material holding in the case above and apply them to the
facts of this case.

It is clear from this decision that a petitioner is not entitled to an order
quashing election results merely upon establishing some form of non101

compliance with the rules governing the poll; the non-compliance must
further either be of a substantial proportion or the non-compliance must
produce a different outcome in the election, namely, result in some person
emerging victor who would but for the non-compliance not secure such
victory.
In the Nigerian case of General Muhammadu Buhari v. Independent
National Electoral Commission &4 Ors. (2008) 12 S.C. (Pt. I) 1 that
countrys Supreme Court recognized that a claimant is entitled to relief not
merely on the basis of proven non-compliance but where it is shown that
substantial non-compliance with electoral regulations has resulted in a
variation of the allocation of votes between the contenders. Tobi, JSC
expressed himself in that case thus at page 75 of the report:
It is manifest that an election by virtue of [the applicable statute] shall not
be invalidated by mere reason that it was not conducted substantially in
accordance with the provisions of the [applicable statute]. It must be shown
clearly by evidence that the non-compliance has affected the result of the
election. Election and its victory is like soccer and goals scored. The
Petitioner must not only show substantial non-compliance but also the
figures, i.e. votes that the compliance attracted or omitted.
I note that unlike Morgan and ors v. Simpson and Others (supra), both
Buhari v. INEC (supra) and Re Election of First President: Appiah v.
Attorney-General (supra) establish a higher standard by their requirement
that a petitioner must establish both substantial non-compliance with
electoral regulations and impact of the non-compliance on the election
results. Morgan and ors v. Simpson and Others (supra) allows a
petitioner to succeed upon establishing any one of the requirements.
I hold that the distinction between these two standards is not necessary for
the resolution of this case, and I shall express no preference for either
standard at this time. This is because, in the cases of the irregularities
established by the petitioners, they are entitled to judgment even when the
higher standard in Buhari v. INEC (supra) is applied.
102

Firstly, it is clear that the irregularities associated with the 2012 presidential
elections were substantial. Substantial is not used here as a term of art and
it can be understood in its natural sense as meaning either materially or
essentially.
Secondly, it is equally clear that the non-compliance in this case affected
the results of the 2012 presidential election. Once account is taken of the
irregularities (which is shown in the next discussion on the numerical effect
of the irregularities), the first respondent no longer has the required fifty
percent plus one of the valid votes cast which produces the remarkable
effect that he was not entitled to be declared president-elect of the Republic
of Ghana. Put differently, the irregularities produced the significant
consequence that the first petitioner was deemed to have lost any chance
of continuing the race for the presidency of Ghana, whereas a proper
reckoning of the election outcome, that is, minus the nullified votes, would
have shown that he was entitled to a final shot at that high office through a
run-off poll.
IMPACT OF NULLIFIED VOTES ON THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION RESULTS
I now proceed to assess the impact of annulment of votes due to the
various categories of irregularities established by the petitioners as follows:
a. Voting without prior biometric verification
His Excellency Mr. John Mahama obtained 560,399 votes which were
actually invalid under this category. When these are subtracted from
total votes declared in his favour by the E.C., namely, 5,574,761 he is
left with 5,014,362 representing 49.25 of the total valid votes.
Nana Akufo-Addo had 5,48,898 votes declared in his favour of which
234,970 fall in this category of irregularities. The difference of these two
is 5,013,928 and this represents 49.25 of valid votes cast.
b. Pink sheets not signed by presiding officers or their assistants
103

Here, Mr. John Mahama had 382,088 invalid votes which when
subtracted from the total number of 5,574,761 votes declared in his
favour leaves him with 5,192,673 valid votes. This remainder accounts
for 49.78% of the valid votes cast.
Out of the 5,248,898 votes declared in his favour, Nana Akufo-Addo had
170,940 votes affected by this category. This leaves him with 5,077,958
representing 48.68 of the valid votes cast.

c. Over voting
For His Excellency Mr. John Mahama, he had 5,574,761 declared in his
favor by the E.C., in the over voting category, he benefitted by 504,014
votes. When these are annulled, he had 5,070,747 valid votes in his
favor. That would leave him with 49.47%.
Nana Akufo-Addo had 5,248,898 votes declared in his favor by the E.C.,
out of which he benefitted 226,198 in the over voting category, which as
they are being annulled left a total of 5,027,700 valid votes in his favor.
Expressed in percentages, that would be 49.00% of the valid votes cast
at the elections.
The foregoing evaluation of the impact of the nullified votes shows that
they resulted in neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent
obtaining the critical fifty percent plus one valid vote threshold.
As neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent had the required
number of votes by the constitution to be declared the President of the
Republic of Ghana,
I make the following conclusions and directions:

104

1. That the relief that an declaration be made that Mr. John Dramani
Mahama was not validly elected the President of Ghana, is hereby
granted;
2. That a declaration be made that Nana Akufo-Addo be declared the
candidate who was validly elected the President of Ghana, is also
refused.
3. The consequential order I make is that the E.C. conducts a re-run of
the Presidential elections for the two leading candidates, Mr. John
Dramani Mahama and Nana Akufo-Addo, in all the polling stations
affected and indicated in the petition and its supporting documents,
forthwith.

(SGD)

J. ANSAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC;

Your Ladyships and Lordships, permit me to start my opinion with this prologue:
[W]hat all citizens expect form the highest court of the land is the
interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and the law, and
their application to the evidence adduced in this trial without fear or
favour, as the judicial oath of the learned justices of this Honourable
Court requires of them.
-The Petitioners Plea, at page 171 of Written Address

INTRODUCTION

105

Human rights as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

of 1948 and guaranteed by the International Covenants on Civil and Political
Rights and on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (collectively known as the
International Bill of Human Rights) to which most countries including Ghana
subscribe; include:
UDHR ARTICLE 21.1:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or
through freely chosen representatives.
UDHR ARTICLE 21.3
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will,
shall be expressed in periodic and general elections, which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting
procedures.
The Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage as affirmed in the preamble of the
Constitution of Ghana, 1992, is guaranteed and entrenched in Article 42 of the
Constitution of Ghana. It reads:
Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound
mind has the right to vote and entitled to be registered as voter for the
purposes of public elections and referenda.
The fundamental purpose of this right to vote was described in Figueroa v.
Canada (Attorney General) 2003 SCC 37, 1 S.C.R. 912by Iacobucci J., for the
majority at para. 39:
In the final analysis, I believe the Court in Haig v. Canada [1993] 2 S.C.R.
995, define s.3 with reference to the right of each citizen to play a
106

meaningful role in the election process. Democracy of course, is a form of

government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. In
our system of democracy, this means that each citizen must have a genuine
opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through
participation in the selection of electoral representatives. The fundamental
purpose of s.3, in my view, is to promote and protect the right of each citizen
to play a meaningful role in the political life the country. Absent such a
right, ours would not be a true democracy.
On 7 and 8 Dec 2012the people of Ghana, exercised their natural and inalienable
right and their political will as makers and main beneficiaries of the Constitution,
and cast their votes, to elect the Head of State and Head of Government and
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ghana: Article 57 (1) of the
Constitution, 1992.
What is now before the Court is a case in which the Petitioners are seeking
electoral justice. Electoral Justice gives people who believe their electoral rights to
have been violated, the ability to make a complaint, get a hearing, and receive
adjudication within a reasonable.
Your Lordships, permit me to quote from an international statement of the
Principles of Electoral Justice developed by senior judicial officers and
experienced election commissioners known as the Electoral Integrity Group, in
Accra Ghana 15 September 2011; in a manual entitled: Towards an International
Statement of the Principles of Electoral Justice.
Electoral Justice[ is] a broader concept than the holding of a technically correct
polls [it] fulfils the human rights belonging to all people and as citizens as
outlined above in the UDHR of 1948 and International Bill of Human Rights.

107

The Principles of Electoral Justice requires a set of institutions, practices, norms,

mechanisms, practices and procedures that culminates in fair and open processes
by which citizens choose those who are to govern them and to hold them to
account-and this is not simply on polling days but on day to day basis. Electoral
Justice gives people who believe their electoral rights to have been violated, the
ability to make a complaint, get a hearing, and receive adjudication within a
reasonable time.
The guiding principles of electoral justice developed by this august group include:
integritya vital element that contributes to the legitimacy of, every aspect of
the electoral process
Participation- the principle that the voice of the people must be heard,
respected, and represented in the context of a free, fair and genuine contest
Elections provide a way for all to decide on the decision makers in a way that
ensures that all voters have a free and equal opportunity to participate in the
election process
Lawfulness (Rule of Law)-The lawfulness of every electoral act and likely
consequences of violations must be firmly established and widely understood in
order to secure the legitimacy of the outcomeThe laws themselves must comply
with relevant international norms and their implementation should reflect the
principles of Electoral Justice and appropriate sanctions must be defined.
Impartiality and Fairness-The principle of impartiality and fairness guarantees
the equal treatment of voters and contestants
Professionalism-Managing the electoral process requires technical knowledge of
electoral issues and competent delivery of the process.

108

Independence- The independence of all those authorities that are legitimately

engaged in the electoral process and the resolution of electoral grievances and
disputes must be respected and guaranteed by law. There must be no interference
by any outside interests.
Transparency- Transparency is a core element that involves openness at all
stages of election organization, which must include access to relevant information
on a timely basis, a readiness to provide justification for decisions and a frank
admission and swift correction of any mistakes or oversights so as to inspire
confidence and credibility in the system in the mind of all stakeholders
Timeliness-Timeliness must be demonstrated in a manner consistent with the
other principles before, during and after the poll and at all stages in electoral
management, including resolution of disputes as this is an integral element in
Electoral Justice. The element of time in the administration of justice cannot be
ignored, because justice is a time bound concept.
Non-Violence(Freedom from threats and violence)- All stages of the electoral
process must be conducted without violence, intimidation, coercion, corruption, or
other conduct that can interfere with the free conduct of the elections in accordance
with the values of Electoral Justice.
Regularity- Elections must be conducted periodically, and at more or less
intervals, as well as any variations, must be clearly set out.
Acceptance-Where the foregoing principles of Electoral Justice have been
substantially observed, the electoral processes reflect the will of the people. It is
then an overriding principle of Electoral Justice that everyone abides by the
outcome; that the outcome be given effect by the institutions of government; and

109

that the legitimacy of the results be acknowledged by the international

community.
These principles of Electoral justice would be used or applied as a yardstick in this
opinion to determine whether the electoral processes were substantially observed
and reflected the will of the people.
BACKGROUND
The Role of the Electoral Commission
The Electoral Commission (EC) is conferred with the responsibility for conducting
free, fair and transparent electionsunder Article 45 (d) of the Constitution, 1992.
The EC at various stages of the 2012 election began with the compilation of the
register, demarcation of electoral boundaries, education of the people and political
parties and election officials that culminated in the 7 and 8 December elections.
The EC at various stages of the election used a new technology of a Biometric
Voter Registration by the use of a biometric verification device (BVD). This
involves biometric technology, which uses computer finger-print scanners and
digital cameras to capture the bio-data of an applicant; such personal details of
finger-prints and face photo technology are used to verify the authenticity of the
voter, and to ensure greater transparency and credibility in the elections. The
Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 72) regulates the
procedure on registration of voters.
After conducting the election which took place on the 7 and 8 December 2012, the
Chairman of EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan announced on 9 December 2012, that Mr
John Dramani Mahama has received 5,574,761 votes (50.70% of the votes cast),
while Nana Akuffo Addo has received 5,248,898 votes (47.74%of the votes cast).

110

Pursuant to Article63 (9), the EC declared Mr John Dramani Mahama the President
Elect.
Subsequent to the announcement, a petition challenging the results of the
presidential elections was filed at the Supreme Court on 28 December 2012 by the
1st Petitioner Nana Akufo -Addo the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic
Party (NPP), in the 2012 elections; the2nd Petitioner, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia the
running mate of the1st Petitioner, and the 3rd Petitioner, Jake Otanka ObeitsebiLamptey the National Chairman of the NPP; against John Dramani Mahama, and
the Electoral Commission as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively. The National
Democratic Congress, the party on which the 1st Respondent stood as its
presidential candidate applied and was joined as the 3rd Respondent.

The Petition
The petition filed on 28 December 2012 was amended on 8 February 2013. The
Petitioners say that prior to the December elections, 2nd Respondent informed all
regional executives of registered political parties that all the results would be
received through faxes installed in the Strong Room of the 2nd Respondent
directly from its officials from the regions and that there could be no opportunity
for tampering with the results before same were received in the Strong Room.
Petitioners say however that it came to their notice, during the declaration of the
provisional results, that the offices of Superlock Technologies Limited (STL), a
security installation and information technology company, was receiving the results
of the elections before transmitting same to 2nd Respondent in its Strong Room.
NPP hence sent a delegation to confront the STL officials whereupon they were
111

informed that they had a contract with EC to provide IT services which included
receiving all results of votes cast and faxed from the regional offices of the 2nd
Respondent before transmitting same to the Strong Room of 2nd Respondent.
Petitioners claim the said arrangement with STL was made without the knowledge
of the NPP or the Inter-Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) to which NPP belongs
and it provided an opportunity to tamper with the election results.
Petitioners also say that before the elections in December, the Chairman of the 2nd
Respondent announced to Parliament that he had registered some 1,000,000 voters
who have not been assigned to any polling station, even though the Public
Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012, (C.I. 72) requires that
registration of voters shall be carried out in designated polling stations (registration
centres).
Petitioners state further that the total number of registered voters after 2nd
Respondent had conducted its biometric registration exercise was a little less than
13,000,000 however this number inexplicably increased by over 1,000,000 after
cleaning the provisional register and verifying same.
Petitioners say that around the 26th of September 2012, that is about 42 days before
the presidential election scheduled for 7th December, the Chairman of the 2nd
Respondent officially announced the total number of polling stations to be
employed in conducting the elections as 26,002. This is in compliance with
Regulation 16 of C.I. 74.
The Petitioners complain that the total number of registered voters that the NPP
was furnished with was 14,031,680. However on 9th December 2012, 2nd
Respondent declared the total number of registered voters as 14,158,890. Further
on the same date, 2nd Respondent posted on its website the total number of
112

registered voters as 14,031,793 showing a clear disparity of 127,097. The

Petitioners also contend that the total number of registered voters for the
presidential elections exceeded that of the registered voters for the parliamentary
elections by 127,210 voters.
Petitioners say that 2nd Respondent delayed in furnishing the NPP with the final
voters register until just a few days before the December 2012 elections which
prevented the NPP from scrutinizing the register and this contributed in
undermining the transparency of the elections.
The irregularities emerging from the case of the Petitioners are as follows:
Change in total number of registered voters
Printing of ballot papers
Over-voting
Voting without fingerprint biometric verification
Same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results
Polling stations bearing the same polling station codes and yet with different
results
Absence of signature of presiding officer on some pink sheets
28 locations where elections took place which were not part of the 26,002
polling stations created by the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the elections
Widespread instances where figures and words of votes cast in the elections
and as recorded on the pink sheet did not match

113

 Padding of votes for the 1st Respondent and reducing the votes of the 1st
Petitioner.
However, by paragraph 23 of the affidavit of Dr Mahamadu Bawumia filed on
the 7th April 2013, pursuant to the directions given by the court on the
2nd
April 2013, the grounds set out in the petition were subdivided by the
Petitioners into six categories as follows:
i)
Over-voting, that is to say, widespread instances of polling stations
where (a) votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters or (b)
votes exceeded the total number of ballot papers issued to voters on voting
day in violation of Article 42 of the Constitution and Regulation 24 (1) of
C1.75
ii)
Widespread instances of polling stations where there were no
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets in
clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of
C.I.75
iii)
Widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place
without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30 (2) of C.I.75
iv)
Widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers on
pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due procedure
established by the 2nd Respondent required that each polling station have a
unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and the will
of lawfully registered voters
v)
Widespread instances of polling stations where different results were
strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling stations bearing
the same polling station code, when, by 2nd Respondents established
procedure, each polling station was assigned a unique code in order to avoid
confusing one polling station with another which could not be explained by
a reference to special voting
vi)
Twenty three ( 23) locations where voting took place which were not
part of the twenty six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by
the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the December 2012 elections.
114

The Petitioners contend that the irregularities vitiated the presidential results in
eleven thousand nine hundred and sixteen (11,916) polling stations by four million
six hundred thousand five hundred and four votes (4,670,504).That if these votes
were to be annulled, the 1st Petitioner would get three million seven hundred and
seventy-five thousand five hundred and fifty-two votes representing 59.69% of
votes cast while the 1st Respondent gets two million four hundred and seventythree thousand one hundred seventy-one votes representing 39.1% of votes cast.
The Petitioners say that in circumstances the 1st Respondent did not obtain more
than 50% of the total votes cast in the election as required by Article 63 (3) of
Constitution, in order to become President and such ought not to have been
declared President. The Petitioners concluded that the 1st Petitioner having
obtained more than 50% of the votes cast ought to be declared the President of the
Republic of Ghana.
The Petitioners say that the irregularities were a deliberate well-calculated ploy to
assist the 1st Respondent thereby subverting the sovereign will of the electorate
contrary to the preamble of the Constitution, Articles 1(1), 42 and 63(3) of the
Constitution.
The Petitioners therefore request the Court to declare that:
1. John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as
President of Ghana
2. Nan Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein was rather validly
elected President of Ghana
3. Consequential orders as to this Court may seem meet.
1st Respondents Answer
115

1st Respondent denies the allegation of the Petitioners that STL was contracted by
the 2nd Respondent to carry out the said functions in respect of the elections and
this was affirmed when a delegation of political parties led by Hon. Osafo Maafo
visited STL.
1st Respondent asserts that the difference in the figure of 13, 917,366 announced
by 2nd Respondent was provisional since 2nd Respondent had at that time not yet
registered prisoners and other voters, including those in the diplomatic missions
abroad and on peace-keeping missions, and had also not done the mop-up exercise
it undertook subsequently. He disputes any suggestion that there were some veiled
reasons in the differences in the provisional registered voters after the biometric
registration; and that the suggestion is without basis and smacks of utmost bad
faith. 1st Respondent also says that Petitioner has failed to supply them with
particulars of the manner in which the results of the presidential elections were
tampered with.
1st Respondent also denies that 2nd Respondent delayed in making the voters
register available to the NPP and states that the register was delivered to both
parties at the same time. He added that a common register was used for both the
presidential and parliamentary elections.
1st Respondent contends that the basis of the declaration of the results was the
aggregate of total valid votes cast which was 10,995,262.
1st Respondent rejects the irregularities canvassed by the Petitioners and states that
fingerprint verification is not the only means of verification. He contends that in
terms of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, failure or the inability of voters to go
through fingerprint verification should not be used to deprive voters of their
Constitutional right to vote. As such, any electoral law which has that effect is
inconsistent with the Constitution and as such unconstitutional.
116

1st Respondent contends the 1st Petitioners agents certified the results at the
polling stations without protest, and thereby accurately represented to the world
that the results accurately reflected the outcome of the election in the respective
polling stations.
1st Respondent contends that duplicate codes on pink sheets would not invalidate
the declared results of supervised elections in those polling stations and the votes
validly cast.
1st Respondent contends further that the absence of signatures on any of the pink
sheets cannot invalidate the results shown on those sheets as they were the result of
painstaking, public and transparent sorting and (re)counting at the various polling
stations with the full participation of 1st Petitioners agents.
In addition to denying the allegation of duplicate serial numbers, 1st Respondent
says that even if it were true, it did not affect the declared results of the elections.
1st Respondent says that the change in the total number of registered voters
between that given to the parties and that declared on 9th December, even if it were
true would not invalidate the elections.
He also states that as the polls were declared publicly and openly, even if there
were conflicts between the words and figures on the pink sheets that did not affect
the declared results of the elections. This is even more so as 1st Petitioners agents
were present at the various polling stations and did not protest.
1st Respondent disputes the table set out in paragraph 20 of Ground 3 of the
petition and states that it is the product of double counting in many instances. He
says further that the request to annul that number of votes would undermine the
fundamental rights of Ghanaians under Article 42 of the Constitution. Also any
deduction derived from that table, lacks any basis in law or in fact.
117

1st Respondent states that there was no ploy to unlawfully assist him to win and 1st
Petitioner is only finding an excuse for losing the elections.

2ndRespondents Answer
The 2nd Respondent states that there was no arrangement with STL to receive and
transfer election results. Instead STL after winning a competitive bidding was
chosen to provide services to the 2nd Respondent which included training of staff
and field support and provision of equipment including the provision of a VSAT
(Very Small Aperture Terminal) system whereby Registration Database would be
sent directly from the 2nd Respondents District Offices to the Registration
Database at its Head Office.
Also the situation of one million voters not being assigned to any polling station
was corrected.
The 2nd Respondent says that the initial provisional figure he announced was 13,
917,366 which was later changed to 14, 158, 890 after the registration of foreign
service officials, students abroad on government scholarship, other Ghanaians
working abroad in international organisations and the late registration of service
personnel returning from international peace keeping duties. After adding those
wrongly omitted, excluding those wrongly added and removing multiple
registrations, the number finally obtained was 14,031,680. He adds that the voters
register is dynamic and not static as required by Regulation 9 of (C.I. 72).
2nd Respondent states that the number of registered voters that was given to the
political parties including the NPP was 14,031,793 and that the figure of
14,158,890 stated in the declaration result was an error. The correct number of
registered voters of 14, 031,793 was duly posted on the 2nd Respondents website.
118

It states that the error would have no bearing on total votes cast and would only
affect the turnout percentage and change it from 79.43% to 80.15%.
The 2nd Respondent states that the NPP and NDC were the first to receive the final
voters register on 21November, 2012 and that the preparation of the final voters
registers was a mammoth exercise.
The 2nd Respondent also states that all the political parties, including the NPP,
received daily print outs of the registration effected at the registration centres.
The 2nd Respondent also states that the registers for both the parliamentary and
presidential elections had the same number of registered voters. The 2nd
Respondent states further that each voter was verified only once to cast votes for
the candidate of his choice for both the presidential and parliamentary elections.
The 2nd Respondent states further that the total number of valid votes cast is
10,995,262 and not 14,158,880 as shown in the Petition.
The 2nd Respondent claims it kept to its decision and allocated to each polling
station, 10% ballot papers that were above the number of registered voters for the
polling station. Further, during printing, representatives of political parties were
present at the printing houses that were engaged by 2nd Respondent. They were
also briefed prior to this about the statistics of the number of ballot papers that
were to be given to each polling station in booklets of 100, 50 and 25 sheets which
could not be split.
The 2nd Respondent claims that the polls were counted in the public view and
results announced publicly in the presence of the agents of the candidates. Agents
also have a right to ask for a re-count or to refuse to sign the declaration form.

119

2nd Respondent also states that it were only persons who were successfully
verified that were allowed to vote and this is why the elections in 400 polling
stations were postponed to the next day, when the biometric verification equipment
broke down. The EC also noted that the Commonwealth Observer Group
recommended on page 36 of their report that the requirement that elderly people be
biometrically verified should be reviewed. The ECcontends that the fact that every
voter was verified is also supported by the pink sheets.
2nd Respondent also claims that every polling station had a name and unique code.
Its examination of the further and better particulars supplied by the Petitioners
showed that wrong codes were quoted by the petitioners in their particulars and
also that where a polling station used for the presidential and parliamentary
election was also used for Special Voting (by Security Personnel, etc.), that polling
station kept the same code number though the Results of the Special Voting and the
results of the voting on December 7 and 8 were given separately. Thus the request
to invalidate votes should be refused as it is without merit.
The 2nd Respondent claims that of the 2,009 Pink Sheets that the Petitioners
claimed to be unsigned, 1,099 were, in fact signed by the Presiding Officer at the
polling station or, at the instance of the Returning Officer, at the Collation Centre;
905 were unsigned representing 3.5% of the total number of Pink Sheets
nationwide; and 1,989 Pink Sheets, representing 99% of the number claimed to be
unsigned, were signed by the Polling or Counting Agents of the candidates. It
could also be that the signature failed to appear as the Pink Sheets the Petitioners
had were only copies of the original.
It also claims that there was no instance where total votes cast exceeded number of
voters on the register.

120

It also claims that in instances where different polling stations had the same serial
number, they bore different names and code as such the request to annul those
Sheets should be rejected.
It also states that there is no explanation for how the figures in the table in ground
3 of paragraph 20 of the petition were arrived at; and above all there is no
justification for the deduction.
2nd Respondent claims further that of the three instances of over padding cited, two
were wrong and one was a transposition error in which 17 was stated instead of 97.
The 3rdRespondents Answer
The 3rd Respondent claims that 2nd Respondent declared 1st Respondent the winner
of the 2012presidential elections based on the tally of votes and that the voters
were biometrically verified and voted in the full view of the public, the media and
domestic, as well as international, election observers who reported that the
elections were generally free and fair. The media also kept a tally of the results
from the various polling stations, and reported tallies consistent with that of the 2nd
Respondent.
3rd Respondent claims that at the instance of the NPP, the Peace Council organized
a meeting, involving the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and representatives of NPP, on
the evening of 9th December 2012. This was to enable the latter make
representations to the 2nd Respondent about alleged irregularities in the elections.
After hearing the NPP, the 2nd Respondent found no reason to defer announcement
of the results and proceeded to give same.
3rd Respondent states the allegations about the premises of STL being used to
change election results in favour of 1st Respondent were proved false.

121

3rd Respondent claims that the spokespersons of the NPP and of the 1st Petitioner
have given different figures as the figures by which they claim the votes of
1stRespondent were illegally inflated without giving a meaningful account of how
this happened.
It states that 1st Respondent defeated 1st Petitioner in eight out of ten Regions in the
Presidential elections. 3rd Respondent also won 148 out of 275 seats in Parliament
while the NPP won 123 seats.
3rd Respondent contends that Petitioners cannot claim that the Presidential
elections were conducted irregularly, in respect of voter verification, for instance,
while acknowledging the validity of the parliamentary elections.
It also claims that the Petitioners through their polling agents acknowledged that
the presidential elections were validly conducted and claims to the contrary are an
afterthought and in bad faith.
Issues for determination by Court
At the close of pleadings, the parties were not able to agree on issues for
determination by the Court. Each of them filed multiple issues. The Court therefore
reduced the issues to two which were agreed on by the parties. The issues set down
for determination by the Court were:
1. Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities in the conduct of the presidential election held on the 7th and 8th
December, 2012.

2. Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election.

122

Mode of Trial and Burden of Proof

This is the first time that a petition challenging the election of a President of the
Republic of Ghana under the 1992 Constitution has taken place and there was
therefore no precedent to follow. Guided by the principle of timeliness as an
integral part of Electoral Justice this Court ruled, on 10 April 2013 that:
It is deducible from Article 1(2), 64(1) and (3) and Part VIII of C.I. 16
aforesaid that a presidential election petition is intended to be determined
with the utmost expedition. That being so all other laws must be applied
with modifications to effectuate this constitutional intent To expedite the
determination of this case the trial will be by affidavits. However, the parties
themselves may lead oral evidence. Oral evidence by any other person may
be allowed where compelling reasons therefore are given.

The Court held further that rules as to the burden of proof are observed even with
affidavit procedure - see Republic vs. Director of Prisons Ex parte Shackleford
(1981) GLR 554 at particularly 577 582, Republic vs. Mensa-Bonsu Ex parte
Attorney-General (1995-96) 1 GLR 377 and the recent decision of this Court in
Republic vs. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Concord Media Ltd. & Ogbamey
(Ghana Ports & Harbours Authority & Owusu Mensah Interested Parties)
(2011) 1 SCGLR 546.

Standard of Proof
What is the standard of proof required in an election petition brought under
constitutional provisions that would impact upon the governance of the nation and
the deployment of the constitutional power and authority?
The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), section 10 (1) and (2) provides:
Section 10
123

(1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the
obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a
fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court.
(2) The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt
concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact or that he establish the
existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities
or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section11
1. For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means
the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling
against him on the issue.
(4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to
produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could
conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its nonexistence.
Thus in Ackah v. Pergah Transport Limited and Others, [2010] SCGLR 728; I
had this to say at page 736:

It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the
burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that
has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method
of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party
and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things(often
described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to
establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of
the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are
capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on
all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the
fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the
law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree.

124

Comparative judicial practice on the burden of proof informs this Courts

perceptions, in a case which rests, to a significant degree, on fact. In the Nigerian
election case of Abu-Bakr v. YarAdua [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 457)1 SC; the
Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the burden is on the Petitioner to prove, not
only non-compliance with the electoral law, but also that the non-compliance
affected the results of the election. The same jurisprudence was enunciated in
Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) CLR 7(k) (SC), also cited by the Attorney-General; the
various components of burden of proof were distinguished, in their shifting pattern:
the burden is on the petitioner to prove non-compliance with the electoral law; and
it then shifts to the Respondent, or the electoral board, to prove that such noncompliance did not affect the results of the election.
In the Ugandan election petition, Col. Dr Kizza Besigye v. Museveni Yoweri
Kaguta & Electoral Commission, Election Petition No. 1 of 2001, the majority of
the Ugandan Supreme Court Justices held as follows:

[T]he burden of proof in election petitions as in other civil cases is
settled. It lies on the Petitioner to prove his case to the satisfaction of the
Court. The only controversy surrounds the standard of proof required to
satisfy the Court.

In a recent Canadian case of Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj 2012 SCC 55-2012-10-256, the

Canadian Supreme Court tersely held, by majority opinion, that:

An applicant who seeks to annul an election bears the legal burden of proof
throughout

From the foregoing it seems to me that high standards of proof required in cases
imputing election malpractice, appears to be the norm. In this respect I refer to the
Kenyan Supreme Court Case; Petition No. 5 of 2013 betweenRaila Odinga v.
Uhuru Kenyatta [2013]at paragraph 196:

125

We find merit in such a judicial approach, as is well exemplified in the

several cases from Nigeria. Where a party alleges non-conformity with the
electoral law, the petitioner must not only prove that there has been noncompliance with the law, but that such failure of compliance did affect the
validity of the elections. It is on that basis that the respondent bears the
burden of proving the contrary. This emerges from a long-standing common
law approach in respect of alleged irregularity in the acts of public bodies.
Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta: all acts are presumed to
have been done rightly and regularly. So, the petitioner must set out by
raising firm and credible evidence of the public authoritys departures from
the prescriptions of the law.

Accordingly the Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that there were
violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the
presidential election held on the 7th and 8th December, 2012 but also that the said
violations, omissions, malpractices and irregularities, if any, affected the results of
the election. It is after the petitioners have established the foregoing that the burden
shifts to the respondents, to establish that the results were not affected.
The threshold of proof should, in principle, be above the balance of probability,

Witnesses
The Court began taking evidence on 17 April 2013 with live television and radio
broadcast which was unprecedented. Dr Mahamadu Bawumia testified on behalf of
the Petitioners; the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia gave
evidence on behalf of President John Mahama and the party; while Dr Kwadwo
Afari-Gyan testified on behalf of the Electoral Commission. All the witnesses were
subjected to rigorous cross-examination.

126

Six additional witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioners, while about 4,000
people testified on behalf of President Mahama and the NDC, through sworn
written affidavits.
Documentary Evidence
The Petitioners by their initial petition alleged that the stated irregularities occurred
at 4,709 polling stations. It was later amended to indicate that, the irregularities
occurred at 11,916 polling stations. The Petitioners further reduced the number to
11,842, 11,138, 11,115, 10,119 and finally 10, 081 polling stations.
The Respondents throughout the trial to the time of closing addresses disputed the
exact number of pink sheets the Petitioners allege the irregularities could be
determined on the face of the pink sheets. They indicated they were served with a
lower number and also cited instances of duplication in the exhibits they received.
By a Court Order dated 9 May 2013 this Court appointed KPMG an auditing firm
as referee to undertake the following task.
%L.To make a faithful and truthful count of all the exhibits of pink sheets
delivered by the Petitioners to the Register of the Supreme Court
according to and under the various categories of alleged electoral
malpractices as appearing, contained and specified in paragraphs 44 to
67 of the affidavit of the second Petitioner filed in the registry of the
Supreme Court on 7 April 2013; and
%L.Specifying in respect of each pink sheet, it exhibit number, if any, as
well as it polling station name and code number.
A further order was made by the Court on 5 June 2013 ordering KPMG to use the
set of exhibit of the Presiding Judge to cross check and finalise the count of the
pink sheets. Appendix A1 of the report which contained a summary of pink sheet
127

count show that 13,926 pink sheets were filed a variance of 2,084 of the 11,842
mentioned in the affidavit of 2nd Petitioner. In all the KPMG identified 8,675
polling stations, but as many as 1, 545 were partially or totally ineligible.
By the close of the Petitioners case statutory violations and the irregularities relied
on by the petitioner on the face of the pink sheets were as in the order considered
in this opinion:
Absence of signature of presiding officer on some pink sheets
Voting without fingerprint biometric verification
Over-voting
Same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results
Polling stations bearing the same polling station codes and yet with different
results
22 Unknown polling stations.

Before dealing with these issues I will deal with the voters register
Voters Register
An election is a process which consists of various activities that include the
demarcation of constituencies, the registration of voters, the nomination of
candidates, the conduct of the election and the declaration of results and these
culminate in the activities of Election Day and the subsequent declaration of
election results.

128

In this election the biometric verification was first used in Ghana. The Chairman
of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, provided information on the biometric
verification process. He said it is a system used to register a voters ten fingers and
capture the face image. The biometrics is captured using this device of registration,
comprising software, a laptop computer, a digital camera and a device to capture
fingerprints. The voters personal bio data were taken and filled on a Form 1C by a
registration assistant and this is scanned unto the BVD, an electronic copy is
printed out and the Voters ID with picture is detached and laminated for the
registered voter. The information captured was used in the compilation of the
Voters Register.
Provision was made for: a) voters with disability: those whose fore-limbs or parts
of their fore-limbs were unavailable for the purposes of capturing their biometrics;
b) those who, due to the nature of their work or age, who had either their
fingerprints scarred or those whose fingerprints had lost impression and could not
be captured. Such persons were to be identified facially only [FO] and this fact are
indicated on their voters ID card, and in the voters register and in the bio data on
the BVD.
The Petitioners cited variations in the Voting Register and the register used at the
polling stations and double registration as factors of illegality in the conduct of the
Presidential election.
The evidence adduced in support of the bloated register by the 2nd Petitioner was
that the EC provided the NPP with a voters register of 14,031,680 which was used
for the election; but that at the time the election results were declared the number
was 14,158,890, a difference of 127,210.
Explanation given by the EC was that in compiling the Provisional Voters Register,
they noticed from the daily printouts and the Forms1C that some voters were
129

inadvertently assigned the wrong polling stations; there were names of people
whose biometric details had not been captured, or were captured but subsequently
lost. Furthermore, there were some registration centres that showed zero
registration, some areas turn out much fewer voters than was anticipated.
The EC said they searched their data base and were able to recover some of the
lost data; particularly in situations where wrong codes were used and as a result the
people were thrown to some other place. The EC could not restore all the people to
the Voters Register. The EC went to 400 affected polling stations and did what was
called special inclusion in order not to disenfranchise the people. Other affected
people were allowed people to go to district offices for them to be put back on the
register. As a result of this exercise nearly 11,000 people were placed back on the
Voters Register.
Another reason given by the EC for the variation in the Voters Register was that
initially, they had a figure of 13,917,366 but after the registration of Ghanaians
working in diplomatic missions and international organization of which Ghana is a
member, Ghanaian students on government scholarship, security personnel,
soldiers and policemen who were returning home from peace keeping duties; this
figure jumped from 13,917,266 to 14,168,890. This was a difference of 241,524.
The petitioners asked for a production of the names and bio-data of this 241,524.
The EC provided 2,883 names, 705 of which were supposed to be for diplomatic
missions. The petitioners in examining the 705 names, found 51 of them to be
duplicate names, with same ages, except the voter ID number. The Petitioner
further showed evidence of double registration at the Mampong Anglican Primary
School. The EC though conceding those instances of double registration said those
persons could only vote once due to the use of biometric verification.

130

Although the Petitioners claimed the number of registered voters entered on the
pink sheets varied from what was listed in the voters register, they could not
substantiate the allegation. The Petitioners also claimed that the EC gave the NPP a
register different from what was used for the presidential elections.
1st and 3rd Respondents Response
The 1st and 3rd Respondents evidence was that the register by the nature of the
processes involved kept changing because after the provisional register was
announced further registration was done for Ghanaians in missions and
organizations abroad some Ghanaians on scholarship and troops returning from
peace keeping duties and a few others.
Mr Johnson Asiedu-Nketia who spoke on behalf of the 1st and 3rd Respondents said
the basis of a clean free and fair election is a credible voters register and
throughout our electoral history under this Fourth Republican Constitution the
2012 elections register which is a biometric register has been the most accurate
register that we have ever had in any elections in this country. According to him
because of the biometric registration, it was not possible to have the name of the
same individual repeated in the register and because of the verification procedure,
it is also not possible for one person to vote more than once and indeed the records
show that there is nowhere, where the total number of votes exceeded the number
of registered voters.
On the claim by the Petitioners that different registers in respect of parliamentary
and presidential elections, the 1st and 2nd Respondents respond that there was only
one register that was used for both the parliamentary and presidential elections;
and that voters were verified only once they cast their votes for presidential and
then they proceeded to cast their votes for parliamentary.

131

I appreciate the concern raised by the Petitioners on the voters register as the
Constitution that conferred the right to vote also conferred the right to registration
as underscored by this Court in Tehn-Addy v. Electoral Commission [1996-97]
SCGLR 58; andAhumah-Ocansey v. Electoral Commission; and Centre for
Human Rights & Civil Liberties (CHURCIL) v. Attorney-General & Electoral
Commission (Consolidated) [2010] SCGLR 575.
One of the core values of Election Justice is the principle of Participation: that
the voice of the people must be heard, respected, and represented in the context of
a free, fair and genuine context. A citizen can only exercise his right to
participation by registering as a voter for the purpose of public elections and
referenda.
Two other core values are Professionalism: Managing the electoral process
requires technical knowledge of electoral issues and competent delivery of the
process. [Reference Accra Guiding Principles supra]
The other is Transparency: Transparency is a core element that involves openness
at all stages of election organization, which must include access to relevant
information on a timely basis, a readiness to provide justification for decisions and
a frank admission and swift correction of any mistakes or oversights so as to
inspire confidence and credibility in the system in the mind of all
stakeholders [Reference Accra Guiding Principlessupra]
As a demonstration of transparency in the electoral process leading to the elections,
an Interparty Advisory Committee [IPAC] was established with the purpose of
achieving consensus in managing the elections which was to be organized under
the auspices of the Electoral Commission. The EC had series of meetings with
IPAC at various stages in the electoral process.

132

The political partiesand the public were fully informed by the EC about the voter
registration exercise and the various steps taken to assure the integrity, accuracy,
impartiality, efficiency, simplicity and security of voter registration. The print and
electronic media covered the process.
It is the duty of the EC to ensure that all eligible persons are registered and have
their names on the Voters register. The EC is therefore required by Regulation 22
of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012, to exhibit the
Provisional Register for public inspection at the registration centres. The purpose
of the public display is for the registered voter to check whether his name is on the
register and to ascertain whether the particulars on his voters identification card
are the same as the particulars contained in the provisional register. In case of any
discrepancy a person may request for the exhibition officer to make correction in
the provisional register. In case a person is registered and his name does not appear
in the provisional register he may make a claim in the prescribed manner to have
his name entered on the provisional register. A person may also file a challenge to a
person whose name appear in the provisional register on the ground that the person
is not qualified to be registered as a voter.
These claims and objections are settled by a District Registration Review Officer.
The Commission certifies the register after the determination of claims and
objections.
This verification exercise naturally resulted in a variation between the number of
registered voters in the provisional register and the final Voters Register.
It seems to me that apart from the discrepancies in the voters register, I do not find
any substance in the complaints being made by the Petitioner against the voters
register. The Political parties and citizens had the shared responsibility to check the

133

provisional register for accuracy when it was exhibited, though the ultimate
responsibility for a clean and reliable register rests on the EC.
There was bound to be hiccups during the registration and compilations of the
Principal Register by the use of biometric verification devices for the first time in
Ghana namely unfriendly climatic conditions in which the machine was operated
causing it freeze; and unfamiliarity with the device by the users.
Despite these few setbacks, I find that the EC had conducted its affairs
professionally and transparently to produce a clean, credible and reliable voters
register. Information regarding the voters register is available on the ECs Website.
At the trial it was established that the final register was given to all political parties
in the form a CD-ROM and hard copies as well.
From the foregoing I hold that the petitioners complaint that the compilation of
the voters register had an adverse impact on the 2012 December Elections cannot
be sustained.
Violations, Omissions, Malpractices and Irregularities in the Conduct of the
Presidential Elections held on the 7 and 8 December, 2012.
The petitioners in the written address made what I term the Petitioner plea that:
[W]hat all citizens expect form the highest court of the land is the
interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and the law, and
their application to the evidence adduced in this trial without fear or
favour, as the judicial oath of the learned justices of this Honourable
Court requires of them.
And this is what I set out to do.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS
134

Article 49 of the Constitution makes provision for the conduct of voting. The same
Constitution under Article 51 empowers:
The Electoral Commission, by constitutional instrument, make regulations,
for the effective performance of its functions, under the Constitution or any
other law, and in particular, for the registration of voters, the conduct of
public elections and referenda, including provisions for voting by proxy
One of such regulations is the Public Elections Regulations, 2012, (C.I. 75).
The Petitioners are seeking annulment of results in certain polling stations for
alleged violation of the Article 49 and Regulation 30 of C.I.75. These alleged
violations came about from the conduct of the election, and the Petitioners
identified them as voting without biometric verification, over voting andnonsignature of declaration forms.
In the evidence put before the Court the Petitioners made no allegation of
misconduct against voters and the 1st and 3rd Respondents. The allegation of
collusion by the EC with STL was dropped. Allegation of vote padding was
dropped. The violation and irregularities complained about were as a result of
lapses on the part of presiding officers and polling/counting agents.
The election at the polling stations was conducted by presiding officers and polling
assistance on behalf of the EC, and supervised on behalf of the candidates by their
appointed polling and counting agents. It is therefore pertinent to set out the role of
the presiding officer, the polling agents and counting agents on Election Day.
Role of Presiding officers and Polling/Counting Agents
The role of Presiding officers and Polling/Counting Agents are constitutionally and
statutorily regulated. Article 49 of the Constitution clearly articulates the
135

constitutional roles of polling agents alongside presiding officers at public

elections.
49. (1)

at any public election or referendum, voting shall be

by secret ballot.
(2)
Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall, in the
presence of such of the candidates or their representatives and their polling agents
as are present, proceed to count, at that polling station, the ballot papers of that
station and record the votes cast in favour of each candidate or question.
(3)
The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and,inthe case
of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the polling agents if any,
shall then sign a declaration stating (a)

the polling station; and

(b)
the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or question: and the
presiding officer shall, there and then, announce the result of the voting at the
polling station before communicating them to the returning officer.
Additional Functions of Presiding Officer
Regulation 17 of C.I. 75 provides for the appointment and role of presiding officer
and polling assistants. Their appointment is made by the EC. The role of the
presiding officer includes:
a. Setting up the polling station;
b. Taking proper custody of ballot boxes, ballot papers, biometric verification
equipment and other materials required for the poll; filling the relevant
forms relating to the conduct of the poll
c. Supervising the work of the polling assistants;
d. Attending to voters without identity cards
e. Attending to proxy voters;
f. maintaining order at the polling station;
g. undertaking thorough counting of the votes;
136

h. announcing the results of election at the polling station; and

i. conveying ballot boxes and other materials to the returning officer after the
poll.
I notice that no mention is made of the signing of a declaration form and giving a
copy of the pink sheet to the candidate or his or her agents. This omission is not
fatal as they are covered by Article 49 (3) and Regulation 36 3 (b). I however
recommend they are included.

Role of Polling Agent
Regulation 19 of C.I. 75 provides for the appointment and role of polling agents.
The role description shows that Polling agents are not mere or exalted observers
as claimed by the Petitioners. The section provides:
19. (1) A candidate for parliamentary election, may appoint one polling
agent to attend at each polling station in the constituency for which the
candidate is seeking election.

(2) A candidate for presidential election may appoint one polling

agent in every polling station nationwide.

(3)An appointment under sub-regulations (1) and (2) is for the

purpose of detecting impersonation and multiple voting and certifying
that the poll was conducted in accordance with the laws and
regulations governing the conduct of elections.
(4) A presiding officer shall give a polling agent the necessary access
to enable the polling agent to observe election proceeding at a polling
station.

Role of a Counting Agent

Regulations 35 make provisions for the appointment of counting agents and

counting of votes.

137

35 (1) A candidate for parliamentary or presidential elections may

appoint a counting agent to attend the counting of votes at each polling
station in the constituency which the candidate is seeking election.
2.
In the case of a candidate for presidential elections the candidate
may appoint a counting agent in every station nationwide.

The counting agent is also given specific roles to play at the counting stage of the
elections. The regulations allow a polling agent to act as a counting agent as well.
Regulations 36 provides as follows:

1. The presiding officer shall immediately after the close of the poll, in the
presence of the candidates or their representatives and counting agents:
a. open each box and take out all the ballot papers in the box ;
b. sort out, the ballot papers into valid ballot papers and rejected ballot
papers in accordance with regulations 37;
c. proceed to count the ballot papers at the polling station
d. record the total number of votes cast in favour of each candidate
e. record the total number of rejected ballots
2. The presiding officer, the candidates, or their representatives and the
counting agents shall then sign a declaration stating

a.
b.
c.
d.

the name of the polling station;

the total number of persons entitled to vote at that polling station;
the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate; and
the total number of rejected ballots.

3. The presiding officer shall

a. then announce the results of the voting at that polling station
before communicating the results to the returning officer; and
b. give each candidate or the representative of the candidate or the
counting agents a copy of the declaration of the results.

It is clear from these provisions that a presiding officer, a polling agent and a
counting agent have important roles to play from the beginning of polling to the
declaration of results; and that they complement each other in conducting the polls.
Looking on the face of the pink sheets it is not farfetched to say that both 1st
Petitioner and 1st Respondent appointed a polling agent and a counting agent to the
138

polling stations, that explains why invariable two agents signed the pink sheets as
Regulation 36(2) suprapermits candidates, or their representatives and the
counting agents shall to sign. Regulation 35 (6) permits a polling agent appointed
by a candidate to act as a counting agent. It is in the interest of a candidate to
appoint at least one agent to be at each of the 26,002 polling stations due to the
roles they are mandated by the constitution and regulations to perform.

Swearing of Oath

The duties of a presiding officer, polling agents and counting agents are weighty as
it is by their performance that an election can be judged fair, impartial, and nondiscriminatory and the results accepted by all as credible. Since their role requires
honesty, integrity and impartiality they are all (including polling assistance) at the
various stages of their appointment) required to swear to an oath that they shall
abide by the laws and regulations governing the conduct of elections.
The presiding officer and polling assistants who work under him, in taking their
oaths swear further that they will faithfully carry out duties in a fair and impartial
way. [Regulation 17(4) (a) and (b)]
An additional oath taken by a counting agent is that he:

c. will sign the declaration of results following the count of the

ballot, or state in writing to the presiding officer the reason for
failing to do so. [Regulation 35(4)]

Sanctions for breach of oath

In the case of presiding officer and polling assistance, Regulation 17(5) provides
that:
A person appointed a presiding officer or polling assistant who
contravenes the laws and regulations governing the conduct of
elections commit an offence and is liable to sanctions applicable
under the electoral laws of Ghana.
139

For a counting agent, he takes the oath upon penalty of perjury. [Regulation
35(4)] In the case of a polling agent no sanction is stated but under common law an
oath is taken upon penalty of perjury.

Is the role of the polling /counting agent a mere observing role as put out by the
Petitioners?

It is clear from the constitutional and statutory regulations that the polling agent
forms an integral part of the conduct of the polls on Election Day. He has before
the polls sworn to the same oath that the presiding officer and polling assistance
have sworn to abide by the laws and regulations governing the conduct of the
election.
Although he does not directly perform the tasks assigned to the polling assistance,
for instance matching ID cards of voters or distributing ballot papers, he is
enjoined by his oath see to it that the rules for the conduct of elections are
followed. The presiding officer is also to give him space to do that. Accordingly
before the polls begin at a polling station, a polling agent is required to observe the
presiding officer setting out tables and materials for the election and most
importantly fill Sections A and B of the pink sheet.
When polling starts polling agents as watchdogs are to help detect impersonation,
multiple voting, tampering with the contents of a ballot box and polling staff that
do not follow the laid down procedures, or misconduct themselves.

A polling agent is expected to call the attention of the Presiding Officer to anything
he considers to be irregular, and if necessary, fill an irregularity form or give a
written account of the irregularity to the Presiding Officer or a higher election
officer like the returning officer at the collation centre.

140

Under Article 49.3 polling agents are required to certify the results of their polling
stations, consequently polling agents are expected to pay close attention to rejected
ballots, closely observe the counting of votes; and make sure that the total number
of votes obtained by each candidate has been properly recorded. A polling agent
may ask for a recount if he genuinely thinks that the votes have not been counted
correctly. Recount is done only once at the polling station. If still unsatisfied the all
agents must accompany the ballot box to the constituency centre for the Returning
Officer to count the ballots.
A counting agent is required to sign the Declaration of Results form. Poling agents
should obtain copies of the signed copy of the results for their candidates. If a
polling agents refuse to sign the results he must give reasons to the Presiding
Officer or a superior election official.
To conclude the discussion on the role of presiding officers and polling/counting
agents I wish to observe that these presiding officers and polling/counting agents
have to undergo intensive and proper training to be able to carry out this very
sensitive tasks assigned them under the Constitution and C.I. 75. These persons
have to show professionalism, understanding of the electoral laws which may seem
simple but complex to carry out. Even though the EC offers training for the agents
of candidates, I think it is the responsibility of Political parties to ensure that the
agents they appoint have been thoroughly trained and acquainted with what they
have to look for. Most of the irregularities complained of in this petition are not
trivial as it is the inaction of both the polling agents and presiding officers that has
brought us here. Had the polling/counting agents been more attentive to what the
presiding officers were required to fill on the forms and the sources from which the
information is to be extracted e.g. the voters register, ballot booklets and the
biometric verificationequipment the errors on the pink sheet might have been
141

minimal. Political parties must invest in the training of their polling agents and not
leave it all to the Electoral Commission which appears to organize crash training
programs due to limited time.
I will now proceed to deal with the allegation of no signatures of pink sheets by
presiding officers to be followed by voting without biometric violation.
ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES BY PRESIDING OFFICERS
This category of irregularity is outside the voters control, and is caused solely by
the error or omission on thepart of the presiding officer. Article 49 (3) supra, and
Regulation 36 (2) suprarequires the presiding officer, the candidate or their
representatives to sign a declaration stating that the results are a true and accurate
account of the poll at that polling station, the name of the polling station, the total
number of votes cast in favour of each candidate and the total number of rejected
ballots.
There was evidence that some forms were unsigned by the presiding officers and
the party agents. The Petitioners are requesting that the votes in these polling
stations be annulled as the non-signing of the sheets by presiding officers is an
infringement of Article 49 (3).
Counsel for Petitioners submits that:
It should respectfully be noted that article 49 (3) does not place any
premium on the presence of the signature of the agent on the declaration
forms unlike that of the presiding officer. That is why it stipulates that the
polling agents (if any) shall then sign the declaration form after the signing
by the presiding officer.
I find this argument misplaced as the words the polling agents if any is taken out
of context. To single out the words the polling agents if any without reference to
142

the remaining words in section 49(3) of article 49 would be a totally wrong

approach to the interpretation of that subsection. For it is important in interpreting
a provision of a statute to take account of all the words used since the legislature is
presumed not to have used the words unnecessarily. In Halsburys Laws of
England, (3rd ed.) at pages 389 to 390, paragraph 583, states:
It may be presumed that words are not used in a statue without a meaning
and are not tautologies or superfluous, and so effect must be given, to all the
words used, for the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or say
anything in vain.
It is also trite law that the overriding principle of statutory interpretation is that the
words of

an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical

and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act. E. A. Driedger,
Construction of Statutes (2 ed. 1983) at page 87.
Article 49(3) which states:
The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and, in the case
of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the polling agents
if any, shall then sign a declaration stating[ Emphasis added]
In my opinion by the use of the commas in the sentence, the underlined words
relate to referenda and the phrase if any refers to the whole of the underlined
words. This makes sense as voting in a referendum does not involve candidates
vying for public office; but is usually to decide on constitutional issue(s) as was
held in 1977 or 1978 on the issue of UNIGOV oron 28 April, 1992 for the adoption
of the 1992 Constitution; or as the citizens of Ghana may probably be required do
in the future for the amendment of some entrenched provisions of the Constitution
following the recommendations of the Constitution Review Commission.

143

It is not envisaged that there would be or should be contesting parties in a

referenda that is why the words if any was used by the legislator. The
phrasecontesting partiesto me does not necessarily mean political parties. It
includes any group of persons such as civil society, pressure groups, organised
labour and civil rights activists who may choose to campaign on the issues that
affect governance and civil rights of citizens or group of persons; and also to be
watchdogs at the polling stations.
Mr. Addison compares the signatures of the polling agents on the declaration
forms:
at best, are akin to those of witnesses to a document. The signature of a
witness to the execution of a document is valueless in the absence of the
signature of the principal party itself, i.e. the party who is to be bound by the
contents of the document.
Contrary to counsels submission, the language of Article 49 (3) does not speak or
imply that polling agents are required to sign the declaration form as witnesses to
the signature of the presiding officers. A polling agent who represents the candidate
is obliged to sign the declaration together with the presiding officer. Both of them
have the same obligation tocertify the regularity of the conduct of the poll in
accordance with the laws and regulations. That is why the polling agent has to pay
attention to the sorting and counting of the votes and rejected ballots have to be
shown to him and he is entitled to object to the rejection of a ballot paper.
The role of the polling agent as shown in the preceding paragraphs is not a mere
spectator at the polls. The Presiding officer is obliged to give him space to observe
the poll and where a polling agent has any complaint, he can refuse to sign the
declaration form and give reasons in the column provided on the declaration form
and/or file a complaint which must be resolved at the collation centre.
144

The polling agent and presiding officer both face sanction if they do not perform
their duties according to the electoral laws.
It is noteworthy that in a majority of the pink sheets where there is no presiding
officers signature the polling agents of the two contesting parties signed the pink
sheets, because they are required by the constitutional and statutory regulations to
do so.
Counsel for the Petitioners submits further that:
It has always been the law that an unsigned document, in circumstances where
signatures is essential, is bad in law and void, citing Akowuah & Anor vs.
Ammo& Anor [2012] 1SCGLR 261 which deals with cancellations and lack of
signature on a bail bond; and Attorney-General, Kwara State & Anor v. Chief
Joshua Alao&Anor. (2009) 9 NWLR Part 671, 84 @ 104 and Omega Bank Plc. v.
O. B. C. Limited, 21 NSCQR 771 @ 794 (per Musdapher JSC).
Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that:
The competing constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to
vote under Articles 42, and Article 49(3), which impose a duty on the
Presiding Officer to sign a declaration form, should be resolved in
favour of preserving the Ghanaian citizens inalienable right to vote,
particularly when there is no proof that failure by the Presiding
Officer to sign the declaration was wilful or affected the results in any
manner.
He submits further that:
In resolving the issue, therefore, we invite your Lordships to take
into consideration the following factors:

a.

Petitioners do not allege that the voter has committed any unlawful
act;

b.

Voters had no control over the acts and omissions of the Presiding
Officers
145

c.

Petitioners do not allege collusion between the voter and the Presiding
Officers, or indeed between the Presiding Officers and any candidate
or political party;

d.

They do not allege misconduct on the part of the Presiding Officers.

Indeed it would have been counter-productive on the part of
Petitioners to allege wilfulness on the part of the Presiding Officer
because then that would make Petitioners the beneficiaries of such
misconduct, if their claim in this regard were upheld;

e.

There are no allegations of wilfulness on the part of the Presiding

Officers;

f.

The polling agents of the candidates signed their respective portions

of the pink sheets in accordance with Article 49(3) of the Constitution;

g.

Petitioners are not alleging any other head of claim in respect of the
polling stations that have the exclusive irregularity;

h.

Petitioners do not challenge the results that were tallied and declared
at those polling stations;

i.

Petitioners have not complained in prescribed manner, either at the

polling stations or at the constituency collation centres, about the
conduct of the elections or the declaration of the results.

The submissions by Mr Lithur are in line with election jurisprudence. Counsel

citedHalsburys Laws of England 4th Edition, Volume 15(4) atparagraph 670,
whereit was stated as follows:
No election is to be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission by the
returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in
connection with the election or otherwise of the appropriate elections rules if
it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election
was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to the elections,
and that the act or omission did not affect the result. The function of the
court in exercising this jurisdiction is not assisted by consideration of the
standard of proof but, having regard to the consequences of declaring an
election void, there must be a preponderance of evidence supporting any
conclusion that the rule was affected.

146

And alsoOpitz case, (supra), where it was held on page 42 (paragraph 66) as
follows:
By contrast, if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be rejected in a
contested election application because of an irregularity, the voter would be
irreparably disenfranchised. This is especially undesirable when the
irregularity is outside of the voters control, and is caused solely by the error
of an election official.
Counsel concludes that:
It would be misdirecting punishment indeed for entitled voters who stayed
in long queues to cast their votes, and whose vote had been counted, entered
onto a declaration form and publicly declared to be deprived of the right to
have those votes counted as a result of an act of omission by an electoral
officer (not wilfully done), over whose conduct the voters have no control.

I find these authorities persuasive. Compliance failures do not automatically void

an election; unless explicit statutory language specifies the election is voided
because of the failure. There is no such explicit language in Article 49 or C.I. 75. In
election jurisprudence, as in Canada, when election officials fail to comply with
election codes, the statutes are evaluated as directory unless the officials
committed fraud, the statute expressly declares noncompliance fatal, or the
noncompliance changed or muddied the result. McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
Brockton, 434 N.E.2d 620, 626 (Mass. 1982) (A voter who has cast his ballot in
good faith should not be disenfranchised because of the failure of a ministerial
officer to perform some duty imposed upon him by law.)Atty Gen. ex rel. Miller
v. Miller, 253 N.W. 241, 243 (Mich. 1934); Pyron v. Joiner, 381 So.2d 627,
629(Miss. 1980) (en banc) (quoting authorities that stated that elections held at the
proper time and place and under the supervision of competent persons will not be
overturned for irregularities in the manner the election was conducted unless the
contestant proves that legal votes were rejected, illegal votes were allowed, or a

147

combination in a number sufficient to change the results or render them

uncertain).
In this petition as enumerated above by the 1st Respondent, no evidence was
adduced to show that the noncompliance were premeditated and carried out by the
presiding officers who were agents of the 2nd Respondent, with the intent of
causing prejudice to any particular candidate or change the elections outcome or
to render it uncertain. Courts usually apply the election code to protectnot defeat
the right to vote. Public policy favours salvaging the election and giving effect to
the voters intent, if possible. The right to vote is at the core of our democratic
dispensation, a principle I have earlier affirmed in this opinion with reference
toTehn-Addy andAhumah-Ocansey line of casessupra.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent drew the Courts attention to The Representation
of the People Law 1992, (P.N.D.C.L. 284) as amended by the Representation of
the People (Amendment) Law 1992 (P.N.D.C. L. 296), to apply to any public
elections, in its Section 20 (2) (b), provides as follows:
Where at the hearing of an election petition the High Court finds that
there has been failure to comply with a provision of this Act or of the
Regulations, and the High Court further finds
(i)

that the election was conducted in accordance with this Act and
Regulations, and

(ii)

that the failure did not affect the result of the election,

the election of the successful candidate shall not, because of the failure be
void and the successful candidate shall not be subject to an incapacity
under this Act or the Regulations.
Clearly, this Law requires that it is not enough to allege and indicate a
failure, but that it must also be demonstrated that the failure affected the results of
the election. I agree with him.

148

From the foregoing I would in the absence of explicit statutory language that
specifies the election is voided because of the failure of the signature of a presiding
officer; conclude that the votes on the unsigned sheets are valid. Failure by
Presiding Officers to sign declaration forms did not affect the results of the
elections at the respective polling stations. The presiding officers who did not sign
the declaration forms are liable to be sanctioned.
Iam conscious of the role of this Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the
Constitution, which is one of its underlying concepts of the Constitution. Ghana
has progressed immensely in electoral laws and processes and we are in fact the
beacon of light in Africa in the conduct of elections. Suffice me to say that gone
were the days as in the 60s:
where to register as a candidate for an opposition party required an act
of faith; to vote for a United Party member in an election for example, was
tantamount to a criminal offence before rural CPP thugs. Whatever went on
behind the screen in the polling booths was discovered to be no secret to
CPP polling assistants; for the blinds have been rigged so high and the ballot
boxes for the parties positioned so far apart that by watching the voters feet
it was easy to tell for which candidate he was voting [By courtesy and culled
frompage63 of T. Peter Omaris book KWAME NKRUMAH- The
Anatomy of an African Dictator; Reprint 2009].
Gone were the days when counting was not done at the polling station but taken to
a collation centre that led to abuses like ballot stuffing and in extreme cases
dumping opponents ballot boxes.
With the kind of peaceful election that we experienced on the 2 polling days 7 and
8 December are we setting the clock back by a narrow interpretation of electoral
laws? A strict interpretation would curtail and erode the gains we have made so far.
What Ghanaians need to do is to shun and shame the growing violence that has
149

come about as a result of irresponsible, impudent, disrespectful and chauvinistic

persons, whose unguarded utterances,and machinationsat times bordering on
treason are causing disunity in this our dear country all in the name of politics.
I request my colleagues who are not persuaded by my stand to reflect on the
following legal exposition by Mr S. Y. Bimpong Buta, the eminent and luminous
lawyer and author in his monumental book, The Role of the Supreme Court in
the Development of Constitutional Law in Ghana; at pages 617 to 618, where he
ably sums up what is expected to be our role in nation building. He noted that:
the Supreme Court has made very distinctive contribution to the
important and crucial question of the policy considerations for determining
the interpretation of a national Constitution. It is suggested that the
principles of constitutional interpretation, such as the need for a benevolent,
broad, liberal and purposive construction of the 1992 Constitution as a
political document sui generis, and capable of growth (as stated by the
Supreme Court in cases such as Tuffuor v. Attorney-General) would very
much assist the court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction in all matters
relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the Constitution under article
2 and 130(1). As pointed elsewhere, the 1992 Constitution as the
fundamental law of the landmust not be narrowly construed. Rather the
Constitution must be given: a wide generous and purposive construction
in the context of the peoples aspirations and hopes and with special
reference to the political, social and economic development of the country.
Such an approach would, it is submitted, create the peaceful and congenial
atmosphere necessarily required for addressing the challenges for national
development in all facets.[1991-92] 18 RGL93 at 104; See also the
dissenting opinion of Sophia Akuffo JSC in Tsatsu Tsikata (No1) where she
pointed out the need to avoid absurdity and stultification of the organic
150

dynamism that must inform constitutional development.] [See also New

Patriotic Party v. Ghana Broadcasting Corporation [1993- 94] 2 GLR 354
at 366 where Francois JSC said: The Constitution, 1992 itself points the way
to its liberal interpretation. It illustrates from the horses own mouth the
spirit that should guide its construction. Thus in Articles 165 and 33(5) of
the Constitution, 1992 we are required not only to go by the written letter,
but to adopt as well, the known criteria which attach to the democratic
environment, so that the fundamental human rights guaranteed under chapter
5 of the Constitution are not curtailed.][Emphasis added]
I rest my case.
I accordingly hold that this head of claim fails and dismissed accordingly.

VOTING WITHOUT BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION
Regulation 30 of Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C.I. 75 sets out procedures
that a voter goes through before casting his/her vote in accordance with article 42.
It reads:
(1) A presiding officer may, before delivering a ballot paper to a person who
is to vote at the election, require the person to produce (a) a voter
identification card, or (b) any other evidence determined by the
Commission, in order to establish by fingerprint or facial recognition that the
person is the registered voter whose name and voter identification number
and particulars appear in the register.
(2) The voter shall go through a biometric verification process.
Regulation 47(1) of C.I. 75 defines a biometric verification equipment to mean:
a device provided at a polling station by the [Electoral] Commission for the
purpose of establishing by fingerprint the identity of the voter. [It seems to me this
definition is too limited as the biometric verification equipment (BVD) is also used
for facial recognition]
151

The claim by the Petitioners that there has been a violation of the rules relating to
biometric verification is based on sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 30 which
provides that: (2) the voter shall go through a biometric verification process.
The Petitioners submits that the ordinary meaning of Regulation 30(2) of C.I. 75 is
that no registered voter should be allowed to vote without first and foremost going
through a biometric verification process. The word shall makes it obligatory for
all voters to be verified biometrically before being allowed to vote.
The Respondents responds that a strict interpretation of Regulation 30(2) of C.I. 75
would disenfranchise a lot of people especially those without fingers and those
whose fingerprints have so eroded that the BVD cannot pick them.
Mr Tony Lithur submits:
If Your Lordships, however, take the view that indeed people voted
without biometric verification, it is the case of the 1st Respondent
that fingerprint verification was not the only permissible means of
verification under the law. Therefore failure to undergo fingerprint
verification before voting did not constitute an infringement of the
law. Anyhow, the fundamental right to vote under the Constitution
could not be whittled away by subsidiary legislation. To the extent
that any legislation seeks to do that, same would be unenforceable.
[T]he use of the word or in sub-regulation (b) clearly shows that
fingerprint verification is not the only mode of identifying voters.
Indeed the existence of FOs on the biometric register is a clear proof
of the position of the law.
The process contained in the legislation envisages a two-step
procedure. The first is the presentation of a voter identification card.
152

The second is the presentation by the voter of any other evidence

determined by the Commission in order to establish by fingerprint or
facial recognition that the person is the registered voter whose name
and voter identification number and particulars appear in the
register. Thus, the alternative to the production of a voter
identification card is the production by the voter of evidence that
would enable the Commission or its officers to properly identify the
voter for purposes of voting. Such evidence may consist either of the
fingerprints of the voter or evidence of facial recognition (e.g. a
travellers passport or drivers license). In the former case, the only
procedure for producing the fingerprint of the voter is the use of the
biometric verification equipment provided by the Commission.
Indeed, Regulation 47 of the Public Election Regulations defines
biometric verification equipment as a device provided at a polling
station by the Commission for the purpose of establishing by
fingerprint the identity of the voter.
He continues:
Even if this extrapolation were correct, we submit that within the
broader context of our electoral laws, a more expansive notion of
biometric verification is necessary in order to give meaning to the
right to vote as guaranteed by the Constitution. The restrictive
approach being put forth by the Petitioners harbours the potential of
nullifying or impairing the right of ordinary citizens who cannot be
verified biometrically by fingerprint to vote. For example, persons
who are lepers, or have coarse fingers due to farming or other manual

153

labour or double amputees cannot vote by reason of this restrictive

meaning of biometric verification.
He concludes that:
Your Lordships, be that as it may, it is our contention that the
requirement to go through biometric verification must be given a
purposive meaning within the context of the constitutional right to
vote and the electoral laws of the country. Therefore failure to undergo
fingerprint verification before voting did not constitute an
infringement of the law. Anyhow, the fundamental right to vote under
the Constitution could not be whittled away by subsidiary legislation.
To the extent that any legislation seeks to do that, same would be
unenforceable.

As for Mr Tony Lithurs view that a restrictive approach in applying fingerprint
identification will impair a citizens right to vote, Mr Addison points out that:
Biometric verification was intended to deal with instances of voter
fraud and impersonation witnessed in the past. It is an even-handed
restriction, since as Dr Afari-Gyan stated in evidence, every voter is
supposed to be verified. Even persons with the words Face
Only (F. O.), written by their names in the voters register, and,
thereby, suggesting the presence of one form of disability or the other
which would disable them from being verified by fingerprint, were
verified. The only difference is the manner of verification. It is correct
to say that, under the current legal regime of Ghana, biometric
verification is uniformly applied to all classes of voters. It is an evenhanded restriction intended to protect the reliability and integrity of
the electoral process itself. As held in the U.S. case of Anderson v.
Celebreeze 460 U. S. 780 (1983), reasonable, non-discriminatory
restrictions which achieve the object of strengthening the electoral
system cannot be unconstitutional.
154

It is obvious that the BVD is not only for fingerprint identification but also for face
or picture verification by these wiping of the bar-coded identification card on the
machine. On Election Day every voter with an ID card had to go through face
verification before those who are not listed as face only went through finger print
verification. The system made special provision for those without fingers and
fingerprints to be verified by face only and such data is captured on the BVD
machine as well as on their voters ID card. From the foregoing it is my contention
that sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 30 which provides that: (2) [T]he voter shall
go through a biometric verification process is therefore misleading as a strict
implementation of it would disenfranchise all persons who cannot go through
fingerprint identification.
In any event, the compilation of a new voters register using biometric technology,
plus the mandatory use of biometric verification devices on polling day, as
provided by both C. I. 72 and C. I. 75 respectively, were the necessary mechanisms
lawfully put in place to enhance the integrity of the ballot in Ghana. In my view the
law requiring that every voter shall go through a process of verification is
legitimate and is consistent with international norms. Reference is made to election
jurisprudence, where the decisive question that arose for consideration is:
When can it be legitimately said that a legislative measure designed to enable
people to vote in fact results in a denial of that right?
In Ted Opitz supra the Supreme Court of Canada at par.38 has this to say:
While enfranchisement is one of the cornerstones of the Act, it is not
freestanding. Protecting the integrity of the democratic process is also a
central purpose of the Act. The same procedures that enable entitled voters
to cast their ballots also serve the purpose of preventing those not entitled
from casting ballots. These safeguards address the potential for fraud,
corruption and illegal practices, and the publics perception of the integrity
155

of the electoral process. Fair and consistent observance of the statutory

safeguards serves to enhance the publics faith and confidence in fair
elections and in the government itself, both of which are essential to an
effective democracy; Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA
852,88 O.R. at para, 64 .
Mr Addison also referred to the South African case of New National Party v
Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT9/99) [1999]
ZACC 5; 1999 (3) SA 191; 1999 (5) BCLR 489 (13 April 1999).The impugned
provisions prescribed that, pursuant to the Electoral Act, No. 73 of 1998, South
African citizens otherwise entitled to vote could only participate in the 1999
elections if they possessed and produced one of two identification documents when
voting: either a bar-coded identification card or a temporary identification card
(TIC).
The Constitutional Court, per Yacoob J, held:
But the mere existence of the right to vote without proper
arrangements for its effective exercise does nothing for a democracy;
it is both empty and useless. The Constitution takes an important step
in the recognition of the importance of the right to exercise the vote
by providing that all South African citizens have the right to free, fair
and regular elections. It is to be noted that all South African citizens
irrespective of their age have a right to these elections. The right to
vote is of course indispensable to, and empty without, the right to free
and fair elections; the latter gives content and meaning to the former.
The right to free and fair elections underlines the importance of the
exercise of the right to vote and the requirement that every election
should be fair has implications for the way in which the right to vote
can be given more substantive content and legitimately exercised.
Two of these implications are material for this case: each citizen
entitled to do so must not vote more than once in any election; any
person not entitled to vote must not be permitted to do so. The extent
to which these deviations occur will have an impact on the fairness of
the election. This means that the regulation of the exercise of the right
to vote is necessary so that these deviations can be eliminated or
156

restricted in order to ensure the proper implementation of the right to

vote.
From the foregoing I hold that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate a
corresponding interest equally weighty to justify the non- application of Regulation
30 (2). What has weighed on me to come to this conclusion is that the EC during
the registration exercise made special provisions to ensure that persons who
because of trauma cannot go through fingerprint verification are not
disenfranchised by being verified by face only.
To prevent abuse, FO is embossed on the voters ID card; indicated in the voters
register; and in the bio data on the BVD. I accordingly I hold that the requirement
by Regulation 30 (2) for a voter to go through fingerprint identification before
casting his/her vote does not infringe his or her constitutional right to vote.
The requirement is necessary to prevent those who are not entitled to vote from
voting and thus ensure free and fair elections as protecting the integrity of the
democratic process is a central core principle of Electoral Justice.
Mr Addison further submits that:
Quite remarkably, contrary to the clear dictates of Regulation 30 (2)
of C.I. 75, the 2nd Respondent in its training manual, exhibit EC2,
granted unto its official, particularly, presiding officials at the polling
stations, some amount of discretion in permitting persons whose
fingerprints could not be verified to be allowed to vote.
This submission is misplaced as nowhere in the manual was the presiding officer
given the discretion to allow a person whose fingerprints could not be verified to
vote. At page 28 of the training manual under the heading of Possible Challenges
in Processing Voters some challenges that may be encountered when using BVD
with their corresponding solution were dealt with. The first deals with situations
where the voter do not possess his/her voter ID or the registration receipt, the
157

presiding officer was directed to accept any other form of valid identification
document like Passport, NHIS,NIA,Drivers Licence and SSNIT ID cards with
photograph and having the same name of voter in the register. This is in
conformity with Regulation 30 (1) of C.I. 75.
Attending to people without identity card is one of the duties of a presiding officer,
specified under regulations 17 (d).The manual provides further that even if the
voter has no identification document, the presiding officer is permitted to use the
voters name as recorded in the registration exercise to look for his/her details in
the Name Reference list and be made to go through fingerprint verification. [This
is where the reference to the Omanhene by Dr Afari-Gyan perhaps comes in.] In
other instances where the voter ID number does not tally with the ID number in the
Register but all other details including photograph match; or where biographic
details in the voter register do not match voters photo, the voter should be allowed
to go through fingerprint verificationas fingerprint match is unique to an individual
and therefore it is a perfect and conclusive form of identification. And where in all
these cases the finger verification is successful the voter is to be allowed to vote,
Though it is not open to the Commission to over-ride the Regulations and rules
governing the conduct of elections, such as a requirement of a voter holding a
voters ID card or some form of a valid photo of ID; it is evident that the
administrative instructions in the manual are to be applied by the election officials
to facilitate, and not to deny an eligible voter the right to vote. The application is
not a free fall, as ultimately a voter is only allowed to vote where the verification
by fingerprints is successful. [Emphasis added]
So ultimately with the exception of FOs a voter shall only be allowed to vote after
going through verification by fingerprints.

158

What evidence are the Petitioners relying on to support their claim that people
voted without going through biometric verification as required by Regulation 30(1)
and (2) of C.I. 75?
For the Petitioners, the only evidence of voting without biometric verification is to
be found in section C3 of the pink sheets.
A pink sheet comprises of two forms. Form EL 21B, the statement of poll for the
office of the President for the Republic of Ghana and Form EL 22B, a declaration
form to be signed by the presiding officer and polling agents of the candidates
certifying the accuracy of the results of the ballots at the polling station. Form EL
21B comprise of Section A, Ballot Information, and Section B Information about
the register and other lists such as proxy list. Section C Ballot Accounting Section
D Rejected Ballot Report, the next Section is headed Presidential Election-Polling
Station Results Form.
A presiding officer is required to answer a question on a portion of the pink sheet
as follows:
C3: What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of Form 1C
(but not by the use of BVD)?
The Petitioners throughout the trial contend the pink sheets tendered in evidence
without more constituted the primary evidence on which they relied in support of
their case. The Petitioners relied on the figures entered in answer to the above
question as evidence of people who voted without going through verification by
BVD. According to Dr Bawumia what he and his team did was to aggregate all the
figures in section C3 in pink sheets in the MB-M series as evidence of people who
voted without biometric verification.

159

The Respondents denied the claim. Dr Afari-Gyan stated that the Column C3 was
not required to be filled by the presiding officers. According to him, that column
was created to take care of voters who had been registered by 2nd Respondent
during the biometric registration exercise that preceded voting, but whose
biometric data had, unfortunately, been lost as a result of some technical
difficulties that Commission had encountered. The facility was to allow such
persons to vote without going through biometric verification. Some of the political
parties raised objections. So the idea was dropped and the presiding officers were
instructed not to fill that column; and the Forms 1C were not sent to the polling
station.
The Petitioners did not provide any evidence about any complaint lodged by the 1st
Petitioners polling agents in prescribed form or affidavit evidence as to people
voting without biometric verification. On the face of the pink sheets none of the
NPP polling agents attested there was no biometric verification of voters at the
polling station.
On his part Counsel for 1st Respondent submits that:
That the polls were adjourned to 8th December in selected polling stations is
not in doubt. The reason for the adjournment is also not in doubt. It was
precisely to ensure that no voter would be allowed to vote without first
undergoing biometric verification. 2nd Petitioner under cross-examination
by Counsel for 1st Respondent testified to this
Counsel submits further that:
What is clear from the testimony is that the use of Form 1C was
intended at all times to be the condition precedent to making any
entries in column C3. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that
those forms were taken to the polling stations against the express
instructions of the witness, and that they were indeed utilized, the
irresistible conclusion is that any entries made in the column were
160

made in error. This is a clear corroboration of Johnson Asiedu

Nketias testimony.

The account of the origin of the column C3 was unchallenged. I find the ECs
explanation that the column was created to take care of persons who had been
registered during the biometric registration exercise that preceded the election but
whose biometric data was lost due to technical hitches, plausible. Any democratic
society must treat all its citizenry equally and fairly. The Constitution guarantees
the right of persons to equal treatment. So the system should seek to enfranchise all
entitled persons to come and vote on Election Day.
The fact that the Form 1C of the affected persons were not sent to the polling
centres is also unchallenged. The inference then is that people were not verified by
the use of these forms and in the absence of any evidence offered by the Petitioners
to the contrary; this Courtcan reasonably conclude that no-one voted without going
through biometric verification.
Furthermore, even though the1st Petitioner had polling agents at all the 26,002
polling stations there was not a single complaint of non-verification by BVM filed
by any of them.
To preserve the integrity,transparency and credibility the election process is open
and public. Polling officials work in a public environment at a polling station
where their actions can be observed by other election officials like the presiding
officer, the parliamentary and presidential candidates or their polling and counting
agents, election observers, the media, and members of the public present to vote
and present later to watch/join in the counting of votes which is done audibly by
the presiding officer. It is reasonable to expect people to protest if others voted
without going through biometric verification.
161

Opportunity was given to the parties in pursuance of the Courts direction on the
mode of adducing evidence to file affidavit evidence. The 3rdRespondents filed
thousands of affidavits from their polling agents and other persons testifying that
they participated in the election that was regularly conducted at their various
polling stations and all who voted went through biometric verification. Even
though Counsel for the Petitioners tried to downplay the evidential value of their
affidavits,I am of the view that some weight is to be attached to them as they
recounted the procedure that everyone went through at the polling stations.

The Petitioners had polling agents at all the 26,002 polling stations yet they did not
produce a single affidavit evidence to support their allegation that some voters did
not go through finger verification before voting. They also failed to apply to have
any of the witnesses of the 3rd Respondent to be cross-examined to test their
credibility. Having failed to call a single person for cross-examination, the
Petitioners cannot turn round to say the evidence was untested.
The rules as to the burden of proof are observed even with affidavit
procedure - see Republic vs. Director of Prisons Ex parte
Shackleford supra, Republic vs. Mensa-Bonsu Ex parte AttorneyGeneral supra, and Republic vs. High Court, Accra; Ex parte
Concord Media Ltd. & Ogbamey (Ghana Ports & Harbours
Authority & Owusu Mensah Interested Parties;)supra.

So the affidavit evidence filed by the 3rd respondent in support of their case stood
unrebutted. I recall how about three hundred people claiming to have participated
in the elections which they claim was regularly conduced in accordance with law
applied to be joined as respondents but were turned down by this Court for the very
reason that they could give evidence on behalf of the Respondents. From the
162

Appendix attached to 3rd Respondents written address a total of 3,794 affidavits

were sworn to denying the various heads of irregularities alleged by the Petitioners.
We take judicial notice of the fact that voters with valid ID cards whose photo and
bio data have been verified by the BVD but could not be verified by fingerprints
due to technical defects were turned away. The elderly, especially women were the
major victims. Breakdown of the BVM resulted in long queues making some
people go away without voting.
It is a pity that technical difficulties disenfranchised some citizens. See AhumahOcansey v. Electoral Commission; Centre for Human Rights & Civil Liberties
(CHURCIL) v. Attorney-General& Electoral Commission (Consolidated)
Participation in elections is one of the core values of Electoral Justice that
states: The voice of the people must be heard, respected, and represented in
the context of a free, fair and genuine contest. Citizens are the core
representative of democracy as it is they who chose by secret ballot those
who represent and govern them. Elections provide a way for all to decide on
the decision makers in a way that ensures that all voters have a free and
equal opportunity to participate in the election process. Full participation and
diversity are manifested when arrangements facilitate the involvement of all,
including first-time voters, women, and disadvantaged groups.[Reference
Accra Guiding Principles supra]
I find the reasons given by Dr Afari-Gyan plausible. The fact that elections were
postponed to the next day due to failure of the BVD machines attest to the fact that
all who voted went through biometric verification.
From the foregoing I hold that the Petitioners have not discharged the burden of
proof and this category also fails is hereby dismissed.

OVER-VOTING

163

In paragraph 20 Ground 2 (1) (a) of the 2nd Amended Petition, over-voting is

claimed to have occurred in flagrant breach of the fundamental constitutional
principle of universal adult suffrage, to wit, one man, one vote.
This principle of Universal Adult Suffrage is affirmed in the Preamble to the
Constitution, 1992.Article 42 of the Constitution, to which 2nd Petitioner refers
in paragraph 23 (i) of his affidavit as one of the two bases for the proposed vote
annulment for over-voting, states as follows:
42. The right to vote
Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of
sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a
voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.
Regulation 24(1) of C.I. 75, which is the other legal provision on which 2nd
Petitioner relies, also provides as follows:
A voter shall not cast more than one vote when a poll is taken.
So as Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submits:
It is absolutely clear, therefore, that an allegation of a voter casting more than one
vote is of the essence of what Petitioners are seeking to rely on here. In paragraph
20 Ground 2 (1) (a) of the 2nd Amended Petition, over-voting is claimed to have
occurred in flagrant breach of the fundamental constitutional principle of
universal adult suffrage, to wit, one man, one vote.
However nowhere in the Petition or in the affidavit of the 2nd Petitioner is it alleged
that any voter voted more than once, thus infringing the one man, one vote
principle. The Petitioners did not lead any evidence to prove that someone voted
more than once in the elections.

164

The case of the Petitioners in respect of over-voting is that whenever the ballot
accounting portion of the pink sheet shows that the figure in B1, representing the
number of registered voters at the polling station, or the figure in C1, representing
the number of ballots issued at the polling station, is exceeded by the total number
of votes in the ballot box, the votes of all those who voted in that polling station
must be annulled. This includes, according to the evidence of 2nd Petitioner, where
A1 or B1 has a blank since blank means zero.
What is over-voting?
There is some divergence of opinion between the parties about what constitutes
over-voting. Petitioners claim there are three definitions. The first one is the
situation in which the ballots in the sealed box exceed the number of registered
voters in a particular polling station. That definition is accepted by all the parties.
Dr Afari-Gyan describes that situation as the classic definition of over-voting. That
is where the agreement ends. Petitioners define over-voting further to include a
situation in whichthe ballots in the ballot box exceed ballots issued at the polling
station. The third definition is the situation where the issued ballots exceed the
number of registered voters.
Usually over-voting occurs primarily through impersonation, multiple voting and
stuffing of ballot boxes. The adoption of biometric registration is expected to have
reduced to the barest minimum impersonation and multiple voting. The use of
finger print verification and the marking of a voters finger with indelible ink
before casting his/her vote, use of transparent boxes placed in full public view are
measures to eliminate voting malpractices,
Furthermore the openness of the environment, with the presence of polling agents,
the media and in some places observers made up of civil society, domestic and
international observers and security personnel prevent malpractices at polling
165

stations such as violence and intimidation. The only thing that is not done in the
open but done in secret is the marking of the ballot paper to preserve the sanctity of
secret ballot as enshrined in Article 49 (1), and the UDHR Article 21.3supra
It is the task of the presiding officers and polling agents to monitor the conduct of
the election, to detect and prevent such frauds. It is also the duty of the presiding
officer under the eagle eye of people mentioned above particularly counting agents
of candidates, immediately after close of voting, to do ballot accounting and fill the
necessary entries on the pink sheet and then proceed to sorting and counting
procedures as required by Article 49 (2) of the Constitution and provided in details
in Regulations 36 and 37 of CI 75.
The presiding officer then breaks the seals on the ballot box and in full view of the
agents removes all papers from the ballot box sort out the ballots into separate piles
for each candidate and another pile for rejected ballots if any.
Rejected Ballot Papers
A ballot paper should not be counted if it does not bear the official ballot validation
of the polling station, or it is blank, or it is marked for more than one candidate, or
there is reasonable doubt as to the candidate the person voted for, or something that
identifies the voter has been written on it.
The presiding officer must show every rejected ballot paper to the polling agents
and give reasons for its rejection. The presiding officer has to record at the
appropriate column of the pink sheets the number of rejected ballot papers. If a
polling agent raises any objection the presiding officer must write the words
rejection objected to on the rejected ballot and put it in an envelope and notify the
returning officer at the collation centre.

166

I have taken pains to go through the process to demonstrate that if there is any
foreign material in the ballot box and the presiding officer and agents are vigilant
then it could be detected and taken out and not counted. So that only valid ballots
is to be counted at the election. If correct entries are made then after a careful
scrutiny the occurrence of over voting should be detected as was done in the 4
polling stations in Nalerigu-Gambaga after checking the BVD to ascertain the
number of voters verified and thus eligible to vote at those stations.
It is also the duty of the polling agents to file a complaint if there is such
occurrence, unless there is collusion among the election officials, polling agents
and voters the public, which is highly unlikely due to competing interests at stake.
What is the evidence relied on by the Petitioners in support of their claim that there
was over-voting in some of the polling stations?
This is one area that the burden of persuasion weighed heavily on the petitioners as
election results benefit from a presumption of regularity. This reflects the fact that
the Petitioner bears the burden establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that there
was irregularities that were so substantial that it affected the results of the election.
It happens that the species of evidence the Petitioners relied upon were the entries
on the pink sheets. As Dr Bawumia stated he headed a task force whose duties,
was to examine the election records in search of technical administrative errors in
the hope of getting a second chance. See par 56 of the Canadian case Opitz v.
Wrzesnewskyj. By this method the Petitioners capitalized on errors made in the
entries in the statement of polls form.
The case of the Petitioners in respect of over-voting is that whenever the ballot
accounting portion of the pink sheet shows that the figure in B1, representing the
number of registered voters at the polling station, or the figure in C1, representing
the number of ballots issued at the polling station, is exceeded by the total number
167

of votes in the ballot box, the votes of all those who voted in that polling station
must be annulled. This includes, according to the evidence of 2nd Petitioner, where
A1 or B1 has a blank since blank means zero.
There were mistakes in the entries of ballot information, information about the
register, ballot accounting, rejected ballots and tallying of votes in ballot boxes.
There were silly arithmetically errors that was capable of being detected by a
simple scrutiny of the columns. The Petitioners also capitalized on entries in C3,
which this Court has held by a majority decision that the entries were made in error
as no one was verified by Form 1C. Accordingly such entries cannot be used as
basis for over-voting.
Some of my brother justices have dealt in detail with this ground so I would not
delve into it, except to remark that the Petitioners failed to persuade me that there
were votes cast that exceeded the number of voters entitled to vote at these polling
stations.
It seems to me that Dr Afari Gyan and Mr Asiedu Nketia demonstrated that it is
misleading for the Petitioners simply to look at the entries on the face of the pink
sheets without checking the figures against other available and reliable information
contained in the voters register, ballot booklets and even the biometric verification
device which recorded the number of people who were verified and thus entitled to
vote.; before coming to a conclusion that there was over vote. These other sources
in my opinion are rather the primary sources to look at under this head of claim
when the results is scrutinized for over-voting in view of the patent errors on the
face of the pink sheets. The presiding officer ( if working according to
procedure)has to extract the information to fill columns A, B, C from the voters
register, ballot booklets, proxy voters list and the Biometric verification device
before he opens the ballot box to sort and count the ballots.
168

However I am not convinced that no entry in B1 by itself is evidence of overvoting without establishing the number of registered voters at the polling station.
The number of registered voters could be easily verified or ascertained from the
Voters register of the particular polling stations which every candidate /Party had
copies. Having procured the number of voters on the voters register, then the
Petitioners should demonstrate the occurrence of over-voting by using any of the
definition of over-voting as defined variously by the parties. The Petitioners having
failed to provide such evidence cannot legitimately claim the absence of any entry
in B1as evidence of over-voting.
There were also instances where C1 or the whole of C columns were blank and the
Petitioners claim this was also evidence of over-voting but for the reasons given
above there is no empirical evidence to show this was the case.
Furthermore some of the Pink sheets under the MB-C series were not full pink so
there was no basis for determining whether there was over-voting or not. The
2ndPetitioner said under cross-examination that he deleted 53 of such pink sheets
from the list after giving evidence.
We take judicial notice of the factthat there was immense pressure on the presiding
officers, election officials and even the polling and counting agents on the day of
the elections, the majority of whom has no previous experience in election
procedures. The EC officials and presiding officers may have made some clerical
errors; but there is no evidence upon which mischief or advantage can or should be
attributed thereto. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to Ghana alone.
In Opitz vs. Wrzesnewskyj SCC 55, ([2012] 3 S.C.R. in which the Supreme
Court of Canada held as follows in paragraph 46:
(46) The practical realities of election administration are such that
imperfections in the conduct of elections are inevitable. As recognized in
169

Camsell v. Rabesca, [1987] N.W.T.R. 186 (S.C.), it is clear that in every

election, a fortiori those in urban ridings, with large numbers of polls,
irregularities will virtually always occur in one form or another (p. 198). A
federal election is only possible with the work of tens of thousands of
Canadians who are hired across the country for a period of a few days or, in
many cases, a single 14-hour day. These workers perform many detailed
tasks under difficult conditions. They are required to apply multiple rules in
a setting that is unfamiliar. Because elections are not everyday occurrences,
it is difficult to see how workers could get practical, on-the-job experience.

One other factor which was lacking and need to be mentioned is the absence of a
complaint. The Petitioners led no evidence on events at the polling stations except
by one affidavit evidence of one Peter Awuni a parliamentary candidate for the
NPP, that the 2nd Petitioner annulled the results of Kuligona, Nanyeri, Bongni and
Langbesi Police Station polling stations, in the Nalerigu- Gambaga constituency
because the ballots counted at the polling stations exceeded the number of persons
verified by the BVD by one or two people.
Mr Tsikata submits that:
[t]he Petitioner fails to appreciate that in the absence of any person being
even alleged to have voted twice or illegally, or any person having been
identified as having made a complaint of over-voting, whether formally or
informally, merely invoking entries on the administrative portion of pink
sheets which have been shown to contain errors cannot meet the burden of
proof on the Petitioners. His testimony continues to dwell exclusively on
these administrative entries.
Mr Lithur also submits:
In determining whether or not there was over voting in the December 2012
election, in terms of Petitioners definition, it is important to note that Petitioners
have neither challenged the tallied results at the polling stations nor do they
challenge the collation of the results at constituency collation centres. Their case,
as stated on numerous instances including in the 2nd Amended Petition and also in
their oral testimony in court, is limited to the entries made on the voting accounting
170

sections of the pink sheets. The only evidence being relied on by Petitioners in
proof of over-voting, therefore are those entries,
This brings me to the issue:
Whether the over-vote if anyshould lead to an annulment of the total votes cast at
the polling station?
This Honourable Court was invited to advert its mind to the fact that, in an election
at a polling station shown to have been affected by over-voting, it is not possible to
determine which of the votes cast constitutes the invalid votes and, therefore,
which votes cast count as the lawful votes. The practice, therefore, has been to
annul all the results of the polling stations where they are proven to have occurred
I do not subscribe to this suggestion and its application in this case. In seeking to
annul votes, it needs to be clear which polling stations are being called into
question. The confusions about exhibits have undermined their case. As there is
insufficient clarity on the polling stations in question, the attempt to annul certain
votes cannot even get off the starting blocks. Moreover the few instances of overvoting that was demonstrated during the hearing, going by the average of those
votes; there is no mathematic chance that the results in those polling stations would
change the outcome of the results at the polling station. Even if the aggregate of
the actual over-vote in polling stations where over votes is established and
proportionally deducted from the votes of each candidate, it would not affect the
results. Even if they are deducted from the winning candidates vote it would still
not affect the votes.
My brethren who took the position that there was over- voting and so the votes are
to be annulled for a re-run of polls in the affected were unable to ascertain and
provide the total number of over votes from the pink sheets for me to change my
position on this claim.
171

The Petitioner could not establish to my satisfaction whether the number of votes
cast in these polling exceeded the number of registered voters as indicated in the
Voters Register. They had copies of those registers but only produced one to show
there was double registration at the Mampong Anglican School.
The Petitioners have not led sufficient evidence for me to come to the conclusion
that there was clearly a mathematical chance that the results could change then the
votes would have to be annulled and a re-run held. But then in many instances the
over-voting was either one or two, and certainly that cannot lead to annulment of
the entire votes.
Dr Bawumia referred to a statement made by Dr Afari-Gyan before the election
that if the ballots are counted at the end of the day and it is found that even one
ballot exceeds what was issued to voters verified to vote; the results of that polling
station would be annulled.
I find this pronouncement disturbing as it is not based on any statute or any
constitutional instrument made by him as he is empowered to do under Article 51
of the Constitution. The directive that an over vote by one ballot would invalidate
the whole results of a polling station when despite the over vote a winner is clearly
ascertainable, is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and
contravene articles 42 on the right to vote.
In Tehn-Addy V Electoral Commission [1996 97] SCGLR 589
Acquah JSC (as he then was) at page 594:
Whatever be the philosophical thought on the right to vote, article 42 of the
1992 Constitution of Ghana makes the right to vote a constitutional right
conferred on every sane Ghanaian citizen of 18 years and above.
As a constitutional right therefore, no qualified citizen can be denied of it,
since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
172

Article 45 entrusts the initiation, conduct and the whole electoral process on
the Electoral Commission and article 46 guarantees the independence of the
Commission in the performance of its task. A heavy responsibility is
therefore entrusted to the Electoral Commission under article 45 of the
Constitution in ensuring the exercise of this constitutional right to vote. For
in the exercise of this right, the citizen is able not only to influence the
outcome of elections and therefore the choice of a government but also he is
in a position to help influence the course of social, economic and political
affairs thereafter. He indeed becomes involved in the decision-making
process at all levels of governance.
The underlined words above informs my opinion that this directive cannot override
a constitutionally protected right to vote.
I respect the views and the authorities cited by Mr Addison, to support the
Petitioners request to annul the polls in polling stations where there is proof of
over-voting.
He referred to the dictum of the Us Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. Sims
377 US, 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) which is to the effect
that:
The right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the
weight of a citizens vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free
exercise of the franchise.
I absolutely affirm the concept that over voting debases and dilutes the weight to
be accorded each individual vote. So where in Lamb v. McLeod (1932) 3WWR
596,cited by counsel the subject matter of the complaint was the validity of 17
votes in an election where the margin of victory between the candidates was only
5, the court rightly in my view annulled the votes on the grounds, inter alia, that:

173

It cannot be said that there was an electing of a Member of Parliament by

the majority as the intrusion by wrongdoers made it impossible to
determine for which candidate the majority of qualified votes were cast.
However, it is my considered opinion that with the margins of over-vote involved
in each of the impugned polling stations, it was possible to determine the winner
at each polling station where over-voting occurred and accordingly Lamb vs.
Macleod is inapplicable to this case.
The Plaintiffs have not been able to discharge the burden of persuasion in
accordance with the Evidence Act. Accordingly I would also dismiss this category
of irregularity.

SAME SERIAL NUMBERS
This head of irregularity does not violate any statutory regulation.
The claim under this head is stated in Paragraph 20 Ground 1(b) of the 2nd
Amended Petition as follows:
That there were widespread instances where there were the same serial
numbers on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due
procedure established by 2nd Respondent required that each polling station
have a unique serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and
the will of the registered voters.
According to Petitioners, the serial number is the only security feature which is
pre-embossed on the pink sheet from the printers. The polling station name and
polling code is entered in the space provided on the form by hand by the presiding
officer. Once a pink sheet is filled the serial number locks the polling station name
174

and code to that polling station for good. However Dr Bawumiaadmitted under
cross examination that the complaint relating to the serial numbers was not derived
from any constitutional or statutory infraction but as the numbers was huge they
were serious and inferentially must have affected the outcome of the elections.

He said the use of duplicate serial numbers was a major instrument for the
perpetuation of the constitutional statutory violation of the law, irregularities and
malpractice in this election.
It happened that two sets of pink sheets for the presidential elections were printed.
Dr Afari-Gyan explained that the order for printing was made before the filing of
nominations and balloting for positions on ballot papers was done. He said they
wanted space for 18 names and this was divided into two sets, in anticipation that a
lot of candidates will file nominations. As it happened only 8 candidates
successfully filed their nomination papers. So after the balloting for position the
EC informed the printers who printed the 8 names on both sets.
Instead of distributing one set, the EC unwisely distributed the booklets randomly
and hence two sets of pink sheets with the same serial numbers were found at
different polling stations.
There was much wrangling between counsel for the Petitioners, Mr Addison, and
Dr Afari-Gyanover the significance of pre-embossed serial numbers on the pink
sheets by the printers. According to counsel, in order to guarantee the security of
electoral materials, it has been the practice of the EC among other measures to preemboss electoral materials with unique serial numbers. As a result ballot papers,
ballot boxes tamper proof envelopes, stamps and the pink sheets have preembossed serial numbers.
175

Dr Afari-Gyan, on the other hand said, whereasRegulation26 (2) of CI 75 requires

that numbers are printed on every ballot paper, there is no such requirement for the
printing of pink sheets. The serial numbers on the pink sheets are generated by the
printing firm to enable the EC to keep count of the number produced. He said the
pink sheets are distributed randomly He said the serial numbers has absolutely no
relevance to the compilation and declaration of result as polling stations are
identified by their unique codes
Dr Afari-Gyan explained further that, if two polling stations have pink sheets with
the same serial number that will in no way have any effect on the validity of the
votes cast. As each of the two polling stations will have different polling codes and
names. They will have a different voters register, different presiding officers,
election officials and polling agents, and different results. When the results are
taken from the polling stations to the collation centres, they are dealt with on the
basis of polling stations codes and not serial numbers.
A cursory check of the pink sheets confirms that the polling stations concerned
have different identities, different numbers of registered voters, different results,
and different election officers and polling agents. Accordingly I do not see how
with the explanation by the EC as to how two sets of pink sheets were printed and
randomly distributed could affect votes cast at different polling stations. Even
though it was suggested by the petitioners that any one up to mischief can sit in his
or her house and fill in the duplicate pink sheets with correct polling station code
and name and sign them; this is farfetched as the pink sheets are filled in the open
at the polling stations in full glare of the public and endorsed by the agents and the
agents receive a duplicate copy thereof there and then, and so there is no
opportunity for any swap to take place. The pink sheets tendered by the Petitioners

176

were collected from their polling agents present at the polling station. There was no
suggestion of a swap of pink sheets at the trial under this head of claim.
Although the handling of the order of printing of the pink sheets and its random
distribution is not the best of administrative decisions, the petitioners have not
shown in any way as to how it interfered or compromised the vote. I will therefore
without hesitation dismiss this head of claim as baseless.

22 UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
Before voting day, the EC gave the political parties and the independent
presidential candidates a list of 26,002 polling stations in which elections were
tobe conducted. The petitioners in scrutinizing the pink sheets claimed they
discovered that voting occurred in 22 polling stations which were not included in
the list of the 26,002 polling stations supplied them by the EC.
The EC denied this claiming the presidential results were declared on the results
from 26, oo2 polling stations. The reason why the Petitioners described them as
unknown is because polling codes and polling station names in some instances
were wrongly quoted. The EC was able to identify those polling stations In respect
of these 22 polling stations supervised elections took place there and the results in
those stations. They were endorsed by the party agents.
In any case, from the pink sheets that the petitioner supplied, there is proof that
there were supervised elections those polling stations. The 1st Petitioner sent his
polling agents to those 22 polling stations and that the agents did sign those pink
sheets and collected duplicate copies. In so far as the Petitioners sent polling agents
to the said polling stations, they cannot say they are unknown.

177

We find no merit in this complaint and it is therefore dismissed.

SAME POLLING STATION CODE WITH DIFFERENT RESULTS
Each polling station is identified by its name and by its polling code. The polling
code is unique to each polling station.
The Petitioners further claimed that there were instances where different results
from different polling stations were recorded on pink sheets bearing the same
polling station code. The petitioner submits that where two polling stations bear the
same polling station code, it is not possible to establish which of the results is
genuine.
The EC explained that the situation where the same polling station code shows
different polling station results arises where the same polling station code is used
for special voting and regular voting, or where the polling station is split due to the
huge number of voters. Where the station is split into two the polling station code
will end with the letter A or B.
Mr Addison submits that special voting results are not recorded on pink sheets and,
accordingly, the explanation proffered by Dr Afari-Gyan for pink sheets with
duplicate polling station codes is untenable and false. He based his submission on
the fact that provision is made for entry of special voting results of the whole
constituency in the first column on Constituency Results Collation Form, without
reference to any polling station name or code. [In stark contrast, the results of votes
cast in any constituency on general election day are entered on the Constituency
Results Collation Form by reference to the different polling station codes in that
constituency.]

178

Counsel further referred to Regulation 21 (11) on the procedures by which the

results of special voting are counted, the ballot boxes are sealed with the seal of
2nd respondent and entered onto the Constituency Results Collation Forms. It
provides that, after special voting, the returning officer for the constituency shall
ensure that the ballot boxes are sealed and kept in safe custody; and that he/she
shall, on polling day, arrange for the ballot to be opened and the ballot boxes
counted in the same manner as those contained in the ballot boxes used on polling
day. Counsel concludes that no reference whatsoever is made to entering the results
of the count of special voting ballot papers on pink sheets.
What is really at the heart of the issue is whether pink sheets are used to record
results of special voting. Counsels contention that no reference whatsoever is
made to entering the results of the count of special voting ballot papers on pink
sheets is not entirely correct if all the relevant provisions in C.I. 75 relating to
special and regular polling are read as a whole and not in isolation.It is trite law
that the overriding principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of an Act
are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense
harmoniously with the scheme of the Act. E. A. Driedger, Construction of
Statutes (2 ed. 1983) at page 87.
Section 21 (10) and (11) deal with voting and counting of special votes. Voting at a
polling station for special voting and counting of special voting are conducted in
the same manner as that of voting on polling day. The only difference is that
counting of ballots of special voting is not done at the polling station on the date of
special voting but the box is sealed and kept in a safe place and taking to the
collation centre on the polling date and counted in the same manner as those
contained in ballot boxes used on the polling day.

179

Regulation 36 deals with the counting and recording of results of election. (See
above). Regulation 32 (1) (d) and (e) requires of the presiding officer to record
total number of votes cast in favour of each candidate and record rejected ballots
and (2) signing of the declaration by the presiding officer and representatives or
counting agents. All these record is made on pink sheets on which the polling
station name and code are handwritten by the presiding officer.
Once the law requires that voting and counting of ballots of the special vote is to
be carried out in the same manner as the regular voting, then it follows that a
statement of poll form and a declaration form used for regular voting to record the
poll results is required to be used for the special vote for both parliamentary and
presidential candidates as well, before they are transposed unto the Constituency
Collation Forms. If there is a voter and ballot accounting which had to be done
before counting, I expect that sections A, B, and C of the forms should be filled
and placed in the sealed ballot box before transporting it to a safe place. It is also
expected that the presiding officers and polling or counting agents who conducted
the special voting would be at the collation centre for the counting of the special
votes on the Election Day; and they would ultimately sign the declaration form.
Interpreting regulations 21 (11) and regulation 32 as a whole, the use of pink sheets
to record the poll and election of special voting is a requirement. Consequently if
the same polling station with the same polling code is used for both special voting
and regular voting; then it would explain the existence of two pink sheets with the
same polling station code with different results. The same explanation can be given
for where a polling station is split into two. I may even go further to say that there
can be three pink sheets where all the scenarios occurred.
From the foregoing I reject counsels submission and dismiss this category of
claim.
180

CONCLUSION
In my attempt to resolve these electoral issues, although there may be an
unlimited number of ways to guide me, the fundamental one, in my
opinion, is fidelity to the terms of the Constitution, and of such other law as
objectively reflects the intent and purpose of the Constitution, to uphold the
right to vote, and the enfranchising objective of the Constitution.
Overturning an election is a very serious matter. In order to uphold the
grounds for annulling votes that the Petitioners are requesting to be
annulled for irregularities, malpractices and statutory breach, this court
must be satisfied that the petitioners have successfully discharged the onus
they bore right from the onset.

While it is conceivable that the law of elections can be infringed, especially
through incompetence, malpractices or fraud attributable to the
responsible agency, it rests on the person who thus alleges, to produce the
necessary evidence in the first place.I cannot be so satisfied that the
Petitioners discharged the burden of proof.

The Petitioners relied on pink sheets and no other evidence, and in view of
the fact that the Petitioners kept changing categorization, number of
exhibits they are relying, admission of mislabelling and double counting, I
cannot be confident that these slips did not affect their case.
Using the yardstick of the principles of Electoral Justice, I am satisfied that
the elections were conducted substantially in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution, and all governing law; that there

181

was no breach of law such as to affect the results of the elections; and that
the said elections do reflect the will of the Ghanaian people.
I accordingly hold that John Dramani Mahama was validly elected as the
President of Ghana.
I will also dismiss the petition.
So I end with this delivery with this epilogue:
Acceptance-Where the foregoing principles of Electoral Justice
have been substantially observed, the electoral processes reflect the
will of the people. It is then an overriding principle of Electoral
Justice that everyone abides by the outcome; that the outcome be
given effect by the institutions of government; and that the legitimacy
of the results be acknowledged by the international community.

(SGD) S. O. A. ADINYIRA (MRS)

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

COURT

182














OWUSU(MS) JSC.
The petition is brought under Art.64 (1) of the 1992 constitution of the
Republic of Ghana. The Article reads as follows:

The validity of the election of the president may be challenged only
by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to
the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the
results of the election in respect of which the petition is presented.

183

The petitioners are all Ghanaian citizens by birth and members of the New
Patriotic Party (NPP), a political party duly registered under the laws of the
Republic of Ghana.

The 1st Petitioner was the presidential candidate of the party in the
December 2012 elections with the 2nd petitioner as his running mate. The
3rd petitioner is the National Chairman of the party.

By their petition, the petitioners pray for the following Declarations:

1. That John Dramani Mahama, the 2nd Respondent herein was not
validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana.

2. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein, rather
was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
3. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet.

The validity of the declaration of the results of the December 2012

presidential election was challenged on the following grounds:

Ground 1
There were diverse and flagrant violations of the statutory provisions and
regulations governing the conduct of the December 2012 presidential
election which substantially and materially affected the result of the election
as declared by the 2nd Respondent on 9th December, 2012.

184

Particulars
a. That 2nd Respondent permitted voting to take place in many polling
stations across the country without prior biometric verification by the
presiding officers of 2nd Respondent or their assistants, contrary to
Regulation 30 92) of C. I. 75.

b. That the voting in polling stations where voting took place without
prior biometric verification were unlawfully taken into account in the
declaration of results by 2nd Respondent in the presidential election
held on 7th and 8th December 2012.
c. That by 2nd Respondents established procedure, 2nd Respondent
conducted the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary
elections at polling stations each of which was assigned a unique
code to avoid confusing one polling station with another and to
provide a mechanism for preventing possible electoral malpractices
and irregularities.

d. That there were, however, widespread instances where different

results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms (otherwise
known as the pink sheet or blue sheet) in respect of polling stations
bearing the same polling stations codes.
e. That the existence of polling stations of the nature referred to in the
preceding sub-paragraph (d) and the results emanating therefrom
were patently illegal.
f. That there were widespread instances where there were no
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the
declarations forms as required under Regulation 36 (2) of C. I. 75.
and yet the results on these forms were used in arriving at the
presidential results declared on 9th December 2012 by the Chairman
of 2nd Respondent, thereby rendering the results so declared invalid.
185


Ground 2
1. That the election in 11,916 polling stations were also vitiated by gross
and widespread irregularities and /or malpractices which
fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in those polling
stations as declared by 2nd Respondent.

a. That the results as declared and recorded by the 2nd

Respondent contained widespread instances of over-voting in
flagrant breach of the fundamental constitutional principle of
universal adult suffrage, to wit, one man one vote.

b. That there were widespread instances where there were the

same serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results,
when the proper and due procedure established by 2nd
Respondent required that each polling station have unique
serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and
will of the lawfully registered voters.

c. That, while the total number of registered voters as published

by the 2nd Respondent and provided to all political parties or
candidates for the presidential and parliamentary election was
fourteen million, thirty-one thousand, six hundred and
eighty (14,031,680), when 2nd Respondent announced the
result of the presidential election on 9th December 2012, the
total number of registered voters that 2nd Respondent
announced mysteriously metamorphosed to a new and
inexplicable figure of fourteen million, one hundred and fiftyeight thousand, eight hundred and ninety (14,158,890).
This thereby wrongfully and unlawfully increased the total
number of registered voters by the substantial number of one
hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and ten
(127,210).

186

d. That there were widespread instances of voting without prior

biometric verification;

e. That there were widespread instances of absence of the

signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the
Declaration Form known as pink sheet; and

f. That there were widespread instances where the words and

figures of votes cast in the elections and as recorded on the
pink sheets did not match.

Ground 2a
That there were 28 locations where elections took place which were not
part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created
by the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the December 2012 elections.

Ground 3
(1) That the statutory violations an irregularities and/or malpractices
described under Grounds 1, 2 and 2a herein, which were apparent on
face of the Declaration Forms (pink sheet), had the direct effect of
introducing into the aggregate of valid votes recorded in the polling
stations across the country a whopping figure four million, six hundred
and seventy thousand, five hundred and four (4,670,504) unlawful
and irregular votes, which vitiated the validity of the votes cast and had a
material and substantial effect on the outcome of the election, as shown
in the table below:

Particulars

187

NUMBER
NO VIOLATIONS, IRREGULARITIES AND/OR OF VOTES
MALPRACTICES
1

Exclusive Instances of over voting due to total

votes exceeding ballots papers issued to voters
or the polling station voters register
Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:
I.

II.
3

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I.

II.
III.
4

Over voting due to total votes exceeding

ballot papers issued to voters or the
polling station voters register.
Voting without biometric verification.

Over voting due to total votes exceeding

ballot papers
issued to voters or the
polling station voters register.
Voting without biometric verification
Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results.

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I.Over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register.
II. Voting without biometric verification
III.Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results.
IV.absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

128,262

48,829

145,129

34,167

188

5.

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

9,004

I. Over voting due to total votes exceeding

ballot papers issued to
voters or the
polling station voters register.
II. Voting without biometric verification
III.Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.
6

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

425,396

I. Over voting due to total votes exceeding

ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register.
II. Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results.
7

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. Over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register.
II. Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results.
III.Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. Over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register.
II. absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

Exclusive Instances of voting without biometric

verification.

93,035

34,023

137,112

189

10. Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I.
II.
11

395,529

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I.
II.
III.

12

voting without biometric verification

Same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results

voting without biometric verification

Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

71,860

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. voting without biometric verification
II. Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

13

Exclusive Instances of Same serial numbers on

pink sheets with different results

14

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
II. Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.

21,071

2,583,633

352,554

15

Exclusive Instances of absence of presiding

officers or assistants signatures on pink sheets.

117,870

16

Exclusive Instances of same polling station codes

with different results.

687

190

17

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register
II. voting without biometric verification
III.Same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
IV.Same polling station codes with different
results.

18

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

26,208

I. Same serial numbers on pink sheets with

different results
II. same polling station code with different
results
19

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

7,160

I. same serial numbers on pink sheets with

different results
II. absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.
III.same polling station code with different
results
20

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register
II. same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
III.same polling station codes with different
results

6,537

191

21

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

671

I. voting without biometric verification

II. Absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets.
III.same polling station code with different
results
22

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

7,920

I. voting without biometric verification

II. same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
III.same polling station code with different
results
23

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. over voting due to total votes exceeding
ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register
II. same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
III.absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets
IV.same polling station code with different
results

24

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

I. voting without biometric verification
II. same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
III.absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets
IV.same polling station code with different
results

4,855

3,471

192

25

I. over voting due to total votes exceeding

ballot papers issued to voters or the polling
station voters register
II. voting without biometric verification
III.same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results
IV.absence of presiding officers or assistants
signatures on pink sheets
V. same polling station code with different
results
26

Exclusive Instances of the joint occurrence of:

Exclusive Instances of 28 locations which were

not part of the twenty-six thousand and two
(26,002) polling stations created by the 2nd
Respondent prior to the December 2012
elections for purposes of the election but where
elections took place.

1,787

9,757

GRAND TOTAL

4,670,504

Respondent in the presidential election held on 7th and 8th December 2012.

The 1st Respondent was the presidential candidate of the National
Democratic Congress (NDC), the 3rd Respondent herein in the December
2012 presidential Election and the person declared by the 2nd Respondent
on 9th December 2012 as having been validly elected as president of the
Republic of Ghana following the presidential election.

193

The 2nd Respondent is the constitutional body established by Article 43 of

the 1992 constitution and the provisions of the Electoral Commission Act of
1993 (Act 451) mandated under Art. 45(c) and section 2(c) of the
constitution and the Act respectively to conduct and supervise public
elections and referenda in Ghana and to declare the results thereof in
accordance with the constitution and the law.

The 3rd Respondent which was later joined as a party to the action on its
own application is the political party on whose ticket the 1st Respondent
contested the election. In this action, the party is being represented by its
General-Secretary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia.

THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS
The case of the petitioners is simple but very much involved. It is their
case that there were constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices
and irregularities in the conduct of the 2012 presidential elections and that
these violations, malpractices and irregularities affected the outcome of the
elections. The main categories of these they identified as follows:

i.

ii.

Over-voting, that is to say, widespread instances of polling stations

where (a) votes cast exceeded the total number of registered
voters or (b) votes exceeded the total number of ballot papers
issued to voters on voting day in violation of Article 42 of the
Constitution and Regulation 24(1) of C. I. 75.
Widespread instances of polling stations where there were no
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the pink
sheets in clear violation of Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and
Regulation 36 (2) of C. I. 75.

194

iii.

iv.

Widespread instances where there were the same serial numbers

on pink sheets with different poll results, when the proper and due
procedure established by 2nd Respondent required that each
polling station have a unique serial number in order to secure the
integrity of the polls and the will of lawfully registered voters.

v.

Widespread instances of polling stations where different results

were strangely recorded on the pink sheets in respect of polling
stations bearing the same polling station code, when, by 2nd
Respondents established procedure, each polling station was
assigned a unique code in order to avoid confusing one polling
station with another which could not be explained by a reference
to special voting.

vi.

Twenty-three (23) locations where voting took place which were

not part of the twenty-six thousand and two(26,002) polling
stations created by the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the
December 2012 elections.

Widespread instances of polling stations where voting took place

without prior biometric verification in breach of Regulation 30(2) of
C. I. 75.

THE RESPONDENTS CASE

The Respondents on the whole denied the substance of the petitioners
claim. The 1st Respondent contended that even if there were such
occurrences in the December, 2012 elections, the declared result of the
election would not be affected. In the case of Presiding Officers of the 2nd
Respondent failing to sign the pink sheets, the 1st Respondent further
contended that such failure could not invalidate the results. The claim of
over voting was also denied and so was the claim for voting without
Biometric verification challenged.

195


The 2nd Respondent, in further denial of the petitioners claim sought to
vehemently defend the presidential election. The commission however
partly admitted the incidents of presiding officers not signing the pink
sheets contending that these are irregularities. It was its case that no body
voted without being biometrically verified.
The 3rd Respondents case was substantially the same as that of the 1St
Respondent.

On 2nd April, 2013, this court set down the following issues for trial:
1. whether or not there were violations, omission, malpractices and
irregularities in the conduct of the presidential election held on the 7th
and 8th December, 2012;
2. whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities, if any, affected the results of the election.

To expedite the trial, the court decided that same shall be by affidavit
evidence.
The parties were however given the option to lead oral
evidence. Oral evidence by any other person was to be allowed only
where the court was satisfied that there were compelling reasons for so
doing.

Following the order of the court, the parties filed affidavits in support of their
cases and also preferred oral evidence.

The 2nd petitioner filed a joint affidavit on behalf of the petitioners in support
of their case.

196

In paragraph 20 of the affidavit, the 2nd petitioner averred that following

complaints that the results being declared by the 2nd Respondent were not
accurate, a task force was set up by the 1st petitioner and the NPP to
investigate the results as declared in the presidential election.
He was
placed to lead and direct the investigation as the running mate of the 1st
petitioner and also as a person with proficiency in statistics.

The investigation involved examination of the statement of poll and
Declaration of the Result of the Office of president (pink sheets) of the
polling stations.

According to him, the polling stations results as captured on the pink
sheets constitute the primary evidence upon which the election results
were declared. The pink sheets were given to representatives of the 1st
petitioner as required by Regulation 36(3) (b) of C. I. 75.

It is as a result of the investigation that the six main categories of
constitutional/statutory violations, commission irregularities and
malpractices were uncovered.

It is their case that these irregularities create opportunities for electoral
malpractices.
The 2nd petitioner also claimed that there were 23 locations which were not
part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by
the 2nd Respondent prior to the 2012 elections for the purpose of the
elections but where voting took place.

197

In paragraphs 44-67 of 2nd petitioners affidavit, the various categories of

alleged electoral malpractices have been specified.

The oral testimony of the 2nd petitioner was in line with his sworn affidavit.
He was extensively cross-examined by counsel for the Respondents but
was not shaken in the evidence he proffered.

The General-Secretary of the 3rd Respondent also swore to an affidavit on
the partys own behalf and on behalf of the 1st Respondent whose power of
Attorney he held.

In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, he proffered that

By virtue of my position as the General Secretary of the 3rd
Respondent I was involved in the processes leading to the 7th and 8th
December elections.
I attended the meetings held by 2nd
Respondent with all political parties and was an integral part of the
organization of the elections on behalf of 3rd Respondent and on
behalf of 1st Respondent our candidate for the Presidential Elections.

In the affidavit, the Deponent challenged the basis of the petitioners claim
for annulment of 4,637,305 votes. He averred that the total number of pink
sheets submitted as exhibits by the petitioners in proof of the various
permutations of alleged violations, irregularities, omissions and
malpractices do not add up to 11,842 as sworn to in the 2nd petitioners
affidavit nor the 11,916 polling stations as contained in the 2nd Amended
petition. According to him the pink sheets submitted by the petitioners are
8,621.
198


Out of this, 115 have absolutely no date on the basis of which the
petitioners allegations the subject matter of the petition, can be supported.
A further 373 were duplicated.

He averred further that on the pink sheets exhibit, there is no instance in
which the petitioners are alleging that valid votes cast exceed number of
registered voters at the polling station. That what the petitioners are
alleging to be instances of over voting are in reality patent clerical, and
sometimes, arithmetic errors in recording, which have no material effect on
the actual votes publicly cast, sorted, counted and recorded.

On voting without prior fingerprint Biometric verification, he maintained that
to the best of his knowledge, no body voted without prior biometric
verification.

On absence of signatures of presiding officers on pink sheets Mr. Asiedu
Nketia did not deny the violation but rather averred that the results were not
challenged by the petitioners and that their own agents signed the declared
results.

The Deponent sought to explain what the serial numbers on the pink
sheets are meant for and that they are not to identify the polling stations. It
is not the case of the petitioners that voting did not take place in the polling
stations which bear the same serial numbers.

199

On pink sheets with same polling station code, he countered that these
have been used for the special and general elections as has been
explained by the 2nd Respondent.

His case in general response to the various allegations is that in most of
the polling stations, in respect of which the petitioners are complaining,
their polling Agents have signed the pink sheets without any protest.

The 2nd Respondent was represented by its chairman Dr. Afari-Gyan who
testified at the trial even though the affidavit filed in response to the order of
the court was not sworn to by him.

The said affidavit was sworn to by Amadu Sulley, a Deputy Chairman
(Finance & Administration) of the Commission. He in this affidavit relied on
the answer filed by the 2nd Respondent to the 2nd amended petition.

Dr. Afari-Gyan in his oral Testimony took the court through the electoral
process in general and the voting process in particular. He thereafter
sought to answer the various infractions alleged by the petitioners same of
which he denied and explained away where he admitted them, his stance
was that the entries on the pink sheets were made in error or wrong
interpretation of the entries by the petitioners.

PINK SHEETS
200

By an order of this court dated 9th May 2013 Messrs KPMG was mandated
to make a count of all the exhibit of pink sheets filed by the petitioners
KPMG duly carried out the order of the court. Its report was tendered
through its Director, Nii Amanor Dodoo as court Exhibits 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and
1D.

The report at least assisted in clarifying the issue of the number of pink
sheet filed.

The report indicated that 13,926 were counted from the Registrars set out
of this 8,675 are unique as to its polling station name, code and exhibit
numbers. Out of this are 5,470 which are not duplicated. 1,545 pink
sheets could not be identified by the team because according to them, they
were unclear so marked them as incomplete Data in the Registrars set.

However, the petitioners were able to identify 1,219 whereas the 2nd
Respondent also identified 15 more to make the total 1, 234.

A control check using the presidents set, 2,876 pink sheets were found
which were not in the Registrars set.

Out of this, 804 of them were identified as unique and distinct by the
petitioners.
From the remaining 1,366 which the team described as
unclear, according to the petitioners 60 more were counted.

With the confusion around these figures, the petitioners finally based their
case on 10,119 exhibits of pink sheets.
201


BURDEN OF PROOF
The Respondents contend that the burden is on the petitioners to prove the
irregularities, malpractices, violations, etc.

There is no gain saying that in a civil case, of which an election petition is
akin to the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in this case the petitioners to
lead evidence to the degree prescribed under the evidence Act (N. R. C. D.
313) on the facts in issue to make out their claim.

See the evidence Act sections 10- 14.

10. Burden of persuasion defined

1. For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the
obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief
concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or Court.

2. The burden of persuasion may require a party

a. to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or nonexistence of a fact, or

b. to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a

preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.

11. Burden of producing evidence defined

202

1. For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence

means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence
to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party.

2. In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it

is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilty,
requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that
on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the
existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it

is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential
to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so
that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could
have a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

4. In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence

requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the
totality of the evidence, leads a reasonable mind to conclude
that the existence of the fact was more probable than its nonexistence.

12. Proof by a preponderance of the probabilities

5. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion

requires proof by a preponderance of the probabilities.

6. Preponderance of the probabilities means that degree of

certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court
by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more
probable than its non-existence.

203

13.

14. Allocation of burden of persuasion

Except as otherwise provided by law, unless it is shifted a party has

the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim or defence that party is
asserting.

The petitioners therefore have to lead sufficient evidence in proof of the
irregularities, violations, malpractices etc they are alleging. In this regard,
they exhibited Duplicate copies of the statement of polls and Declaration of
Results forms given (pink sheets) to them by the 2nd Respondent and made
it clear to the court that their whole case is based on what is stated on the
pink sheets and therefore their analysis is based on what is on the face of
the pink sheets.

They in the oral evidence of the 2nd petitioner, explained how they arrived
at their analysis on the various allegations made by them. I will therefore
examine the various heads of the infractions they complain of.

OVER VOTING
What is over voting?
The 2nd petitioner told the court of two instances of over-voting being

204


1. Where the number of people registered to vote at a particular polling
station is less than the number of ballots found in the ballots box at
the end of polls.

2. Where the ballots found in the ballots box at the end of polls is more
than the number of votes actually issued to the votes who turned up
to vote.

In evidence of the 2nd Respondent, he confirmed the first definition given by

the 2nd petitioner. To a question from the Bench, Dr. Afari-Gyans answer is:

Oh yes my Lords the classical definition of over-vote is where
the ballot cast exceed the number of persons eligible to vote at
the polling station or if you like the number of persons on the
polling stations register that is the classical definition of overvoting. ---------------

He did not dismiss the second instance of over voting given by the 2nd
petitioner even though he said he has problem with it.
Nothing is said on what constitutes over-voting in C. I. 75, so I will go by
both definitions.

The petitioners contend that over-voting constitutes an abuse of the
franchise under the supervision of the 2nd Respondent. It means that the
integrity of the polls at the particular polling station has been compromised
and the results at the polling station in question cannot be guaranteed and
therefore same must be annulled.
205


The 1st Respondent contends that there was no over voting and that the
entries on the pink sheets do not constitute sufficient proof of over voting.

In determining whether the entries alone constitute sufficient proof, counsel
argued that should be done against the background of the constitutionally
guaranteed right to vote under Article 42 of the constitution. He referred
the court to the cases of AHUMA-OCANSEY VRS ELECTORAL
COMMISSIION; CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
(CHURCHIL) VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL & ELECTORAL COMMISSION
(consolidated) [2010] SCGLR 575 and TEHN ADDY VRS ELECTORAL
COMMISSION [1996-97] SCGLR 589.

On this head, the 3rd Respondent contends that in the absence of any
person being even alleged to have voted twice or illegally, or any person
having been identified as having made a complaint of over voting, whether
formally or informally merely invoking entries on the administrative portion
of pink sheets which have been shown to contain errors cannot meet the
broken of proof on the petitioners.

Section 11(1) of the evidence Act, states that
for the purposes of this Decree the burden of producing
evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient
evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue.

The petitioners did introduce the evidence of over voting from the face of
the pink sheets exhibited by them. Admittedly, it is not on the face of all
pink sheets that they established the over voting. In paragraph 44 of the
206

2nd petitioners affidavit, the pink sheets exhibited exclusively in the case of
over voting are 310 polling stations.

The petitioners introduced evidence from which the infringement could be
found. The entries on the face of the pink sheets constitute prima facie
evidence in proof of the evidential burden. At that point, the burden shifts
onto the Respondents to lead evidence from which it may reasonably be
inferred that no over voting took place.

Whereas the 1st and 3rd Respondents contended that there was no such
over voting, the 2nd Respondent when confronted with some pink sheets
did admit that the entries showed that there were over voting.

WITNESS: Let me put it in a very short sentence. If I notice on the face of
the pink sheet that there appears to be excess votes, I will
subject the situation to very close scrutiny before I take firm
determination as to what to do.

Q.

Where there is an excess of votes in the ballot box in

comparison with what is written on the pink sheet as the votes
issued to the polling station, what would be your reaction when
you see such a pink sheet?

A..

As I said just a moment ago, I will subject the situation to very

close scrutiny. There are a number of things that will have to be
done. I will not assume that the presiding officer had done
anything directly or wrongly, I will seek to redo what was
supposed to have been done, I will look at the ballot papers to
207

find out whether all of them fall within the serial range of the
ballots issued. I have narrated some of these things before that
I will go through the things that I mentioned. But I must tell you
that, I must do everything possible to make sure that indeed,
there are excess votes because we are dealing with not
abstract numbers but votes of people who have a constitutional
right to take part in the choice of their leaders.

What is the effect of over voting on results?

Much as the 2nd Respondent would not readily admit on over vote, he told
the court that an over vote if established will result in annulment of the
results as it cannot be determined which candidate had benefited from the
illegal vote and the integrity of the election would have been compromised.

There is no gain saying that over-voting if established would affect the
result of the election and impact a sufficient number of votes to have done
so. DR. Afari-Gyan told the court that before annulling results because of
over voting he would do a check on the face of the pink sheet. However his
evidence is that he did not see any pink sheet before declaring the
presidential election results. So therefore he did not have the opportunity to
do any check to determine from the face of the pink sheets that there was
no over voting.

Where therefore, the evidence of over-voting was introduced on the face of
the pink sheets, and the error/mistake as the Respondents contend cannot
be explained on the face of the pink sheet, then that is an irregularity that
affects the result.

208


I will consequently hold that where there is over voting the results must be
annulled.

When confronted with same pink sheets, the 2nd Respondent admitted
that on the face of the pink sheets, there was over voting. He went on to
say that in a case of over voting the results of the election at the affected
polling station should be cancelled.

Under Article 45 (c) it is the 2nd Respondent who is mandated to conduct
and supervise all public elections and referenda and the court cannot
decide for him what should be done in the case of over voting in the
absence of any law to the contrary.

The petitioners are asking the court to annul 745,569 votes as a result of
the over-voting.

Admittedly, when the 2nd petitioner was in the box, and was confronted with
a number of pink sheets and asked to indicate whether on their face there
was any basis for saying there was over-voting, he answered there was
none.

They also included pink sheets on which A1 or B1 has a blank interpreting
this to mean zero.

I do not consider this interpretation as a valid basis in proof of over-voting.
209


The polling stations affected are to be excluded from the polling stations to
be affected by the over-voting category as indicated in volume 2B of the
written address of counsel for petitioners using Respondents preferred
Data set.

After the written addresses have been filed, counsel for parties were given
the opportunity to react to the filed addresses but the figures were not
disputed.

ABSENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS SIGNATURE
Article 49 of the 1992 constitution sets out voting at election and referenda

(1) At any public election or referenda, voting shall be by secret ballot.

(2) Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall in
the presence of such of the candidate or their representative and their
polling agents as are present, proceed to count, at that polling station,
the ballot papers of that station and record the votes cast in favour of
each candidate or question.

3. The presiding officer, the candidate or their representative and in the
case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the
polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating

a. the polling station, and

210

b. The number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or

question, and the presiding officer shall, there and then announce
the results of the voting at that polling station before
communicating them to the returning officer.

The petitioners claim under this head is that in a number of polling stations,
the results of which were declared, the presiding officers did not sign the
pink sheets. It is their case that the signature is crucial because it is a
mandatory constitutional requirement but not an administrative directory.

In all the petitioners were relying on 924 pink sheets which they presented
to DR. AFARI-GYAN who admitted them. He also conceded that 905 more
pink sheets were unsigned. Among these are 191 included in the
petitioners 924.

The pink sheets without the presiding officers signatures therefore came to
1,638 involving 659,814.(sic)

The constitution, mirrors the will and aspirations of the Ghanaian people
and it is the supreme law of the land.

Article 1 speaks of the supremacy of the constitution.
1 (1) states that
The sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose
name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be
exercised in the manner within the limits laid down in this constitution.

211

(2) This constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other
law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this constitution
shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. The preamble of the
constitution states that:

IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD

We the people of Ghana;

IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a frame
work of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity
the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;

IN A SPIRIT of friendship and peace with all people of the world; AND
IN SOLEMN declaration and affirmation of our commitment to
Freedom, Justice, probity and Accountability;

The principles that all powers of Government spring from the
sovereign will of the people;

The principle of universal Adult suffrage;

The rule of Law;

212

The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and

Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our nation;

DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT, AND GLUE TO OURSELVES
In the Interpretation Act, of 1960, section 27 states that

In an enactment made after the passing of this Act, shall shall be
construed as imperative and -----

Article 49 (3) therefore imposes an obligation on the presiding officer to
sign before the declaration of the results. The reason for this cannot be far
fetched. He must sign to authenticate the results. If he does not sign, but
goes ahead to declare the results, what will be their probative value?

DR. Afari-Gyan told the court that failure to sign is an irregularity. He did
not go ahead to say what flows from this irregularity.

What is an irregularity?

In the case of BORYS WRZESNEWSKYJ VRS TED OPITZ, ATTORNEYGENERAL OF CANADA, MARC MAYRAND (CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER) and ALLAN SPERLING (RETURNING OFFICER, ETOBICOKE
CENTRE)
AND KEITH ARCHER (CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF BRITISH
COMBIA)
213


The court by a majority of 4-3 allowed the appeal because the Appellant
sought to have voters of several Canadian citizens disqualified on account
of administrative mistakes notwithstanding evidence that those citizens
were entitled to vote.

In the dissenting opinion, the court said

Irregularities should be interpreted to mean failures to comply with
the requirement of the Act, unless the deficiency is merely technical
or trivial.
For irregularities to have affected the result of the
elections, they must be of a type that could affect the result of the
election and impact a sufficient number of votes to have done
so..

If the presiding officers failed to sign the pink sheets, that constituted
infringement of Article 49 (3) of the constitution and to me that is fatal. It
renders the result declared null and void. In the Apaloo case, the Gazette
Notice issued by the Electoral Commission in infringement of the
Constitutional Instrument was declared null and void. What then happens
to the results declared by the presiding officers in contravention of Article
49(3) by failure to sign the pink sheets?

The 2nd respondent told the court, that in spite of the failure to sign, he will
accept the results because the polling Agents did sign. What is the role of
the polling Agent at the polling station?

214

Under cross-examination by counsel for petitioners, this is what transpired;

Q.

You are aware that the functions of a polling agent are strictly
circumscribed?

A.

My Lords, I would say so.

Q.

They are not election officials?

A.

In the strict sense of term, no.

Q.

I would like you to read Rule 19(4) of C.I. 75?

A.

WITNESS READS OUT.

Q.

So I am suggesting to you that it is not the business of the

polling agents to supervise the work of the election
officials but to observe the conduct of the poll?

A.

My Lords, I agree that the agent is not supposed to

supervise but he plays an active role at the station.

At the pages 25-26 of the record of proceedings for the same day, Dr. AfariGyan made the point about the very limited role of polling agents
abundantly clear.

215

Q. A polling agent is not involved in the actual administration

of the election?

A.

My Lords, you are correct.

Q.

He does not count votes after the election?

A.

My Lords no.

Q. He counts?

A.

He does not.

Q. He also does not inspect the ID cards of persons who are
in the queue to vote?

A.

My Lords No.

Q. He cannot confront anybody directly at the polling

station?

A.

My Lords no and for that matter nobody can confront

anybody directly at the polling station.
216


Q.

If he has any objection to anything happening he has to

inform the presiding officer?

A.

My Lord yes.

Q. So the presiding officer is in charge of the polling

station?

A.

My Lords absolutely.

Q.

He has the final say on any matter?

A.

So far as it is connected with the election yes.

Q.

In fact the presiding officer can ask the polling agent to

leave the polling station.

A.

Yes if the polling agent misconducts himself or

herself.

Q.

And who determines who misconducts himself, it is the

presiding officer?

217

A.

Yes it is the presiding officer but misconduct they are

trained to know how mis-conducting oneself in a polling
station is. (sic)

The polling Agent is not an electoral officer and the fact that he has signed
the pink sheet cannot legalize that which is otherwise an illegality.

If even a law properly so passed cannot co-exist with the constitution if it is
inconsistent with any provision of the constitution, that law to the extent of
its inconsistency is null and void, how can the court give effect to that which
is unconstitutional?

Article 49 is an entrenched provision and parliament by itself cannot even
amend it. How can a court under the guise of interpretation give any other
meaning to 49(3) other than what is stated in the clause. The golden rule
of interpretation is that words must be given their ordinary meaning unless
same shall lead to absurdity. The clause is clear and unambiguous and
does not call for the interpretation jurisdiction of this court. None of the
conditions as laid down in TUFFOUR VRS THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[1980] SCLR is present here and I would therefore not even attempt to
embark on that exercise of interpreting the shall or find reasons why the
presiding officer might have failed to sign.

The Respondents do not deny the failure of the presiding officers to sign
but contend that that should not be a basis for annulling lawfully cast votes.
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted that if that is done, it will mean
retrospectfully punishing the voters whose votes will be annulled through
no fault of theirs.

218


I wholly agree with counsel in that regard. In the circumstances, what is
the way out?

THE RIGHT TO VOTE
It is provided by the 1992 constitution, Article 42 that:

Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of
sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a
voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.

The right to vote is an inalienable right guaranteed and jealously guarded
by the constitution. The only limitation being age and unsoundness of
mind.

The respondents case is that annulling the votes of Ghanaians who have
exercised their franchise in accordance with Article 42 will be
disenfranchising them and thus deny them their right to vote.

The principle is that an election should not be invalidated by reason of any
act or omission by an electoral officer or any other person in breach of his
official duty in connection with the election or ------------------------ if it
appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election
was conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to the election,
and that the act or omission did not affect the result.

219

In this petition however where the evidence on the pink sheets on their
faces indicates that the election was not conducted substantially in
accordance with the law as to the election, and that the act or omission did
affect the result, then the result will be invalidated.

The citizens right to vote has been upheld by this court in numerous cases
and in particular AHUMA OCANSEY and TEHN-ADDY already referred to.

I happened to be part of the decision in AHUMA OCANSEYs case and I
still stand by my opinion therein expressed.

For this reason, I will not by annulling votes under the three categories
indirectly deny the voters their fundamental and inalienable right to vote as
enshrined in the constitution.

Consequently, where votes have been annulled as a result of violations,
irregularities etc, I will call for a run off of the elections.

VOTING WITHOUT BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION
Under Article 45 of the constitution, the 2nd Respondent is mandated to
conduct public elections.
In this wise, the commission is uniquely
empowered to enact regulations to govern the performance of its functions
to ensure the sanctity of the citizens franchise and the integrity of the
electoral system.

220

In pursuance of its mandate, the commission enacted Regulation C. I. 75,

regulating the conduct of public elections.

Regulation 18(1) makes it mandatory for every polling station to be
provided with a biometric verification device. The Regulation reads as
follows:

The returning officer shall provide a presiding officer with

a. a number of ballot boxes and ballot papers;

b. a biometric verification equipment; and
c. any other equipment or materials that the commission considers
necessary

Regulation 47 (1) of C. I. 75 defines a biometric verification equipment to

mean:
a device provided at a polling station by the electoral
commission for the purpose of establishing by fingerprint the
identity of the voter.

By regulation 30
(1) A presiding officer may, before delivering a ballot paper to a
person who is to vote at the election, require the person to produce
(a) a voter identification card, or
(b)any other evidence determined by the commission, in order to
establish by finger print or facial recognition that the person is the
registered voter whose name and voter identification number and
particulars appear in the register.
221

(2)The voter shall go through a biometric verification

process. (emphasis mine)

Under Regulation 34 (1) of the Instrument
Where the proceedings at a polling station are interrupted or
obstructed by (a) riot, open violence, storm, flood, or other natural
catastrophe, or (b) the breakdown of an equipment, the presiding
officer shall in consultation with the returning officer and subject to the
approval of the commission, adjourn the proceedings to the following
day.

The Biometric verification process is therefore a mandatory component of
the 2012 presidential election.

On the petitioners claim that voters were permitted to vote without being
biometrically verified, the Respondents answer is that the entries in column
C3 on the pink sheets were filled in error.

The evidence of the 2nd Respondent is that column C3 was not required to
be filled in at all by the presiding officers. According to him, that column
was created to take care of those voters who had been registered during
the biometric registration but whose biometric data had been lost as a
result of some difficulties encountered by the 2nd Respondent. This is what
Dr. Afari-Gyan told the court:

As an election administrator, he thought his duty was to give every such
person the chance to cast his ballot. 2nd Respondent therefore advised this
222

facility to allow such persons to vote without going through biometric

verification. They would be required to fill in Form 1C before voting. When
the idea was mooted to the political parties, they all rejected it. He
therefore gave instructions that form 1C should not be sent to the polling
stations. The C3 column was therefore not supposed to be filled.

C3 was put there in an attempt to take care of those people who
through no fault of theirs would have valid voter ID cards in their
possession but whose names will not appear on the register and
therefore could not vote. But let me add that when we discussed this
with the political parties, some of them vehemently said no that we
will not allow any persons to be verified other than by the use of
verification machine. I am just explaining why the C3 came there.
The parties said no and we could understand that argument that
facility is not given to one person, it is being given to every presiding
officer. So you are given this facility to 26,002 and it is possible to
abuse it. So we do not want it and we agreed that that facility would
not be used. Unfortunately, the forms had already been printed,
these are offshore items, so we could not take off the C3. And what
we said, and we have already said this in an earlier communication,
was that we will tell all the presiding officers to leave that space blank
because they had already been printed and there was no way that we
could take it off. And that explains the origin of C3 on the pink sheet.
It was a very serious problem.

The question in C3 is as follows:
What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of
form 1C (but not by use of BVD?)

223

Dr. Afari-Gyans explanation as to how column C3 appeared on the pink

sheets turned out to be false under cross-examination as indeed he later
admitted that C. I. 75 (mandating the use of biometric verification came into
force long before 20th October, 2012 when the order for printing the pink
sheets was given.

It was the evidence of Dr. Afari-Gyan that the commission instructed that
the form 1C should not be taken to the polling station at all. How come
then that they were taken to the polling stations? If they were not taken,
how come column C3 was filled with reference to the form?
Under cross-examination, this is what transpired between Dr. Afari-Gyan
and counsel for the petitioners

Q. Now Dr. Afari-Gyan you are aware that in the December, 2012
elections, entries were made in C3 all over the country.

A. Yes my Lords.

Q.

I am suggesting to you that in fact no such instruction was given to

any official to enter zero.

A.

My Lords, I disagree, instructions was clearly given. Those entries I

believe were made in error.

Q. Now the figures that entered there were obviously generated from the
election am I right?
224


A.

My Lords, I would believe so.

Q. You believe so, or you dont know?

A.

My Lords, I believe that they are figures that are intended to relate to
the election.

Q.

And do you have any idea where those figures should have been
placed other than in C3 column?

A.

Well, in the situations that I have analyzed, they are almost invariably
the same figure in C. I. and in C3 and then it was entered at the
-------------- and this will give rise to a very curious situation.

Q. My question was that the numbers that had been put in C3 you agree
had been generated from the elections. Where do you think it should
be put instead of C3?

A.

My Lords since that number was a repetition of C1 and C3 my

indication is that it should not have been there at all.

Q.

So where it is not equal to C1 where would it have been?

225

A.

My Lords, he is asking me something in the abstracts and is difficult

for me to know where it should have been.

Q. So your answer is that it is difficult for you to tell where it should be.

A.

My Lords, in the instant that I am saying that there should have been
nothing in that column so if something is entered

It will be recalled that Dr. Afari-Gyan earlier on in answer to a question by
my brother Dotse JSC. as to how the alleged instructions to presiding
officers not to fill in question C3 was given (whether written or oral), he told
the court he could not remember.

The petitioners have introduced the evidence on the pink sheets. It was
for the 2nd Respondent to establish how the alleged error came about.

Where a defence goes beyond mere denial then the burden shifts to the
defendant, here the Respondent to prove the error.
See the case of PICKFORD VRS ICI[1998] 3AER

The pink sheets were generated by the 2nd Respondent photocopies of
which were given to the petitioners. The entries thereon constitute prima
facie evidence which needed to be rebutted by the 2nd Respondent.
Failure to rebut same is fatal to the defence of error/ mistake.

226

Indeed Dr. Afari-Gyan told the court in one case where the same figure was
entered in C3 as it was entered in C1, that it was either or situation
meaning either all the voters voted without being biometrically verified or
they all went through the biometric verification process. To find exactly
what happened, he said there should be a resort to the Biometric
Verification Device. The Devices were not resorted to to tell the court that
indeed the figures entered in column C3 were entered in error. These
Devices are in the custody of the 2nd Respondent.

Their case is that even if voters voted without going through the verification
process a call for annulment of the votes must be considered in the light of
their fundament Right to vote as enshrined under Article 42 of the
constitution.

The Chairman of the 2nd Respondent told the court that in some cases, the
presiding officers were given the discretion to permit certain persons who
are well- known in the community to vote without biometric verification. This
is in contrast distinction to the NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE Slogan and
an infringement of Regulation 30 of C. I. 75.

In the case of APALLO VRS ELECTORAL COMMISSION [2001-2002]
SCGLR 1 the court held that the Regulation enacted by the 2nd Respondent
constitute the only constitutionally valid and acceptable instrument by which
the 2nd Respondent can regulate important matters in the conduct of public
election.

Like the Gazette notice published by the 2nd Respondent, the discretion
given to presiding officer to allow people like Omanhene to vote without

227

going through Biometric verification Device is ultra vires

therefore same is void.

C. I. 75 and

The Indian case of A. C. JOSE VRS. SIVAN PILLAI & Others [1984] SCR
(3) 74 at 75 paragraphs 86H-89G is authority for the contention that where
certain election procedure are prescribed expressly by an enactment and
its rules, the electoral commission is not at liberty to derogate from such
rules or exercise any discretion.

In ruling against the exercise of discretion to the voting machines in some
areas when the law did not support same the court held at paragraph 87AB that:
Where there is an Act and there are express Rules made
thereunder, it is not open to the Commission to override the Act
or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the
mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. The powers of the
Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the
law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence,
direction and control as provided by Article 324
It is unfortunate that the 2nd Respondent sought to introduce element of
discretion into NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE under C. I. 75.

Voting without being biometrically verified is an infringement of the Law
which cannot be countenanced under the present dispensation in an
election petition. See the case of NEW NATIONAL PARTY VRS
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA and others (CCT
9/99) [1999] ZACC SA 191.

228

See Vol. 2B page 437 of petitioners filed address.

For this and other reasons, I am inclined to annul votes in all polling
stations where the violation occurred.

DUPLICATE POLLING STATION CODE
The evidence of the Representatives of 1st and 3rd Respondents is that
polling stations are identified by their unique names and code numbers.
DR. Afari-Gyan representing 2nd Respondent also told the court that:

The code is unique..

The petitioners claim however is that there were multiple instances of

same duplicate code numbers being used for different polling stations with
different results. This they term a malpractice.

Under cross-examination, DR. Afari-Gyan was actually confronted with 5
pink sheets of same number of polling station name Juaso Court Hall with
same code number but different results.

Again under cross-examination DR. Afari-Gyan admitted that 9 pairs of 18
pink sheets bore the same code numbers.

DR. Afari-Gyan again admitted another 16 polling stations with
corresponding pink sheets bore the same polling station code.
229


There was another list of 16 (8 pairs) pink sheets which was tendered
through DR. Afari-Gyan. He sought to explain away the anomaly with the
suggestion that one of each pair had been used for special voting.
This list was tendered as Ex Y,

In all, the petitioners claim is that 35 polling stations were involved.

DR. Bawumia however told the court that the votes in terms of their impact
of this elections is statistically insignificant----------------

Again the petitioners said out of these 9 pairs i.e. 18 pink sheets with the
same polling station codes were part of the list of 905 polling stations
tendered as exhibit P (where the presiding officers did not sign the pink
sheets. That being the case the votes in respect of those polling stations
have been annulled under no signature head.

DR. Afari-Gyan was able to explain that in some instances, special voting
had taken place at the same polling station or where the registered voters
there were too many the polling station would be split into two A and B.
This is plausible enough.

If therefore there are any such polling stations with the same polling station
code, the number will be few and therefore as DR Bawumia himself told the
court, same will be statistically insignificant. The malpractice if anything at
all, will not affect the result so that malpractice is disallowed.
230



UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
The original claim by petitioners as contained in paragraph 20 Ground 2a
was that:

That there were 28 locations where elections took place which
were not part of the twenty-six thousands and two (26,002)
polling stations created by the 2nd respondent for purposes of
the December 2012 elections.

This number was reduced to 22 when the petitioners were asked to give
further and better particulars. Even with these 22 polling stations, the
petitioners did not appear to be desirous of pursuing.

Dr. Bawumia in his oral testimony had this to say:

For the 22 locations, we could not find them on the list of
26,002, we could not match the names and the polling stations.
Again as with the duplicate numbers category, my Lords, we
have to be upfront statistically this category is insignificant, 99%
of all the irregularities and violations that we are taking about
are in four categories. Over voting, voting without biometric
verification, the duplicate serial numbers and the non signatures
by the presiding officer even if it is one polling station.

231

The Representative of the 3rd Respondent answer to this allegation is that

the 22 polling stations, formed part of the 26,002 polling stations for the
2012 Presidential election. His explanation is that the petitioners got the
spelling of the polling station names and code numbers wrong. He filed Ex
JAN 5 in which he supplied the correct names and code numbers.

What is more, the petitioners sent their polling Agents to these polling
stations where voting took place in the presence of their polling Agents.

I find no substance in this claim and so disallow same.

DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS
The petitioners claim that serial numbers on the face of the pink sheets are
security features and this is to ensure that the results at each polling station
would be entered on only one pink sheet, whose unique feature is the serial
number.

This was denied by 2nd and 3rd Respondents who told the court that so far
as elections are concerned, the serial numbers are of no significance and
that for the purpose of the election, they are not security feature. They
contended that these numbers were even generated by the commission but
by the printer.

When the 2nd petitioner was asked whether the serial number is covered by
any law or constitutional provision, this is what he said:

232

This is why we say it is an irregularity. I am not aware that is

covered by a law or constitution but you can be sure they will
be dishonoured to a question.

Q.

A.

And I am suggesting to you that that is the case because you do

not challenge the account of details on those pink sheets.
What we are saying is that the details on those pink sheets are
questionable because we cannot trust the integrity of the form they
are written on.

In fact the petitioners did not say that no voting took place in those polling
stations. If the pink sheets are questionable, what questions were asked
and were answered by the petitioners?

No case was made under this head and I am inclined to dismiss same.

CONCLUSION
The number of votes annulled for the three irregularities and violations of
over voting, voting without Biometric verification will negatively impact on
the result declared by the 2nd Respondent having regard to the votes
margin between the 1st petitioner and the 1st Respondent. If the invalid
votes are deducted from the votes of the two, the 1st Respondent who was
declared winner on 50.7% of the votes cast will not cross the threshold of
50%+1.

233

For this reason, I will and hereby declare that the 1st Respondent was not
validly declared winner of the 2012 presidential election. The first relief of
the petitioners is hereby granted.

The 2nd relief for a Declaration that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo the 1st
petitioner herein rather was validly elected president of the Republic of
Ghana cannot be granted because of the order for re-running the election
in polling stations where the votes are to be annulled. The 3rd relief has
been granted in the polling stations where the election is to be re-run. The
petition succeeds in part.

(SGD)

R. C. OWUSU (MS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT

234




DOTSE JSC:
INTRODUCTION
In 1776, John Adams, one of the United States most respected statesmen
and author, wrote in his Thoughts of Government the following
profound statement on the working relationship between the three arms of
government, to wit, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. He stated
thus:

The dignity and STABILITY of government in all its branches,

the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so

much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the
judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislature and
executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon
both, and both should be checks upon that.
The realities of the said statement have dawned on me in my attempt to
deliberate on this presidential election petition which is pending before the
Supreme Court. This is a monumental and epoch making era for the Ghana
Judiciary. This is because, for the first time in the history of the 4th Republic,
the Ghana Supreme Court has been called upon to make pronouncement
on whether the declaration made by the Chairman of the Electoral
235

Commission in the President-Elect Instrument, 2012 (C. I. 80) of

11-12-2012 which declared John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent
herein as having been validly elected as President of Ghana is sustainable
or not.
It is generally understood that there are three branches of government, to
wit, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Of the three, it is
only the Judiciary that is not elected. Whilst both the Executive and the
Legislature are elected and appointed for fixed terms, the Judiciary to a
very large extent, are appointed by the Executive sometimes with the
approval of the Legislature in the case of the Supreme Court Judges, but
once appointed in democratic states, the Judges have security of tenure
and cannot be removed from office unless upon stated and proven
misbehavior.
In most parts of the civilized world, including Ghana, the three arms of
government are separate, distinct and independent, at least on paper. In
practical terms however, even though there are close working relationships
between the Executive and Legislature since their memberships overlap,
that of the Judiciary is expected to be truly independent in order to
ensure strict adherence to the rule of law.
It is in this respect that I am of the view that the statement quoted above,
and attributed to John Adams has become a certainty and a road map for
the Ghana Supreme Court to navigate delicately during this case as it does
in other cases.

236

It cannot be gainsaid that the stability and progress of any nation depend
upon an upright and skillful administration of justice.
Secondly, in the exercise of judicial power, the courts should be seen as
being distinct and independent from both the Executive and
Legislative organs of state.
Thirdly, in the performance of its duties, all the organs of government must
be seen to be independent one of the other, so however that each may
become a check on the other.
Finally, whilst the Judiciary is independent of the Executive and Legislature
and a check on both, the other two should also be a check on the Judiciary
not so however in the performance of its duties.
The above statement clearly epitomises the principles of separation of
powers which is the bedrock of all modern and truly democratic
constitutions of the free world of which Ghana is indeed a proud member.
The task facing the Supreme Court under the 4th Republican Constitution of
1992, is therefore an enormous one which demands a lot of
circumspection, in order to achieve substantial justice such as would
protect the dignity and morals of the society thereby upholding the dignity
and stability of the state.
Since this is an election petition, I have taken inspiration from Alexander
Hamiltons speech in the New York Assembly, June 21, 1788 when he
stated thus:

237

After all, Sir, we must submit to this idea, that the true principle of

republic is that the people should choose whom they please to

govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of

popular favor is checked. This great source of free government, popular
election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty
allowed.
In also describing the enormity of the task that faces a Judge when such
delicate issues come up for adjudication, another colossus of a giant in the
U.S Judiciary, Benjamin Cardozo, one time Associate Justice of the U. S.
Supreme Court, in his invaluable and ground breaking book The Nature
of The Judicial Process, described in simple and understandable
language, the conscious and unconscious processes by which a Judge
decides a case. This is the task that now faces me.

This is what is contained in page 10 of Benjamin Cardozos book referred
to supra:

What is it that I do when I decide a case? To what sources of

information do I appeal for guidance? In what proportions do I

permit them to contribute to the result? In what proportions ought
they to contribute? If a precedent is applicable, when do I refuse to
follow it? If no precedent is

applicable, how do I reach the rule

that will make a precedent for the future? If I am seeking logical

consistency,

the symmetry of the legal structure, how far shall I

seek it? At what point shall the quest be halted by some

discrepant
238

custom, by some consideration of the social

or the common standards of justice and
compound which is brewed daily

welfare, by my own

morals? Into that strange

in the caldron of the courts, all

these ingredients enter in varying proportions. I am not concerned to

inquire whether

judges ought to be allowed to brew such a

compound at all.I

take judge-made law as one of the existing

realities of life.
In this judgment, as far as my ability and capacity can carry me, I shall
endeavour to follow such a practice or method especially as there is no
known local precedent in this aspect of the law that we are requested to
enforce and or interprete.
In this case, I am called upon to make very serious decisions on the validity
of the presidential elections held on 7th and 8th December 2012. The
sources of information that I should be looking at, are the Constitution
1992, The Presidential Elections, Act 1992, (PNDCL 285) (Sections 4
and 5). Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012 C. I.
72, Public Elections Regulations, 2012 C.I. 75, Supreme Court
Amendment Rules, 2012 C. I 74 and the 2nd Edition of the Manual on
Election Adjudication in Ghana prepared by the Judicial Service, July 2012,
decided cases, Constitutional Instruments, pleadings and relevant exhibits
used by the parties in this case, decided cases from other common law
jurisdictions and my own understanding of the issues and law applicable
based on the evidence adduced in Court in order to ensure justice and
equilibrium in our body politics.

239

WHAT THEN ARE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE?

In pursuit of its democratic practice, under the 4th Republic Constitution,
1992, Ghana again went to the polls on the 7th and 8th December 2012 to
elect a President and also members of Parliament for the 275
constituencies that had been demarcated by the 2nd Respondents, the
Electoral Commission. It must be noted that, general elections had been
conducted in Ghana for the same dual purposes in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004
and 2008. The 2012 election was thus the 6th under the Constitution 1992
that the 2nd Respondents had conducted.
The 2012 Presidential Election was contested by the following candidates:
1. John Dramani Mahama

representing National Democratic

Congress (NDC)

2. Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey-

representing Ghana Consolidated

Peoples Party (GPCC)

3. Nana Addo Dankwa -
Akufo-Addo

representing the New Patriotic Party

(NPP)

4. Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom
Party

representing Peoples Popular

(PPP)

240

5. Akwasi Addai Odike

representing United Front Party (UFP)

representing Peoples National

Convention (PNC)

representing Convention Peoples Party

(CPP)

Independent Candidate

6. Hassan Ayariga

7.Dr. Michael Abu
Sakara Forster

8. Jacob Osei Yeboah

It is to be noted that, the 2nd Respondents herein, the Electoral Commission

is the body charged under article 45 (c) of the Constitution 1992 inter alia,
to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda.
In consequence of the above, the 2nd Respondent therein, through its
Chairman, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan on the 11th December 2012 issued and
published the Declaration of President Elect Instrument, 2012 (C. I.
80) in which the 1st Respondent, John Dramani Mahama who had
already been declared on the 9th of December 2012 as having won the
2012 Presidential Election was declared therein as having been validly
elected as President of the Republic of Ghana.The total votes declared with
their corresponding percentages as having been cast in favour of the
contesting presidential candidates referred to supra are as follows:-
i. John Dramani Mahama

5 ,574,761

50.70%

241

ii. Dr. Henry Herbert Lartey

iii. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo -

38,223

0.35%

5,248,89 47.74%

iv. Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom

64,362

0.59%

v. Akwasi Addai Odike

8,877

0.08%

vi. Hassan Ayariga

24,617

vii.Dr. Michael Abu Sakara-Forster

20,32

viii.Jacob Osei Yeboah

15,201

Total Votes

10,995,262

0.22%
0.18%
0.14%
100%

Feeling aggrieved with the declaration by the 2nd Respondent of the 1st
Respondent, John Dramani Mahama, the Presidential Candidate of the
National Democratic Congress, as the winner of the 2012 Presidential
Elections, the Petitioners herein, namely Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo,
the Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party, Dr. Mahamudu
Bawumia, the running mate to the Presidential Candidate of the N.P.P, and
Jake Otanka Obetsebi Lamptey, National Chairman of the New Patriotic
Party commenced a petition as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Petitioners respectively on
the 28th of December 2012 pursuant to article 64 of the Constitution 1992,
section 5 of the Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285), and Rules 68
and 68A

of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 2012, C. I. 74

challenging the validity of the election of the 1st Respondent as the

President of the Republic of Ghana and sought the reliefs stated in the
petition.
242

The original petition filed by the Petitioners on 28/12/2012, was by order of

this Court dated 7th February, 2013 amended in consequence of which the
Petitioners filed their 2nd Amended Petition dated 8th February 2013.
In order to set the records straight, I wish to point out that, the Petitioners
were ordered by this court to amend their original petition for the first time
when the 3rd Respondents herein, the National Democratic Congress
were by a majority decision of 6-3 joined to the Petition as the 3rd
Respondents.
That explains the 1st and 2nd amended petitions respectively.

RELIEFS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERS
1. That John Dramani Mahama, the 2nd Respondent herein was not
validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana,

2. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein,
rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana

3. Consequential orders as to this Court may seem meet.

243

GROUNDS FOR SEEKING RELIEFS

Out of abundance of caution, I will set out in extenso the particulars of the
Petitioners as set out in their 2nd amended petition from paragraphs 20,
ground I through to ground 2A, Ground 3 and all their particulars to
paragraphs 21-27 inclusive.

GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE DECEMBER
2012 ELECTION

Ground 1

There were diverse and flagrant violations of the statutory provisions

and regulations governing the conduct of the December 2012 presidential

election which substantially and materially affected the results of the
election as declared by the 2nd Respondent on 9th December 2012.

Particulars
a. That the 2nd Respondent permitted voting to take place in many
polling stations across the country without prior biometric

244

verification by the presiding officers of 2nd Respondent or their

assistants, contrary to Regulation 30 (2) of C. I. 75.

b. That the voting in polling stations where voting took place without
prior biometric verification were unlawfully taken into account in the
declaration of results by 2nd Respondent in the presidential election
held on 7th and 8th December 2012.

c. That by 2nd Respondents established procedure, 2nd Respondent
conducted the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary
elections at polling stations each of which was assigned a unique
code to avoid confusing one polling station with another and to
provide a mechanism for preventing possible electoral
malpractices and irregularities.

d. That there were, however, widespread instances where different
results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms
(otherwise known as the pink sheet or blue sheet) in respect
of polling stations bearing the same polling stations codes.

e. That the existence of polling stations of the nature referred to in the
preceding sub-paragraph (d) and the results emanating therefrom
were patently illegal.
245


f. That there were widespread instances where there were no
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on the
declarations forms as required under Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.
75. And yet the results on these forms were used in arriving at
the Presidential results declared on 9th December 2012 by the
Chairman of 2nd Respondent, thereby rendering the result so
declared invalid.

Ground 2
1. That the election in 11,916 polling stations was also vitiated by gross
and widespread irregularities and/or malpractices which
fundamentally impugned the validity of the results in those polling
stations as declared by 2nd Respondent.

Particulars

a. That the results as declared and recorded by the 2nd Respondent
contained widespread instances of over-voting in flagrant
breach of the fundamental constitutional principle of
universal suffrage, to wit, one man one vote.

246

b. That there were widespread instances where there were the same
serial numbers on pink sheets with different poll results,
when the proper and due procedure established by 2nd
Respondent required that each polling station have a unique
serial number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and
will of the lawfully registered voters.

c. That, while the total number of registered voters as published by the
2nd Respondent and provided to all political parties or candidates
for the presidential and parliamentary election was fourteen
million, thirty-one thousand, six and eighty (sic) (14,031,680),
when 2nd Respondent announced the result of the presidential
election on 9th December 2012, the total number of registered
voters that 2 nd Respondent announced mysteriously
metamorphosed to a new and inexplicable figure of fourteen
million, one hundred and fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred
and ninety (14,158,890). This thereby wrongfully and
unlawfully increased the total number of registered voters by
the substantial number of one hundred and twenty-seven
thousand, two hundred and ten (127,210).

d. That there were widespread instances of voting without prior
biometric verification;

247


e. That there were widespread instances of absence of the
signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the
Declaration Forms known as pink sheet; and

f. That there were widespread instances where the words and figures
of votes cast in the election and as recorded on the pink
sheets did not match.

Ground 2a

That there were 28 locations where elections took place which were
not part of the twenty-six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations
created by the 2nd Respondent for purposes of the December 2012
elections.

Ground 3

1. That the statutory violations and irregularities and/or malpractices
described under Ground 1, 2, and 2a herein, which were apparent
on face of the Declaration Forms (pink sheet), had the direct
effect of introducing into the aggregate of valid votes recorded in
248

the polling stations across the country, a whopping figure of four

million six hundred and seventy thousand five hundred and
four (4,670,504) unlawful and irregular votes, which vitiated
the validity of the votes cast and had a material and
substantial effect on the outcome of the election, as shown in
the table below:

Particulars

Violations, irregularities and/or N u m b e r o f

Malpractices

Exclusive instances of over voting due to 128,262

Votes

total votes exceeding ballots papers issued

to voters or the polling station voters
register
2

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 48,829

of:
i. Over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. Voting without biometric verification

249

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 145,129

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. voting without biometric verification
iii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 34,167

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. voting without biometric verification
iii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iv. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets

250

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 9,004

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. voting without biometric verification
iii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 425,396

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results

251

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 93,035

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets

Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 34,023

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheet

Exclusive instances of voting without 137,112

biometric verification

252

10 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 395,529

of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheet
with different results
11 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 71,860
of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
12 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 21,071
of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
13 Exclusive instances of same serial numbers 2,583,633
on pink sheets with different results

253

14 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 352,554

of:
i. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
ii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
15 Exclusive instances of absence of presiding 117,870
officers or assistants signatures on pink
sheets
16 Excusive instances of same polling station 687
codes with different results
17 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 3,977
of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. voting without biometric verification
iii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iv. same polling station code with
different results

254

18 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 7,160

of:
i. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
ii. same polling station code with
different results
19 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 7,160
of:
i. Same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
ii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
iii. same polling station code with
different results
20 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 6,537
of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iii. same polling station code with
different results
255

21 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 671

of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
iii. same polling station code with
different results
22 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 7,920
of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iii. same polling station code with
different results

256

23 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 4,885

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
register
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheet
with different results
iii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
iv. same polling station code with
different results

24 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 3,471

of:
i. voting without biometric verification
ii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iii. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheets
iv. same polling station code with
different results

257

25 Exclusive instances of the joint occurrence 1,787

of:
i. over voting due to total votes
exceeding ballot papers issued to
voters or the polling station voters
registers
ii. voting without biometric verification
iii. same serial numbers on pink sheets
with different results
iv. absence of presiding officers or
assistants signatures on pink
sheet
v. same polling station code with
different results
26 Exclusive instances of 28 locations which 9,757
were not part of the twenty-six thousand
and two (26,002) polling stations created by
the 2nd Respondent prior to the December
2012 elections for purposes of the elections
but where elections took place
Grand Total

4,670504

21.

Petitioners contend that these four million six hundred and

seventy thousand five hundred and four votes have been rendered
258

invalid by reason of the above violations and

irregularities and

accordingly ought to be annulled.

22.

Petitioners say that upon the annulment of the votes in the eleven

thousand nine hundred and sixteen (11,916) polling stations, the

following votes ought to be deducted from the respective votes declared in
favour of the presidential candidates:

1.

John Dramani Mahama

2.

Henry Herbert Lartey

3.

Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo

4.

Papa Kwesi Nduom

33,416

5.

Akwasi Addai Odike

4,817

6.

Hassan Ayariga

14,520

7.

Michael Abu Sakara Forster

11,636

8.

Jacob Osei Yeboah

10,045

3,101,590
21,134
1,473,346

259

23.

Petitioners say when these figures are annulled and deducted from

the total votes declared by the Chairman of 2nd Respondent on 9th

December 2012, the results that ought to be returned are as follows:

C VOTES TO

DECLARED BE

W % OF

VOTES

VOTES

ANNULLED
John Dramani

5,574,761

3,101,590

2,473,171

39.1

Henry Herbert Lartey

38,223

21,134

17,089

0.27

Nana Addo Dankwa

5,248,898

1,473,346

3,775,552

Papa Kwesi Nduom

64,362

33,416

30,946

0.49

Akwasi Addai Odike

8,887

4,817

4,060

0.06

Hassan Ayariga

24,617

14,520

10,097

0.16

Michael Abu Sakara

20,323

11,636

8,687

0.14

Jacob Osei Yeboah

15,201

10,045

5,156

0.08

Total

10,995,262

4,670,504

6,324,758

Mahama

59.69

Akufo-Addo

Forster

100.0

24.

Petitioners say that in some instances, votes earned by the

1st Petitioner were unlawfully reduced whilst, at the same time,

votes of the 1st Respondent were illegally padded with

the sole
260

purpose of procuring the victory of the 1st Respondent in the 2012

December Presidential Elections.

25.

When due account is taken of the statutory violations as well as of

the gross and widespread irregularities and malpractices, and the

necessary deductions effected from the votes wrongfully credited to 1st
Respondent by the 2nd Respondent and the nullification as

required by

law of the results declared at the polling stations where

these

substantive infractions occurred, 1st Respondent did not obtain the total
of more than fifty percent (50%) of the valid
required by Article 63

votes cast as

(3) of the Constitution in order to

become President, and accordingly ought not to

have been

declared President.

26. Petitioners say that all of the irregularities and electoral malpractices
captured above were nothing but a deliberate, well-calculated
executed ploy or a contrivance on the part of the 1st and
Respondents with the ultimate object of unlawfully
Respondent to win the 2012 December

and
2nd

assisting the 1st

Presidential Elections.

27.

The Petitioners say that, in consequences of these statutory

violations and

infractions, as well as the irregularities and

malpractices, the results declared by 2nd Respondent in

favour of
261

1st Respondent were far in excess of the valid votes cast in his
favour, thereby subverting the sovereign will of
contrary to the preamble of the Constitution,
Articles 42 and 63 (3) of the

the electorate
Article 1 (1) and

Constitution, 1992

RESPONSE BY THE RESPONDENTS

All the Respondents herein filed their amended answers.

1ST RESPONDENTS AMENDED ANSWER

The substance of the 1st Respondents answer is to the effect that the 2nd
Respondent declared the results of the 2012 Presidential Election Results
at a press conference which was widely carried on radio and television on
9th December 2012 and same was thus published in a gazette notification
in the Declaration of President Elect Instrument, 2012 (C. I. 80) on 11th
December, 2012.

The 1st Respondent further stated in the amended answer that the basis
of the declaration of the results by the 2nd Respondent was the
aggregate of total valid votes cast, which was 10, 995, 262.
262


Whilst the 1st Respondent generally denied the basis of the Petitioners
claims and contentions in all the grounds urged on this court in paragraphs
20-27 of the amended petition, the 1st Respondent specifically denied all
the grounds of the Petition and put the Petitioners to strict proof thereof.

In order to put matters in proper perspective, I deem it quite appropriate to
refer to in detail and in extenso the specific answers of the 1st Respondent
as contained in paragraphs 16 (a), (c), (i), (ii), (iii) (iv) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) and
also paragraphs 17 (d) (i) (i or j), 17B, 20, 21, 26, 27 (a) and (d) as follows:

16.

The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 20 and ground 1 of the 2nd

Amended Petition generally and puts petitioners to strict proof of the

statements and allegation contained therein.

a.
of

1st Respondent does not admit paragraph 20 grounds 1 (a), and 1 (b)
the petition and puts petitioners to strict proof of the averments

contained therein.

c.

The first Respondent shall contend further, or in the alternative, as

follows:

263


i. Fingerprint verification is not the only means of verification
permissible under the law, in terms of Article 42 of the 1992
Constitution, failure or the inability (if at all) of eligible voters
to undergo fingerprint verification as a result of the
breakdown of equipment and/or for any other reason not
attributable to them cannot constitute the basis for denying
such voters of their constitutional rights to vote, and have
their votes counted.

ii.

That any electoral laws and/or directives, the effect of which

would be to invalidate the votes of such persons, who had
properly presented themselves at polling stations to vote, and
had been duly identified as registered voters

in the

biometric voters register, would be inconsistent with

A r t i c l e 4 2 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e ,
unconstitutional;

iii.

That 1st Petitioner had, or ought to have had polling and/or

counting agents at the various polling stations who were part of
the prescribed voter identification processes prior to voting. The
said polling and/or counting agents having participated in

that

process and, having, after public and transparent

counting

and/or collation, certified the results of the polling

stations
264

and/or Constituencies, by signing without protest, the polling

returns, had thereby represented to the whole world

that the

declared results accurately reflected the outcome of the election

in the respective polling stations and/or

Constituencies.

iv.

That the 1st Respondent shall contend therefore that the

allegations contained in the said paragraph 20

grounds 1

(a) and 1 (b), even if true (which the 1st Respondent denies)
did not affect the declared

results of the elections.

e.

In further response to paragraph 20 ground 1 (d) of the

petition, the 1st Respondent says that all authentic pink

sheets reflectgenuine results of lawfully supervised voting at

various pollingstations.

f.

1st Respondent states further that, assuming without

admitting, that some polling stations had the same code

numbers, that fact alone would not invalidate the

declared results of supervised elections in those polling

stations and the votes validly cast.

g.

The 1st Respondent therefore denies paragraph 20 ground 1 (e)

of the 2nd Amended Petition, and, in further denial, repeats

265

Paragraphs 16 (e) and 16 (f) herein. The 1st Respondent shall

also contend that the allegations contained in the said

paragraph 20 ground 1 (d), even if true (which the 1st

Respondent denies), did not affect the declared results of

the elections.
The 1st Respondent does not admit Paragraph 20 ground 1 (f)

h.

of the 2nd amended petition and puts Petitioners to strict proof of

theallegations contained therein. The 1st Respondent
anyhow, to the knowledge of the
and/or counting agents the

states that,

Petitioners and their polling

results that were declared at the

various polling stations were the product of painstaking, public and

t r a n s p a r e n t s o r t i n g a n d c o u n t i n g a n d / o r c o l l a t i o n ( a n d
sometimes re-counting) at the various polling stations

and

collation centres with the full participation of 1st P e t i t i o n e r s

accredited polling and/or counting
the
i.

agents, who did not protest at

declared results at the time of their declaration.

In further response to paragraph 20 ground 1 (f) of the 2nd

amended petition, the 1st respondent says that assuming,
without admitting, that 2nd Respondents officers omitted to sign
declaration forms, such omission cannot operate to
invalidate the lawful exercise by eligible voters of their
fundamental rights under Article 42 to vote in supervised
elections in the affected areas. The 1st Respondent also
repeats paragraph 16 (c) (iii) herein in further response.
266

j.

The 1st Respondent shall also contend that the allegations

contained in the said paragraph 20 ground 1 (f), even if true
(which the 1st Respondent denies), did not affect the results of
the elections.

17. (d)

The 1st Respondent states further that, assuming, without

admitting, that in some instances, different polling stations had
the same serial numbers, that fact alone would not invalidate
the declared results of supervised elections in those polling
stations. The 1st Respondent

shall also contend that the

allegations contained in the said paragraph 20 ground 2 1 (b),

even if true, did not affect the declared results of the elections.

i.

Further or in the alternatives, the 1st Respondent states that

the results of the election in each polling station were declared
openly and publicly, and the votes credited to each candidate
arising from

the declared results are matters of public

knowledge and verifiable. Therefore, granted that there may

have been conflict between the words and figures stated
on the pink sheets, that did not affect the declared
results of the elections.

j.

The 1st Respondent states in further response to Paragraph 20

267

Ground (1) (f) that the results of the election were publicly
declared at the various polling stations and Constituencies and
are matters of public knowledge. To the knowledge of the
Petitioners and their polling and/or counting agents, the results
that were declared were the product of painstaking, public and
transparent sorting and counting and/or collation (and
sometimes recounting) at the various polling stations and
collation centres with the full participation of 1st Petitioners
accredited polling and/or counting agents, who did not protest
at the declared results at the time of their declaration.

17B.

The 1st Respondent states in further response to the said

paragraph that the results declared in all polling stations
throughout the country (as reflected on all genuine pink
sheets), were the product of properly supervised elections in
which the Petitioners and the NPP, their political party, together
with their polling and/or counting agents participated; and that
in all cases, voting was done on the basis of a biometric
voters register, made available to all the political parties
prior to the elections.

20.

The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 22 of the 2nd Amended

268

Petition and puts Petitioners to strict proof of the statements

contained therein. The 1st Respondent states in further
response that the invitation by the Petitioners to annul
votes from 11,916 polling stations constitute an attempt
toundermine the fundamental rights of Ghanaians under
Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, and should be rejected
by the Honourable Court as completely lacking any basis
in law and/or fact.

21.

The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 23 of the 2nd amended

petition and puts petitioners to strict proof of the statements
contained therein. The 1st Respondent states in further
response to the said paragraph that the statements and
calculations contained therein completely lack any basis in law
and/or fact and should be wholly rejected by the Honourable
Court.

26.

The 1st Respondent denies paragraph 27 of the Petition and

puts Petitioners to strict proof of the allegations and statements
contained therein. The 1st Respondent states in further
response that it is rather the Petitioners who, by the
present Petition, are seeking to subvert the Constitution,
undermines the integrity of 2nd Respondent and the whole
269

electoral system and the sovereign will of the people of

Ghana by demanding from the Honourable Court an order
annulling the results of the exercise of their fundamental
rights under the Constitution.

27.

In general response to the Petition, the 1st Respondent states

as follows:

a. That it was acknowledged by all observers, domestic as well
as international, that the conduct of the elections had been
generally free and fair as well as transparent.

b. That the whole Petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.

In essence the 1st Respondent stated quite emphatically that the basis of
the Petitioners claims is the product of double counting in numerous
instances.

2ND RESPONDENTS 2ND AMENDED ANSWER

270

The 2nd Respondent explained the basis of the Petitioners claims of

differences in the electoral register given to their party the NPP, vis--vis
the total registered voters on the electoral calendar in copious terms as
spelt out in their paragraph 8 of their amended answer.
8.

In answer to paragraph 14 of the 2nd amended petition, the 2nd

respondent says that the total number of registered voters that it
forwarded to all the political parties, including the NPP, was
14,031,793 as explained in paragraph 6, above. The figure of
14,158,890 registered voters stated in the declaration of results
was an error. The correct number of registered voters (14,031,793)
was duly posted on the 2nd respondents website. In this context, it is
important to emphasise that this error has no bearing whatsoever on
the total votes cast in the election and, consequently, the valid votes
obtained by each candidate. The error would only affect the
turnout percentage and change it from 79.43% to 80.15%.

In order to set the records straight, the 2nd Respondent stated the correct
results as declared by the Chairman of the 2nd Respondents as follows:
12 (ii) Total votes declared as cast in favour of the contesting presidential

candidates

1.

John Dramani Mahama

0.70%

Henry Herbert Lartey

2.

5,574,761

38,223 0.35%
271

3.

Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo 5,248,898

4.

Papa Kwesi Nduom

64,362

0.59%

5.

Akwasi Addai Odike

8,877

0.08%

6.

Hassan Ayariga

24,617

0.22%

7.

Michael Abu Sakara Forster

20,323

0.18%

8.

Jacob Osei Yeboah

15,201

0.14%

47.74%

10,995,262

14,158,880

100%

In order to put in proper perspective, the specific answers of the 2nd
Respondents it is deemed proper to set out verbatim their answers to the
specific grounds of the petitioners allegations. These answers are spelt out
in paragraphs 15, 15 (a), 16, 17, 18, 18 (a), 19, 20, 22 and 24 thereof.

15. The 2nd respondent denies paragraph (a) of ground 1 of the 2nd
amended petition and says, in answer thereto, that registered
voters who were not successfully verified were turned away
from polling stations and at the about 400 polling stations in
which the verification process faced challenges (slowness or
malfunction of equipment) on December 7, 2012, voting

272

continued the following day when functioning verification

machines were made available.
A Press Release was issued by the 2nd respondent on this. Further, the 2nd
respondent says that the Commonwealth Observer Group, in its report
(page 36) on the Ghana 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections,
made the following recommendation:

The Electoral Commission should review the exceptions to the current
practice on the use of the biometric verification device to minimize the
number of elderly people being refused their vote due to the difficulty in
matching fingerprints.

15 (a)

That, upon being served with the further and better particulars
provided by the petitioners following the Orders of this
Honourable Court, dated February 5 and 7, 2013, the 2nd
Respondent made an examination and analysis of its records,
in particular the Statements of Poll and Declarations of Results
for the Office of President (Pink Sheet) for the polling stations
listed in the particulars supplied by

the Petitioners (which

the 2nd Respondents found to be less than the 11,916 claimed

by the Petitioners). The analysis confirmed that no voters
were allowed to vote without verification at any polling
station. The Pink Sheets used for the 2012 Election were
273

designed and printed before the decision was taken, at the

instance of the NPP, that at each polling station every
person should be biometrically verified before being
allowed to vote. Thus, the Pink Sheets contained Question
C3 as follows:
What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by
the use of Form 1C (but not by use of BVD)

In view of the late decision regarding verification, all Presiding
Officers, during the training exercise, were instructed to leave
Question C3 blank as verification would be carried out for each voter
at the polling station. Given that 26,002 Polling Agents had to be
recruited by the 2nd Respondent, some of who were carrying out such
duties for the first time and that the biometric register was being
used in Ghana for the first time, it did happen, in a number of cases,
that Question C3 was mistakenly filled. However, this did not affect
the number of votes validly cast and counted in public. The 2nd
Respondent therefore maintains that the Petitioners request that the
number of votes cast at the polling stations listed by them should be
nullified is entirely without merit and should be refused.

16. In answer to paragraphs (c) (d) and (e) of Ground 1 of the 2nd

274

amended Petition, the 2nd Respondent says that each polling

station had a name and a unique code. Further, the 2nd
Respondent says that the examination and analysis it conducted
upon receipt of the further and better particulars supplied by the
Petitioners showed that (a) Wrong Codes were quoted by the
Petitioners in the said particulars; and (b) where a polling station
used for the Presidential and Parliamentary Election was also
used for Special Voting (by Security Personnel, etc.) that polling
station kept the same

code number, though the results of

the Special Voting and the results of the voting on December 7

and 8, 2012 were given separately. Thus, the request to invalidate
the votes of the polling stations as requested by the Petitioners
should be refused as being unjustified and entirely without merit.

17. The 2nd Respondent denies paragraph (f) of Ground 1 of the 2nd
amended Petition and says that upon being served with the further
and better particulars provided by the Petitioners following the Orders
of this Honourable Court dated February 5 and 7, 2013, it conducted
an examination and analysis which showed that: of the 2,009
Pink Sheets that the petitioners claimed to be unsigned 1,099
were in fact, signed by

the Presiding Officer at the polling

station or, at the instance of the Returning Officer, at the

Collation Centre; 905 were unsigned, representing 3.5% of the
total number of Pink Sheets nationwide; and 1,989 Pink Sheets,
275

representing 99% of the number claimed to be unsigned, were

signed by the Polling or Counting Agents of the candidates.
Thus, the 2nd Respondent maintains that the request by the
Petitioners that votes cast at the said polling stations are invalid
and should be deducted is without merit and should be refused.
It should also be noted that when several pages of paper
impregnated with a carbon are used in order to have several
copies of each page, it could happen that if the person signing
or writing thereon does not press hard enough on the paper, the
signature or writing could appear faint or illegible on some of
the pages.

18. The 2nd Respondent says that the particulars set out in Ground 2 of
the 2nd amended Petition are a mere repetition of those set out in
Ground 1 of the 2nd amended petition and that the particulars
provided by the Petitioners did not cover the 11,916 Polling Stations
mentioned in the 2nd Amended Petition. The findings of the
examination and analysis carried out by the 2nd Respondent,
upon receipt of the particulars provided by the Petitioners in this
regard, showed that there was not one single instance where
the total votes cast exceeded the number of voters on the
register of the polling station. The 2nd Respondent denies Ground
2 (a) of the 2nd amended Petition and affirms that voting in the 2012
Election took place in 26,002 polling stations all of which were located
276

in Ghana. The 2nd respondent requests this Honourable Court to

Order the Petitioners to comply with the Courts Rulings of February 5
and 7, 2013 by providing particulars of the alleged other 28 locations.

18(a) In the preparations for the 2012 elections, the 2nd
Respondent estimated that it would receive between 12 and 18
nominations of Presidential candidates. The 2nd Respondent,
accordingly, decided to issue to each polling station, for the
purpose of the Presidential Election, two sets of Statement of
Poll and Declaration of Results Forms (Pink Sheet) in two
booklets, each bearing the same serial number and each booklet
containing 9 carbonised sheets (for candidates 1 to 9; and for
candidates 10 to 18, respectively) in order to ensure that each
booklet would not be too thick and, would not thereby render the
carbonization ineffective.
At the close of presidential nominations eight valid presidential
nominations were received by the 2nd Respondent. (It is on
record that Mr. T. N. Ward-Brew, Nana Konadu AgyemanRawlings (Mrs), Mr. Kofi Akpaloo and ProphetNkansah
unsuccessfully challenged, in the High Court, the 2 nd
Respondents rejection of their nomination papers and that Mr.
Kofi Wayo and Madam Ekua Donkoh had attempted to file
Presidential Nomination Forms) thus, each polling station
needed, for the Presidential Election with eight presidential
277

candidates, only one booklet. Had two or more of the abovementioned potential Presidential candidates successfully
submitted their Nomination Forms each polling station would
have needed two booklets. As each booklet, even if it bore the
same serial number as another booklet, would have the name of
the polling station and its unique code written on the forms it
contained, the 2nd Respondent issued the second booklets for
use at polling stations for the Presidential Election. As clearly
shown in the further and better particulars provided by the
Petitioners, where the serial numbers were identical, the names
of the polling stations and their codes were different. The 2nd
respondent therefore denies the allegation in ground 2 that the
procedure established by it required each polling station to have
a unique serial number and urges this Honourable court to reject
the Petitioners contention that votes recorded in any two polling
stations on pink sheets with the same serial numbers should be
invalidated.

19. As regards ground 3 of the 2nd amended petition, the 2nd respondent
notes that in the 2nd amended petition, the word

exclusive has

replaced the ubiquitous aggregate in the tables in the petition filed

on 28/12/2012. However, the 2nd respondent maintains that there is
no indication of how the number of votes were arrived at in the table.
Moreover, the 2nd respondents examination and analysis, mentioned
278

above, shows clearly that there is no justification for the deduction

requested by the Petitioners and mentioned in paragraph 21, 22, and
23 of the 2nd amended petition.

20. As regards paragraph 24 of the 2nd amended petition and the
particulars thereof provided by the petitioners in the Affidavit sworn to
by Fred Oware and filed on 03/02/2013, in opposition to the
application by the 3rd respondent for further and better particulars, the
2nd respondents examination and analysis shows that of the three
instances listed by the Petitioners, one was correct and involved
a transposition error at the Collation Centres stating 17
instead of 97 votes (a difference of 80 votes) and the other two
instances being entirely wrong.

22. Prior to the declaration of the results of the Presidential Election by
the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, representatives of the NPP, in
the presence of the National Peace Council, made representations to
the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent claiming that there were
discrepancies between the results declared at the polling stations in
the seven constituencies listed below, and the results as declared by
the 2nd Respondent:

279

 For the Techiman North Constituency, which has 77 polling

stations Declaration Forms for 56 polling stations were presented:

For the Kimtampo South Constituency which has 107 polling
stations, Declarations Forms for 84 polling stations were presented;

For Lower Manya Krobo Constituency which has 112 polling
stations. Declaration Forms for 85 polling stations were presented;

For Upper West Akyim Constituency which has 76 polling stations,
Declaration Forms for 61 polling stations were presented;

For Yilo Krobo Constituency which has 124 polling stations,
Declaration Forms for 96 polling stations were presented;

For Berekum West Constituency which has 44 polling stations,
Declaration Forms for 45 polling stations were presented; and

For Yendi Constituency which has 93 polling stations, Declaration
Forms for 96 polling stations were presented.

280


It should be kept in mind that all Agents (of candidates) present at
each polling station, were given copies of the certified results of the
polling station, based on the information presented by the
representatives, as set out above, it was clear that the
representatives had presented incomplete or inaccurate
constituency data to sustain the allegation of discrepancies
which the 2nd respondent considers to be the heart of this suit.
Under the circumstances, the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent
declined to halt the declaration of the results since unreliable
evidence had been provided to him.

24.

The 2nd Respondent maintains that the 2nd amended petition is

without merit and prays this Honourable Court to dismiss it.

3RD RESPONDENTS ANSWER

In substance, the answer of the 3rd Respondent is not different from that of
the 1st Respondent, save that the answer of the 3rd Respondent is much
more detailed than that of the 1st Respondent.

281

In terms of details which are different from those of the 1st Respondent, I
will set those out and avoid a repetition of those that are similar in content
and substance.

On general observations and commentary on the entire petition, the 3rd
Respondent stated in paragraph 26 and 27 as follows:-

26. 3rd Respondent states that not only are the grounds for challenging
the validity of the Presidential elections of the 7th and 8th days of
December, 2012 as contained in paragraphs 20 of the 2nd amended
petition unfounded, particulars of the categories of alleged
irregularities set out by Petitioners clearly overlap and,
therefore, adding the votes in these categories as the Petitioners
have done amounts to double/multiple counting and is part of a
pattern of obfuscation resorted to by Petitioners to create an
appearance of a real issue when there is none.

27. 3rd Respondent further states that, in bringing this Petition before the
Honourable Court, Petitioners are acting in bad faith and that the
Petition is frivolous, vexations and an abuse of the process of this
Honourable Court.

282


SETTLING OF MEMORANDUM OF ISSUES AND PRACTICE
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT DATED 2ND APRIL 2013

Following the inability of counsel for the parties in the case to file and agree
upon a memorandum of issues as directed by the Court, the Court on the
2nd day of April, 2013 settled the memorandum of issues based on the
pleadings filed before the Court. These are:

1. Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices
and irregularities of the Presidential Election held on the 7th and
8th December, 2012

2. Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities, if any affected the outcome of the results of the
elections.

DIRECTIONS ON MODE OF TRIAL

The Supreme Court on the same 2nd day of April, 2012 issued the following
directions on the mode of trial aimed at expediting the hearing of the
283

petition and to reduce the time spent by witnesses if any that will be called
by the parties to testify in the trial. Out of abundance of caution, I quote
verbatim the specific orders made by the Court in this respect.

To expedite the determination of this case, the trial will be by
affidavits. However, the parties themselves may lead oral
evidence. Oral evidence by any other person may be allowed
where compelling reasons therefore are given. Accordingly, the
Petitioners should file their affidavits of the witnesses they
propose to rely on in proof of their case on or before 7th April,
2013. The Respondents should likewise file the affidavits of
their witnesses within 5 days from the service upon them of the
Petitioners said affidavits. Cross-examination and reexamination of all the affidavits may in the discretion of the
Court be allowed.

In pursuance of the above directives, the Petitioners, acting through the 2nd
Petitioner, Dr. Mahamadu Bawumia filed on the 27th of April, 2013 an
affidavit together with all the exhibits they intend to rely on to establish their
case.

284

Out of abundance of caution, I deem it appropriate at this stage to refer

specifically to paragraphs 42 through to 67 of the affidavit sworn to by the
2nd Petitioner, already referred to supra.

2ND PETITIONERS SWORN AFFIDAVIT

42. That in combining these multiple categories statistically,
care was taken to avoid double counting. This was achieved by
making sure the various categories of irregularities are mutually
exclusive so that no polling station where an irregularity
occurred could belong to more than one category.

43. That the constitutional and statutory violations, irregularities and
malpractices which constitute the basis of this petition have been
classified into twenty-four (24) distinct and mutually exclusive
categories in which no polling station can belong to more than
one category, thereby avoiding double counting.

The Specific Combination of Constitutional and Statutory Violations
Irregularities and Malpractices

285

44. That there were 320 polling stations where exclusive instances of
the constitutional and statutory violations of over voting occurred,
and can be found on the same pink sheets. This completely vitiated
all the 130, 136 votes cast in those polling stations. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-C, MB-C-1 to MB-C-319 are
photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.

45. That there were 122 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: (i) over-voting
and (ii) voting without biometric verification occurred, and can be
found on the same pink sheets. This completely vitiated the 45,497
votes cast at those polling stations. Attached herewith and marked as
Exhibits MB-D, MB-D-1 to MB-D-121 are photocopies of the pink
sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.

46. That there were 374 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations and irregularities in the nature
of:(i) over-voting; (ii) voting without biometric verification; and
(iii) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results
occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions completely vitiated the 147,032
votes cast in those polling stations.

Attached herewith and

286

marked as Exhibits MB-E, MB-E-1 to MB-E-373 are photocopies of

the pink sheets of the polling stations where these infractions
occurred.

47. That there were 66 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) over-voting; (ii) voting without biometric
verification; (iii) the same serial numbers on pink sheets; with
different results and (iv) absence of signatures of the presiding
officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be
found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these
infractions completely vitiated the 32, 469 votes cast in these polling
stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-F, MB-F-1 to
MB-F-65 are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations
where these infractions occurred.

48. That there were 20 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) over-voting; (ii) voting without biometric
verification; and (iii) absence of signatures of the presiding
officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be
found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these
infractions completely vitiated the 9,408 votes cast in these polling
287

stations. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-G, MB-G-1

to MB-G-19 are photocopies of the pink sheets of the polling stations
where these infractions occurred.

49. That there were 882 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of; (i) over-voting and (ii) the same serial numbers on
pink sheets with different results occurred, and can be found on
the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions
affected the 397,532 votes cast in those polling stations. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-H, MB-H-1 to MB-H-881 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.

50. That there were 196 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of (i) over-voting; (ii) same serial numbers on pink
sheets with different results; and (iii) absence of signatures of
the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheets
occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 91, 129 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-J, MB-J-1 to MB-J-195 are

288

photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these

infractions occurred.
51. That there were 71 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations and malpractices in the nature
of (i) over-voting and (ii) absence of signatures of the presiding
officers or their assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be
found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these
infractions vitiated 31,561 votes. Attached herewith and marked as
Exhibits MB-K, MB-K-1 to MB-K-70 are photocopies of pink sheets
of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
52. That there were 379 polling stations where exclusive instances of
voting without biometric verification occurred and can be found on
the pink sheets. The combined effect of this infraction vitiated
134,289 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-L,
MB-L-1 to MB-L-378 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling
stations where these infractions occurred.
53. That there were 1,068 polling stations where instances of
combined statutory violations and malpractices in the nature of: (i)
voting without

biometric verification; and (ii) same serial

numbers on pink sheets with different results occurred, and can

be found on the

same pink sheets. The combined effect of

these infractions vitiated 408,837 votes. Attached herewith and

marked as Exhibits MB-M,

MB-M-1 to MB-M-1,067 are

289

photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these

infractions occurred.

54. That there were 185 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractice and irregularities in
the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii) absence
of signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink
sheets occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets.
The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 72,953 votes.
Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-N, MB-N-1 to MBN-185 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where
these

infractions occurred.

55. That there were 59 polling stations where instances of combined

constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: (i) voting
without biometric verification; and (ii) absence of signatures of
the presiding officers or their assistants on pink sheet
occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 19,816 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-O, MB-O-1 to MB-O-58 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.
56. That there were 6,823 polling stations where exclusive instances

290

of the malpractice of same serial numbers on pink sheets with

different

results took place. The combined effect of these

infractions vitiated 2,614,556 votes. Attached herewith and marked

as Exhibits MB-P, MB- P-1 to MB-P-6,822 are photocopies of pink
sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
57. That there were 907 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations and malpractices in the nature
of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results;
and (ii) absence of signatures of the presiding officers or their
assistants on pink sheets occurred, and can be found on the
pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated
365,676 votes. Attached

herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-

Q, MB-Q-1 to MB-Q-906 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling

stations where these infractions occurred.
58. That there were 310 polling stations where exclusive instances of
constitutional and statutory violations in the nature of: absence of
signatures of the presiding officers or their assistants on pink
sheets occurred, and can be found on the pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 112,754 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-S, MB-S-1 to MB-S-309 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.
59. That there were 3 polling stations where exclusive instances of the
291

irregularities and malpractices of polling stations with same polling

station codes and different results occurred, and can be found
on the pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated
687 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-T, MB-T-1
and MB-T-2 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations
where these infractions occurred.
60. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined
malpractices, statutory violations and irregularities in the nature of: (i)
same serial numbers on pink sheets with different results; (ii)
voting without biometric verification; and (iii) polling stations
with same polling station codes and different results occurred,
and can be found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of
these infractions vitiated 581 votes. Attached herewith and marked
as Exhibits MB-U and MB-U-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the
polling stations where these infractions occurred.
61. That there were 12 polling stations where instances of combined
malpractices and irregularities in the nature of: (i) same serial
numbers on pink sheets with different results; and (ii) polling
stations with same polling stations codes and different results
occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 4,710 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-V, MB-V-1 to MB-V-11 are
photocopies of pink sheets of

the polling stations where these

infractions occurred.
292

62. That there were 4 polling stations where instances of combined

constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) same serial numbers on pink sheets with
different results; (ii) absence of the signatures of the presiding
officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iii) polling
stations with same polling stations codes and different results
occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 1,261 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-W, MB-WI, MB-W-2 and MBW-3 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where
these infractions occurred.
63. That there were 8 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) over-voting; (ii) same serial numbers on pink
sheets with different results: and (ii) polling stations with same
polling stations codes and different results occurred, and can be
found on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these
infractions vitiated 3,167 votes. Attached herewith and marked as
Exhibits MB-X, MB-X-1 to MB-X-7 are photocopies of pink sheets of
the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
64. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii)
293

absence of signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on

the pink sheets; and (iii) polling stations with same polling
station codes and different results occurred, and can be found
on the same pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions
vitiated 671 votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-Y
and MB-Y-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations
where these infractions occurred.

65. That there were 4 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) over-voting (ii) same serial numbers on pink
sheets with different results (iii) absence of signatures of the
presiding officers or their assistants on the pink sheets; and (iv)
polling stations with same polling stations codes and different
results occurred, and can be found on the same pink sheets. The
combined effect of these infractions vitiated 2,105 votes. Attached
herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-Z, MB-Z-1 to MB-Z-3 are
photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where these
infractions occurred.
66. That there were 2 polling stations where instances of combined
constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities
in the nature of: (i) voting without biometric verification; (ii) same
serial numbers on pink sheets with different results (iii) absence
of signatures of presiding officers or their assistants on the pink
294

sheets; and (iv) polling stations with same polling station codes
and different results occurred, and can be found on the same
pink sheets. The combined effect of these infractions vitiated 793
votes. Attached herewith and marked as Exhibits MB-AA and MBAA-1 are photocopies of pink sheets of the polling stations where
these infractions occurred.
67. That there were 23 locations, which were not part of the twenty-
six thousand and two (26,002) polling stations created by the 2nd
Respondent prior to the December 2012 elections for purposes of the
elections but where voting took place. The total number of votes cast
in those locations

was 9,685. Attached herewith and marked as

Exhibits MB-AB, MB-AB-1 to MB-AB-22 are photocopies of pink

sheets of the polling stations where these infractions occurred.
The Petitioners then listed the method used by them in arriving at their
conclusion that specific numbers of votes of each candidate ought to be
annulled. This methodology is spelt out in paragraph 70 of the said affidavit
which states as follows:-

70.

That the votes that ought to be annulled from the declared results

of each of the candidates were determined by the following method:

a. All the polling stations where the violations, irregularities and
malpractices occurred were identified.

295

b. To avoid double counting, the violations, malpractices, and

irregularities were classified into 24 mutually exclusive categories.

c. For each of the categories of infringements, all the votes declared in
favour of each of the candidates at the affected polling stations by the
2nd Respondent were totalled.

d. The total obtained above by each candidate was then subtracted
from the overall total declared by the 2nd Respondent for the specific
candidate to arrive at the new total valid votes for that candidate.

e. The new totals and the resultant percentage for each candidate
represent what the 2nd Respondent should have declared as the
results of the presidential elections.

Even though the Petitioners have since revised the number of polling
station results they seek to annul from the original 11,842 to the current
figure of 10,119 the depositions in the affidavit refer to the original 11,842
polling stations.

It would appear from paragraphs 73, 74, 75 and 76 of the affidavit of the 2nd
Petitioner that the Petitioners have classified the multiple constitutional and
296

statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities into 4 broad

classifications.

These are as follows:

1. Over voting which occurred in 2,065 polling stations in which case
the 1st Petitioner will obtain 49.3% whilst the 1st Respondent obtains
49.1% of the valid votes cast.

2. Voting without biometric verification which occurred in 2,279 polling
stations in which case the 1st Petitioner will obtain 49.38% whilst the
1st Respondent will obtain 49.13% of the valid votes cast.

3. Use of same serial numbers for different polling stations with
different results in the 10,533 polling stations where these
occurred will lead to the 1st Petitioner obtaining 57.55% of the
votes whilst the 1st Respondent will obtain 41.1% of valid votes case.

4. Absence of signature of the presiding officers in the 1,826 polling
stations where these occurred will lead to the 1st Petitioner to obtain
49.03% of the votes whilst the 1st Respondent will obtain 49.45%
of the valid votes cast.
297


The Petitioners therefore prayed that the combine effect of all the above
violations be brought to bear on the outcome of the 7th & 8th December
2012 elections such that the 1st Respondent ought not to have been
declared as the elected President, rather it ought to have been the 1st
Petitioner.
In consequence of the depositions in the affidavit of the 2nd Petitioner, they
sought the following reliefs from this court:

a. That John Dramani Mahama, the 1st Respondent herein was not
validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.

b. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein,
rather was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana,
and

c. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet.

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHNSON ASIEDU-NKETIA PURSUANT TO THE
DIRECTIVES OF THE COURT DATED 2/4/2013 FOR AND ON BEHALF
OF THE 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS

298


Mr. Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, aka General Mosquito, the General-Secretary
of the N.D.C swore to a joint affidavit on behalf of the 1st and 3rd
Respondents.

Even though the depositions in the affidavit are not materially different from
the material particulars of the answers by the 1st and 3rd Respondents
referred to supra, I think it will be prudent to still refer to some material
particulars in extenso to indicate the vehemence of the denials of the
petitioners case by the 1st and 3rd Respondents.

In this respect, the affidavit of Johnson Asiedu-Nketia answered the various
heads of claim as follows in paragraphs 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, 15F,
16, 17, 22 (a) (b) (c) (d).

15. Regarding each of the heads of claim, I say as follows:

15(a) Over-Voting

299

i. In respect of all the pink sheets exhibited on over-voting, in no

instance are the Petitioners alleging that the valid votes cast
exceed number of registered voters at the polling station.

ii. What the Petitioners are alleging to be instances of over-voting are in
reality patent clerical, and sometimes, arithmetic errors in
recording, which have no material effect on the actual votes
publicly cast, sorted, counted and recorded.

iii. A number of the pink sheets do not support in any manner the
allegation of over-voting.

15 (b). Voting Without Prior Fingerprint Biometric Verification

i. For the first time during elections, the 2nd Respondent used
fingerprint biometric verification machines as well as a
biometrically compiled register. The fingerprint verification
machines in certain instances were found not to be functioning
and as a result of delays occasioned by having no remedy faults in
these machines during the voting exercise 2nd Respondent
adjourned the polls to the next day to enable it to deal with the
problems on the fingerprint verification machines. To the best of
300

my knowledge, based on accounts of our agents at the

polling stations, no voter voted without prior biometric
verification.

ii. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 31 of the affidavit of the
2nd Petitioner alleging that certain votes were annulled at a
collation center in the Northern Region, I have been advised by
Counsel and believe that, if indeed it did happen, that annulment
was unlawful. In any event, as this is not an issue arising from the
pleadings in this case, I am advised and verily believe that this is
not an issue before this Honourable Court.

iii. The affidavits sworn to by our polling agents and filed before this
Honorable Court confirm that in all the polling stations in respect of
which they swore their respective affidavits, voters were
biometrically verified before they were permitted to vote.

iv. I have also been advised by counsel and believe that biometric
verification cannot be restricted to fingerprint verification and
that if as a result of equipment failure, any voting occurred
without a voter having undergone fingerprint verification but
the voter was otherwise verified in terms of the biometric
register this was not wrongful.
301


v. The 1st Respondents statement referred to by the Petitioners that
where there were still challenges with the fingerprint verification
machines voters be allowed to vote without prior fingerprint
verification, reflected his view of the constitutional rights of
Ghanaian citizens, which I am advised by Counsel and verily
believe is the correct statement. In any event the statement of
1st Respondent was not the basis of any decision of officers
of 2nd Respondent in conducting the elections.

15 (c) Absence of Signatures of Presiding Officers on Pink Sheets

i. In all instances in which the Petitioners allege that the Presiding
Officers did not sign pink sheets, the Petitioners do not challenge
the results documented on the said pink sheets. Indeed, their own
polling agents had, in most cases, signed the declared results
without having raised any complaints.

ii. I am advised by Counsel and verily believe that the neglect or
failure of Presiding Officers to sign the pink sheets, whether
by oversight or for any other reason, cannot be a basis for
annulling lawfully cast votes. Otherwise Presiding Officers

302

would be able, by design, to disenfranchise voters by failing

or refusing to sign declaration forms.

15(d) Pink Sheets With the Same Serial Numbers Having Different

Results

It would appear that the allegation under the head of claim is based on a
lack of appreciation of the nature and role of serial numbers on pink sheets.
It is polling station codes, and not serial numbers, that are used in
identifying polling stations. 2nd Respondent has given sufficient
explanation to this head of claim in its amended answer to the 2nd amended
petition.
We note that the Petitioners do not allege that voting did not take place at
any of the polling stations that they claim are affected by the allegation. I
note also that, at those polling stations, the polling/counting agents of the
1st Petitioner duly signed the pink sheets, which are the products of lawfully
supervised elections.

15 (e) Different Results on Pink Sheets Having the Same Polling

Station Code

303

i. I note that the Petitioners do not allege that voting did not take place
at those polling stations. In addition to the unique codes, polling
stations can also be partially identified by their names; so that
assuming that the Petitioners were correct (which I deny) the
names of the polling station would have provided sufficient
distinguishing point for the particular polling station.

2nd Respondent has explained that where polling stations have
been used for special voting which preceded the general voting,
two separate results would appear on the pink sheets with the
same polling station code, one representing the results of the
special voting, and the other those of the general voting. Anyhow, I
maintain that each pink sheet represents the genuine results of
supervised election, and the polling/counting agents of the 1st
Petitioner duly signed them.

15(f) Unknown Polling Stations

i. I was in court when the Counsel for the Petitioners indicated that they
were restricting this allegation to the 22 polling stations they
identified on the basis of the orders of the court to supply further
and better particulars. Counsel for the Petitioners confirmed they
304

no longer were making claims in respect of 28 polling stations as

they originally alleged. The Affidavit of 2nd Petitioner now refers to
23 polling stations meaning there is one polling station in respect
of which further and better particulars have not been supplied as
ordered by the court.

ii. We have also checked the details of the polling stations provided by
the Petitioners, and have found that their confusion arose, in some
instances, out of the wrong spelling of the names of the polling
stations and, in others they misquoted the polling stations. In some
cases, the polling stations were used for special voting. All the
polling stations exist and were all part of the 26,002 polling
stations that were created by 2nd Respondent for the conduct of
the December 2012 elections. Anyhow, the pink sheets exhibited
by the Petitioners in respect thereto reflect the genuine results of
supervised elections, signed by the Petitioners and 1 st
Respondents polling/counting agents.

iii. I attach to this affidavit, marked Exhibit Jan 5, an analysis of the
details relating to the Petitioners allegation. The 2nd and 3rd
columns show the details provided by the Petitioners in their
allegation. The 4th and 5th columns show the correct details of the
polling stations. The 6th column shows the Constituencies under
which the polling stations falls.
305


16. In general response to the various allegations made by the
Petitioners, I say that, in most of the polling stations in respect of
which the Petitioners have made claims, their own polling/counting
agents signed without complaint the pink sheets and the current
complaints are merely the afterthought of bad losers clutching
at straws. The Petitioners only started complaining long after the
results had been declared at the various polling stations and
when the overall trend nationwide began to show that 1st
Petitioner would lose the elections. Indeed on December 8, 2012,
after the President had said that voting should be allowed
without prior fingerprint biometric verification, Boakye Agyarko,
the Campaign Manager of the 1st Petitioner, gave a press
conference to inform the country about the NPPs impression of
the conduct of the elections so far. He stated that the elections
were the most transparent, credible and peaceful elections ever
held in Ghana, and that the
not attempt to challenge the

3rd Respondent and I, should

results.

17. This Petition is an act of bad faith and a brazen attempt by the
Petitioners to find some reason to question the validity of the
December 7 and 8 Presidential Elections after they lost.

306

22. After the declaration of the results, representatives of the NPP have
made changing allegations about the alleged irregularities and
malpractices, which they claim accounted for their defeat, including
the following:

a. The results declared in favour of 1st Petitioner had been swapped
with those declared in favor of 1st Respondent;

b. That results declared in favour of 1st Respondent had been
unlawfully increased between the collation centres and the strongroom and that the results that came to the strong-room and
declared by 2nd Respondent did not reflect those recorded at the
various constituency collations centres;

c. That at certain polling stations the declared results in words were
different from those in figures in a manner that favoured 1st
Respondent;

d. That 1st Respondent had conspired with 2nd Respondent to steal
votes for 1st respondent.

307

Based upon the above depositions, the 1st and 3rd Respondents prayed the
court that the Petition is wholly unmeritorious and lacks in substance.

2ND RESPONDENTS AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF
THE COURT DATED 2ND APRIL, 2013 SWORN TO BY AMADU SULLEY
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION

It should be noted that, in this petition the position of the 2nd Respondent,
as the constitutionally mandated body in charge of organizing and or
conducting elections in Ghana is paramount.
I will therefore devote some time to an analysis of the case as is contained
in the detailed affidavit sworn to by the 2nd Respondents.

In this regard therefore, I think it is pertinent to refer in extenso to some
relevant portions of the affidavit sworn to by Amadu Sulley and referred to
supra.

The relevant portions of the said affidavit are paragraphs 3, 6, 13, 14 and
15 of 2nd Respondents Affidavit sworn to by Amadu Sulley on 16-4-2013.

3.

The manner in which the 2012 Elections were conducted, as

308

described in paragraph 14 of the 2nd amended answer filed on behalf

of the 2nd respondent on April 3, 2013, and the participation of
representatives of all the political parties in the procedures followed in
the Constituency Collation Centres and in the 2nd Respondents
Headquarters (Strong Room), makes it impossible to falsify the votes
cast and to conceal such falsification. By the same token, it is
impossible to make a false allegation of falsification and to sustain
such an allegation.

6.

In the petition, the Petitioners are now seeking to overturn the

results declared by the 2nd Respondent on the grounds of
irregularities and malpractices in six main categories. Each of those
categories have been effectively refuted by the 2nd Respondent in its
answer filed on 07/01/2013; its amended answer filed on 27/02/2013;
its Analysis of the Further and Better Particulars provided by the
petitioners application, the response filed on 12/02/2013 by the 2nd
respondent to the Interrogatories submitted by the Petitioners and the
Supplementary Affidavit filed on the 2nd Respondent on 01/04/2013
regarding the alleged 28 unknown polling stations.

13. Paragraph 34 of the 2nd Petitioners affidavit is false. Polling Stations

are identified by their names and their unique Polling Station Codes.
The serial number on a Polling Sheet is NOT a security feature.

309

Further, this matter has been fully explained in paragraph 18 (a) of

the 2nd Respondents 2nd amended answer.

14. Paragraphs 36 to 68 contain inconsistencies and are denied. The 2nd
Respondent says that the Petitioners are fastening onto errors,
committed in the completion of pink sheets, by Presiding Officers
that do not benefit any particular candidate or affect the number
of valid votes cast at polling stations.

15.

The reliefs sought by the Petitioners are without merit and the

Honourable Court is requested to dismiss their petition.

From the above depositions of the 2nd Respondent, which should be jointly
read with the depositions contained in the affidavit of Johnson AsieduNketiah, sworn to on behalf of the 1st and 3rd Respondents, already referred
to supra, it should be clear that all the Respondents vehemently deny in
substance the claims of the Petitioners.

There are some preliminary observations and comments that I would wish
to make in the case before I address the points of substance posited in the
issues.

310





PRELIMINARY COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
It has already been noted that, this Presidential Election Petition is the first
of its kind in the legal annals of this country. Several persons have
therefore commented on the procedure that was adopted by the Court.
Most of the comments compared the swiftness of the Kenyan Supreme
Court in dealing with a similar election petition challenge in that country as
opposed to the near snail pace approach adopted by us in the Ghana
Supreme Court.

This therefore calls for discussions of some constitutional and statutory
provisions germane to the Ghana situation.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON CHALLENGE OF VALIDITY OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Article 64 (1) (2) and (3) of the Constitution, 1992 provides:-

311

64. (1)

The validity of the election of the President may be challenged

only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the
purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after
the declaration of the result of the election in respect of which
the petition is presented.

(2)

A declaration by the Supreme Court that the election of

President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything
done by the President before the declaration.

(3)

The Rules of Court Committee shall, by constitutional

instrument, make rues of court for the practice and procedure
for petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the election of a
President.

From the above provisions, it is certain and clear that, in the first place, any
challenge to the validity of the election of a President can only be filed after
the declaration of the results of same by the Electoral Commission. This
means that, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, who is the
returning officer for the Presidential election must have declared the results
by a President Elect Instrument pursuant to article 64 (9) of the Constitution
1992.

312

Secondly, any person desirous of challenging the declaration of a person

as a President by the Electoral Commission has to do so within 21 days of
the declaration of the said result.

Thirdly, it should be noted that, by the provisions in article 64 (2) of the
Constitution 1992, a clear intention has been indicated that the pendency of
a challenge to the validity of the election of a person as a President cannot
stop the President from acting in that capacity as a President. That is the
purposive way in which the said provisions should be interpreted such that
there will not be any vacuum in the running of affairs of the state.
That explains the rationale why the constitutional provisions in article 64,
clause 2 does not invalidate any action taken by the President before the
declaration by the Supreme Court on the validity or otherwise of the
election of the President.

Finally, article 64 (3) mandates the Rules of Court committee to make
constitutional instruments to regulate the conduct, practice and procedure
of petitions to the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the election of a
President.
It was in pursuant of the said provisions that the Supreme Court
(Amendment) Rules, 2012 C. I. 74 was promulgated.

313

In order to illustrate the point made supra, it is pertinent to refer to the

preamble to C. I. 74 which reads thus:

In exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court
Committee by clause (4) of article 33, clause (3) of article 64
and clause (2) of article 157 of the Constitution, these Rules are
made this 9th day of January, 2012..

As the title of the C.I. 74 indicates, it is an amendment of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1996 C.I. 16 as amended by the Supreme Court
(Amendment) Rules, 1999 (C. I. 24).

C.I.74

This instrument reiterates the constitutional provisions in article 64 (1) and
(2) of the Constitution 1992 already referred to supra.

RULE 69A

314

This rules states that a respondent has 10 days within which to raise a
preliminary objection or file an answer to the petition. Thus, if the petitioner
has 21 days to file a petition after the declaration of the result, then the
respondents have 10 days after service to either file an answer or raise a
preliminary objection.
Considering the fact that the petition may not be served on the same date
that is filed, then there is the possibility that valuable time may again be lost
in service which may even be by substitution as provided for under Rules
68 B, sub-rules 4 and 5 of C. I. 74.

As a country, if we are desirous of proceeding in the express highway (fast
lane) approach to the determination of such petitions by the courts, then it
is my opinion that appropriate legislation must be passed to reflect that
phenomenon. The blame must not be put at the door posts of the courts for
the snail pace approach, but with the enabling constitutional provision and
rules of procedure. These provisions and rules certainly need to be
amended to make room for expedition, without sacrificing efficiency. This is
because, there is an adage in which I believe which states that, Justice
hurried, is justice buried. It must also be noted that, the Constitution
which was promulgated and enacted and came into force on 7th January
1993 must be considered as a constitutive act of the people of Ghana
which affirmed and endorsed priceless principles and precepts which must
be honoured and respected.

315

ELECTRONIC SERVICE RULE 69 B

Even though the rules provide for electronic service, it is a pity that in this
modern I.C.T world, we have not been able to implement this provision. I
believe the time is ripe for the full and effective utilization of the rules of
I.C.T not only in our mode of service of documents, but more importantly in
our scheme of work and also adduction of evidence before the court.

It is in respect of the above that I regret the inability of the Court to heed the
many applications by the Petitioners to adopt I.C.T methods of adduction of
evidence which unfortunately were not granted. It is my wish and hope that
in future, steps would be taken to ensure a smooth blend of I.C.T with our
procedural rules, just as the live telecast of proceedings was handled
progressively to allow all Ghanaians and the world at large to watch these
proceedings.

On the whole, it should be noted that C. I. 74 was passed with expeditious
and fast disposal of petitions commenced under it as its philosophical
underpinnings. This explains why provisions were made for the court to
give its decision not later than 15 days from the close of the hearing of the
petition.

316

Again it is instructive to note that, the day to day sitting including Saturdays,
Sundays and public holidays and no review of final decision including the
opening of the Court registry on all days including Saturdays and Sundays
are all designed to ensure expedition. Unfortunately, some of the above
provisions i.e. sitting on public holidays and no review have been shot
down by the Supreme Court at the instance of a plaintiff.

I have had to deal at length with the above constitutional provisions as well
as Rules of Court applicable in dealing with presidential election petitions to
drum home the fact that there is the need to make for further radical
reforms in our laws if we are to achieve what has been done elsewhere i.e.
the Kenyan experience.

PRACTICE DIRECTION

In this respect, I think the Court acted with the necessary dispatch when it
gave the practice directions on the 2nd April 2013. In retrospect, I think the
court should have been more radical in content by not allowing
unnecessary cross-examination of the parties who gave depositions in their
affidavits. Even though I concede that these cross-examinations were very
useful and gave us a lot of insight into the case before the Court, am of the
opinion that in future, learned counsel should be limited by allotting time for
317

the cross-examination and arguments on motions and objections. This will

definitely eliminate over elaboration, repetitions and excessive playing to
the gallery especially the television cameras.

INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS

During the course of hearing this petition, several interlocutory rulings were
delivered which on hindsight I thought should have been otherwise decided
in order for this Court to do substantial justice and move the petition faster.
I will refer only to a few.
1.

THE RULING ON MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FOR

INSPECTION AND DISCOVERIES

This application was filed by the Petitioners seeking an order from the
Court directed at the 2nd Respondents to produce for their inspection and
copy being made thereof of the following:
i. The results collation forms for all the 275 collation centres for the
Presidential elections.

ii. The declaration forms that is the pink sheets for all 26,002 polling
stations.

318

On the 7th of February 2013, this Court by a unanimous decision dismissed

the Petitioners motion for production and inspection of the documents
referred to supra.

Even though the court made it clear in the ruling, that it was premature at
the time it was applied for, the Petitioners never brought it up again for reconsideration. Perhaps if it had been brought up again, it could have been
favourably considered.

Why am I of the view that it could have been favourably considered?

i. The 2nd Respondents are the constitutional body charged with the
conduct of all pubic elections in Ghana.

ii. They are therefore the custodians of all the original documents being
requested for by the Petitioners.

iii. The explanation by the 2nd Respondents in their answer that the
legibility of the duplicate copies of the pink sheets which the
political parties including the Petitioners have is the problem. This
therefore makes it necessary that the 2nd Respondents who have
319

the originals should have been made to produce them for the
parties and the Courts to apprize themselves of the original
copies. Exhibits E.C 11 A1, E.C. 11 A2 and E. C. 11A which are all
copies of original pink sheets that the 2nd respondent was made to
tender speaks volume. These exhibits exposed the lack of
credibility in some of the conduct of the 2nd respondents during
the last December 2012 presidential elections in view of the
discrepancies between those originals and duplicate pink sheets.

iv. Besides, evidence adduced by the Chair of the 2nd Respondent Dr.
Afari-Gyan, is to the effect that collation forms are not given to the
political parties as with pink sheets. Therefore if the petitioners had
access to the originals of these documents, they could have
revised the number of pink sheets and polling stations they were
contesting.

As a matter of fact, now that evidence has been concluded in the matter,
am of the considered opinion that, in future, in all Presidential election
petition hearings, the Electoral Commission should be mandated to
produce for inspection all the documents being contested by the
Petitioners. This will help solve problems of ineligibility or otherwise of pink
sheets exhibited by the petitioners.

320

This is very important because, as the custodian of the original copies of

these primary documents, the 2nd Respondents owe a duty to the good
people of Ghana to make a clean breast of the documents if they really do
not have any skeletons in their wardrobes to hide, reference the Exhibits E.
C. 11A - E.C 11A2 series referred to supra.

For example, the explanation that some pink sheets were signed at the
collation centres by the Presiding Officers at the instance of the Returning
Officers when same was detected in the absence of the political party
agents speaks volumes.

If indeed the pink sheets had been signed at the collation centres, then
perhaps those complaining might have revised their stand. Since the duty
of the courts in any case, is to do substantial justice these points should be
well noted.

Secondly, because of the problems of ineligibility of duplicate copies, the
originals if produced will be legible, then the problem could have been
solved, and the doubts about some figures which we encountered on the
pink sheets would not have arisen.

ATTEMPT BY 2ND RESPONDENTS TO TENDER COLLATION SHEETS
321


In the course of the testimony by Dr. Afari Gyan, an attempt was made by
him to introduce some collation forms which was objected to and upheld by
this court. Then further during the trial, it came to light that some polling
stations like the Finger of God,

Juaso Court Hall and others had

more than one pink sheet, and in some cases triple pink sheets, reference
exhibit X, which are pairs of serial numbers appearing more than once and
exhibit Y, duplicate polling station codes.

When the 2nd Respondents, rightly in my view sought to tender the
collation sheets for those constituencies for the Court to be satisfied that
not more than the required number of pink sheet results were taken into
account in the collation for those constituencies, the objection was again
upheld. This denied the 2nd respondents the opportunity to explain that not
more than one pink sheet was used to collate the results.

I am however of the opinion that, those objections were upheld because
the court had previously denied the Petitioners the same opportunity when
they first sought to introduce them into the case. For purposes of
consistency, the court persisted in its previous ruling by denying the
introduction of the collation sheets.

322

For now, doubts have been created in our minds as to whether the Exhibit
Y, type of situation actually found their way into the collation of the results
and therefore the declaration made by the 2nd Respondent in favour of the
1st Respondent could have been based on exaggerated and duplicated
figures. But luckily these doubts have now been erased in our minds by
exhibits X, Y and E.C 11 series.

Similarly, when the 2nd Respondents also sought to introduce pink sheets
from Ashanti Region during the cross-examination of the 2nd Petitioner, Dr.
Bawumia an objection was raised and upheld by the Court which denied
the opportunity to the Respondents to tender pink sheets from the
stronghold of the petitioners. If indeed there were similar malpractices and
or irregularities and constitutional violations in other parts of the country,
then equity would have demanded that uniform rules of application be
made to apply to all such infractions of the law.

In this instance, if the 2nd Respondent had been directed to produce at
least pink sheets that are being contested for by the petitioners, those pink
sheets would have been in evidence or at least before the court, and no
legitimate objection would have been raised. After all, What is good for the
goose is also good for the gander. However, because of prior rulings in the
case, the court has been left with no opportunity to examine the bonafides
of the other claims.

323


If the above documents, had been tendered, they could have helped the
Court to determine whether the December 7th and 8th Presidential elections
were completely flawed and bereft of any legitimacy or not.

I believe as a people and country, we will take a cue from these procedural
lapses and make amends in future cases if they should arise.

2.

AMENDMENT OF PETITION

I am also of the view that it is not for nothing that the Constitution 1992 and
C.I. 74 provide that the petition challenging the validity of an election should
be filed within 21 days after the declaration of the results by the Electoral
Commission.
If therefore, a Petitioner has not been able to comprehensively assemble all
the allegations which he intends to use for the petition within the 21 days at
his disposal, such a Petitioner should not be permitted to amend his case
as and when he discovers new evidence after the 21 days has lapsed. This
definitely contributed to delay in the petition hearing.

JOINDER OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (NDC)

324

Even though the Court has derived much assistance from Counsel for the
NDC Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata for his incisive cross-examination, I am of the
considered opinion having reflected on the provisions of the Constitution
1992, the Supreme Court Rules 1996, C.I. 16 and C. I. 74, already referred
to, that there is really the need for such petitions to be expeditiously dealt
with. I am therefore of the considered view that in future, political parties as
entities should be left out of such petitions as happened when this court
granted the application for joinder of the National Democratic Congress.
The attempt by the Petitioners in including their Party Chairman in the
petition as a 3rd Petitioner I dare say was one of the factors that motivated
the 3rd Respondents to seek to join.
Once the beneficiary of the declared election result is one of the
Respondents, to wit the 1st Respondent and as at now belongs to a
recognised political party, i.e. NDC, what has to be done is for the party to
arrange the legal representation for the President such that the fortunes of
the party are not compromised.
I am making these observations because I am of the view that valuable
time was equally lost when the application for the joinder was made.
Similarly, the many spurious applications made by persons claiming to be
members of the NDC to join the suit to protect their votes also engaged
valuable time of the Court. But for the pro-active ruling delivered by this
court to deal with all such applications, the systematic and strategic manner
in which the applications were being filed and fixed for hearing could have
further derailed the hearing of this petition.
325

There is therefore the need for appropriate amendments to be made to the

rules of Court to explicitly deal with and prevent joinder of such corporate
entities like political parties and other individuals who do not have a direct
beneficial interest in the outcome of the election.
BURDEN OF PROOF
There is no doubt that the petitioners are very much aware of the standard
of proof that lies upon them as petitioners to discharge the evidential
burden to enable them convince the court as is required by law, reference
sections 10, 11(1) and 12 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323.

This sections stipulate that the burden of persuasion which the obligation of
a party requires to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning facts in
the mind of the court to prevent a ruling being made against him on an
issue is by proof by a preponderance of probabilities.
In giving teeth to the above provisions of the Evidence Decree, my
respected brother, Ansah JSC in the case of Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir
Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, at 900 stated authoritatively concerning
this burden of proof in civil matters as follows:-
It is sufficient to say that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence
requires that the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his
claim on a preponderance of probabilities, as defined in section 12 (2)
of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323). Our understanding of the
rules in the Evidence Decree, 1975 on the burden of proof is that in
326

assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of

the plaintiff, or the defendant, must be considered and the party in
whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is the
more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a
favourable verdict.
Throughout the trial of this case, this duty and standard of the burden of
proof which the law has put on a plaintiff, in this case the petitioners, has
not been lost on them.
All the respondents agree with the proposition of the law on the burden and
standard of proof that lies on the petitioners to sustain their petition.
See for example the written address of learned counsel for the 1st
Respondent, Tony Lithur when he stated thus:

The law is settled that the party who bears the burden of proof must
produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of
credibility for his claim to succeed. (See sections 10 (1) and (2) and 11 (1)
and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Thus, in Ackah v Pergah
Transport Limited & Others [2010] SCGLR 728, Her Ladyship, Mrs.
Justice Sophia Adinyira, JSC succinctly summed up the law, at page 736
as follows:
It is a basic principle of law on evidence that a party who bears the
burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in
issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may
327

failIt is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be
proved by producing sufficient evidence so that, on all the
evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence
of a fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. This is the
requirement of the law on evidence under section 10 (1) and (2) and
11 (1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323)

Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent, continued his address on this
issue in the following terms:-
Election petitions have their own dynamics in relation of proof. In the
Nigeria election case of Abubakar v YarAdua [2009] ALL FWLR (Pt. 457)
1 SC, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the burden is on the
Petitioner to prove, not only non-compliance with the electoral law,
but also that the non-compliance affected the

results of the

election.
In the same vein, in the Canadian case of Opitz v Wrzesnewskyi 2012
SCC 55-2012-10-256, the Canadian Supreme Court tersely held, by
majority opinion, that:
An applicant who seeks to annul an election bears the legal
burden of proof throughout
Also, in Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral
Commission, Election Petition No. 1 of 2001, the majority of the
Ugandan Supreme Court Justices held as follows:
328

the burden of proof in election petitions as in other civil cases is

settled. It lies on the Petitioner to prove his case to the
satisfaction of the Court. The only controversy surrounds the
standard of proof required to satisfy the Court.
Continuing his submissions in the written address, learned counsel stated
as follows:
It should be noted that, if a legal rule requires a fact to be proved, the
court must decide whether or not it happened. In the recent case of
Re B [2008] UKHL 3, Lord Hoffman aptly stated the position, using
mathematical analogy thus:
If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a fact in issue), a judge or
jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a
finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary
system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either
happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is
resolved by a rule that one party or the other carried the burden
of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to
discharge it, a value 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not
having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned
and the fact is treated as having happened.
The above statement is therefore quite authoritative and conclusive of the
issue of burden of proof.

329

Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, Tsatsu Tsikata, in his written
address on the subject, made similar remarks as follows:-
It is essential to proving the case of the Petitioners that they not only
clearly establish the legal basis on which they ask this honourable
Court to annul votes of millions of votes, which would deprive these
citizens of their constitutional right to vote, but also that they clearly
establish the factual basis on which they have brought the
petition. This requires that the pink sheets that they reference in the
relevant paragraphs of the affidavit must be available to the Court
and to the other parties. It is submitted that based on the uncontested
evidence of the referee, KPMG, the Petitioners have failed to make
available the pink sheets claimed to be made available in the affidavit
of 2nd Petitioner, for this reason alone their petition must fail.
Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent then drew references to a number
of things why in his opinion the Petitioners have failed to discharge the
burden that lay upon them in proof of their petition.
Notable among these is the changing face of the number of pink sheets
they rely upon which according to counsel has been disproved by the
KPMG report.

Another instance is the fact that, the pink sheets upon which the petitioners
relied entirely for the proof of their case is itself dependent upon several
other primary sources of evidence like polling station voters register, the
330

polling station biometric machine the record of ballot papers issued

to the polling station, just to mention a few.
The input on the burden and standard of proof by learned counsel for the
2nd Respondent, Mr. James Quashie-Idun was not different in content from
the 1st and 3rd respondents. In essence, whilst acknowledging the fact that
it is the petitioners who have the burden to discharge in establishing the
proof of their case, he argued that they failed woefully to discharge that
burden. This is because, the only evidence the petitioners proffered in proof
of their many allegations are the pink sheets. According to Mr. QuashieIdun, the pink sheets perse cannot prove the case for the petitioners
without resort to the primary records which learned counsel for the 3rd
respondents referred to.
It is definitely not in dispute that the petitioners have made the
statements of Poll and Declarations of results Pink Sheets as the
bedrock or alter ego of their case.
I have examined in detail the characteristics of a pink sheet, elsewhere in
this judgment. Suffice it to be that, evidence abounds conclusively in this
case that it is the pink sheets that are used to tally results on the
constituency collation sheets at the constituency collation centres.
These are in turn transmitted to the 2nd respondents strong room and used
for the purpose of declaration of the results. I am fairly well convinced that
a similar procedure was used in the declarations of the 2012 presidential
election results.

331

In my opinion, whenever the petitioners have through a pink sheet, cast

doubts on the authenticity or correctness of a result declared at a polling
station, for purposes of the principle of producing evidence on the balance
of probabilities, as provided for in sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence
Act, 1975, NRCD 323, that duty appears to have been discharged until an
explanation is given as to why it ought not to be presumed to have been
discharged. The only institution or body that can give such an explanation
is the 2nd respondent.
As a matter of fact, from the evidence, the only record of the election given
the contesting parties are the pink sheets. If therefore an issue arises about
this or that polling station in relation to its pink sheets which have been
produced by the party upon whom the burden lies in law, then under such
circumstances, the burden would be deemed to have shifted to the
respondents, especially the 2nd respondent to call evidence in rebuttal.
KPMG
It is also an undeniable fact that the petitioners case in respect of the pink
sheets has been changing consistently like the face of a cameleon. Indeed
from an initial figure of 11,916 pink sheets which they claimed they filed, to
a reduced number of 11,138, then to the KPMG counts of the following:
1. 13,926

actual number of pink sheets counted from the

Registrars set. Out of this, 8675 are unique.

2. 9,856 were counted from the presiding Judges set.
332


3. 1,545 pink sheets initially unidentified.

4. 10,119 as per Table 1A of the volume 2A page 160 of the address
are the number of pink sheets the petitioners now claim to be
relying upon.

They give a breakdown of this as follows in their address:

Registrars set (KPMG)

7999

Registrars remarks (KPMG)

690

Presidents set (KPMG)

804

60

Respondents cross examination exhibits -

566

Presidents remarks (KPMG)

333

Table 1A of Volume 2A of the address also lists 9,095 pink sheets on page
302 thereof as the total number of pink sheets the respondents prefer,
whatever that means.

Table 4 on page 287 of volume 2 of the address also lists 287 pink sheets
as the pink sheets that were duplicated by the petitioners.

All the above go to prove that the petitioners were not consistent with the
number of pink sheets they relied upon. However, once the settled figure of
10,119 pink sheets, is far lower than their original 11,926 and also the
10,119 appear to be based somewhat on actual physical count of exhibits
by KPMG, then for purposes of admissibility the petitioners must be
deemed to be within the remit of what they originally claimed to be
contesting.

Evidence abounds on record of several exhibited pink sheets which were
deleted by the petitioners from the original list that they were relying upon.
This explains why I have stated elsewhere in this judgment that being the
first of its kind in Ghana, there is the need for this court to define rules of
procedure in determination of such cases. This will definitely be in
tandem with Rules 69 c (4) (8) and (9) of C. I. 74 which gives power to
the Supreme Court to inquire into and determine the petition, by leave
of the court cross-examine and re-examine a party who has sworn an
334

affidavit before the court, and the examination or recall of a witness

for re-examination by the court.

These are all novel provisions upon which the court may have to issue
practice directions for the purposes of giving practical effect and
demonstration to some of the above provisions.

Finally it has to be observed and noted that, since most of the crucial and
critical primary sources of authentic records of any election are in the
possession of the 2nd respondents, it should be clear that such documents
must be easily made available to the court and by necessary implication to
the contesting parties to solve issues of authenticity and genuineness of
records when these arise from the hearing of an election petition.

With the above general comments, and the observation that the petitioners
have to some extent provided credible evidence in the nature of evidence
on the face of the pink sheets, it remains to be seen how they can succeed
in proof of the various heads of claims of violations, malpractices,
irregularities, etc. These must as it were then be aligned to the resolution of
the memorandum of issues settled for and agreed to by the parties in order
for a determination of the issues involved.

335

WHAT THEN IS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS

Dr. Bawumia, the 2nd Petitioner, in his testimony on the 17th day of April
2013 summarised the case for the Petitioners thus:-
In our examination and analysis of the pink sheets in the areas
of over-voting, in voting without biometric we found
constitutional and statutory violations in the areas of overvoting in voting without biometric verification and in the
presiding officer or the assistant not signing the results before
declaration as required by law. We also found irregularities and
violations in the areas of the large use of duplicate serial
numbers on polling stations forms and duplicate polling stations
codes. In our examination, we also found polling stations which
we could not trace to the list of 26,006 polling stations provided
by the 2nd respondent for the conduct of the election. My Lords,
on the fact

of the pink sheets, we also found evidence of a

bloated voters register. So these were the broad irregularities,

the constitutional and statutory violations, malpractices that we
found in our

examination of the pink sheets.

The above summed up the various categories of constitutional and

statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities that the Petitioners
highlighted in their evidence before the court. These are:

1. Over-voting
336


2. Voting without biometric verification

3. No presiding officer signature on the pink sheets as required under
the Constitution

4. Multiple use of duplicate serial numbers of pink sheets for polling
stations.

5. Use of different results on pink sheets having same polling station
code.

6. Non-existent 22 polling stations outside the 26,002 recognised ones
or unknown.

7. Bloated voters register

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR CHALLENGING PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION

337

Before I proceed to deal with the above categories, let me deal briefly with
a preliminary issue. This is the Constitutional Basis for challenging
presidential results.

Undoubtedly, article 42 of the Constitution, 1992 provides as follows:-

Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of
sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered
as a voter for the purposes of public elections or referenda.

This right has been conferred on all citizens of Ghana who have the
qualifications stated therein, i.e.

i. Must be Ghanaian citizen

ii. Must be 18 years of age or over

iii. Must be of sound mind

338

These are the basic constitutional qualifications that will entitle a person
who satisfies them to be entitled to be registered and thereafter to exercise
that right to vote.

What must be noted is that, even though the said right may be said to
be absolute in some respects, it does not confer an automatic right on
a Ghanaian citizen of 18 years and over, to just walk into a polling
station during an election and demand to exercise that right.

The constitutional right to vote enshrined in article 42 of the constitution
1992 is itself contingent upon some other factors, like being registered to
exercise the right as a voter.

Article 45 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) deals with the functions of the Electoral
Commission such that it is empowered to compile the register of voters and
to revise it at such regular intervals as may be determined by law.

Article 46 of the Constitution guarantees and preserves the independence
of the Electoral Commission, whilst article 46 gives the Commission the
power to divide the country into constituencies for purposes of
parliamentary elections.

339

Article 51 of the Constitution 1992, actually confers on the Electoral

Commission to make rules and regulations for the conduct of its functions.
For the avoidance of doubt, the article provides as follows:-

The Electoral Commission shall, by constitutional instrument,
make regulations for the effective performance of its functions
under this constitution or any other law, and in particular, for the
registration of voters, the conduct of public elections and
referenda, including provision for voting by proxy.

It is therefore clear that, the provision of the right to vote in article 42 whilst
appearing to be absolute, is itself contingent upon the rules and regulations
made by the Commission for the conduct of the elections.

For example, if in the exercise of its functions, the Commission has
advertised for registration of persons qualified to vote within a certain
time duration and at designated polling stations, any qualified
prospective voter who fails to avail himself of that opportunity to
register, during that period and at a designated station cannot expect
to exercise the right to vote, because he himself failed to exercise the
right to be registered. It is thus to be clearly understood that, even
though the Constitution 1992 has conferred on Ghanaian citizens, the
right to vote, it is contingent upon certain other factors, the non
340

occurrence of which will deny any qualified and prospective voter the
chance and right to vote.

I articulated these positions clearly in my opinion in the case of Ahumah
Ocansey v Electoral Commission, Centre for Human Rights and Civil
Liberties (CHURCIL) v Attorney General & Electoral Commission,
consolidated [2010] SCGLR 575, especially at 580 as follows:-

Whilst the 1992 Constitution per article 42 allows all citizens of
Ghana of

eighteen years and above and of sound mind

including prisoners both remand and convicted the right to be

registered to enable them vote in public elections and referenda,
there is still the need for a legislative framework within the
confines of the Constitution (reference article 51) to regulate,
control, manage and arrange the effective exercise of that
function to ensure that the Electoral Commission is not
stampeded into taking hasty decision which would result into
chaos and confusion. Whilst the Tehn-Addy case is authority for
the proposition that every sane Ghanaian citizen of eighteen
years and above had the automatic right under article 42 of the
1992 Constitution, to be registered as a voter, the instant case is
authority that irrespective of the provisions of section 7 (5) of
PNDCL 284 remand and convicted prisoners confined in a legal
detention centre have the right to be registered as voters for the
341

conduct of public elections in Ghana subject to the Electoral

Commission making the necessary legislative arrangements to
take care of the control, management and regulatory regime of
such an exercise.

Commenting further on the effect of articles 42, 45 (a) and 51 all of the
Constitution 1992, I stated at page 662 of the above case as follows:
In the instant suit, the words in article 42 which are germane to
the entire suit have to be read together with the relevant and
consistent provisions of the Constitution as a whole and, in
particular, articles 45 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, which
mandates the Electoral Commission to compile the register of
voters and revise it as such periods as may be determined by
law; and also article 51, which also mandates the Electoral
Commission to make regulations for the effective performance
of its functions under the Constitution or any other law. It is
important to note that article 51 specifically mentions functions
like the registration of voters, conduct of public elections and
referenda, etc.

The above opinion clearly establishes the principle that I have labored to
explain above on the constitutional right to vote. What has to be taken into
serious consideration is the fact that, no constitutional or statutory law can
342

be effective if it does not take into consideration the existing conditions and
circumstances of the society for which it was enacted or for whose benefit it
was made.
In this instance, the maxim, ex facto jus oritur literally meaning out of the
facts, grows the law has to be made to apply because if the Judges knew
their facts very well such as I have labored to explain in this case, then an
attempt to interprete the Constitution will help develop it into a living and
organic document.

It is in pursuance of the above interpretation of the powers granted the
Electoral Commission that the following legislations had been enacted to
govern, control and regulate various aspects of the 2012 Presidential and
Parliamentary elections.

i. The Public Election (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012
(C. I. 72) and
ii. Public Elections Regulations, 2012 (C. I. 75) already referred to
supra.
As far as I understand article 42, and 51 of the Constitution 1992, any
prospective and qualified voter, who first refused to comply with C. I.
72 and did not register under that law cannot exercise the
constitutional right to vote.

343

Secondly, having exercised the constitutional and statutory right to

be registered, such a prospective voter must comply with C. I. 75
during the conduct of the elections if he wants his vote to be valid.
It should be noted that, any infractions of the laws in C. I. 72 and C. I. 75 in
particular may render invalid the votes cast by a constitutionally qualified
voter.
I have had to deal with this subject at some length because it appears
to me that all the respondents are of the view that, because the right
to vote is a constitutional right, no court, not even this Supreme Court
has power to invalidate the exercise of that right when infractions are
made not of the voters making but of administrative officials.
I am of the considered opinion that such a way of thinking is not only
absurd but will completely defeat the provisions in article 64 (1) of the
Constitution 1992 which provides for the challenge of the validity of the
election of a President.
I think, it will also be tidy at this point to tie in the submissions of learned
counsel for the 1st Respondent in the concluding stages of his written
address in which he chastised the petitioners of not exhausting the
administrative procedures before rushing to court.
Out of abundance of caution, let me reproduce the said submissions of
learned counsel for the 1st respondent on this point as follows:
Respectfully, Your Lordships, we take the view that the nature
of this Honourable Courts Article 64 jurisdiction to adjudicate
344

disputes relating to presidential election is such as with the

greatest respect, ought to be exercised with circumspection.
Indeed, it is our considered opinion that it requires significant
judicial deference to the Electoral Commission on a wide range
of issues.
We take the respectful view that the true intent and purport of
the broad grant of jurisdictional power under Article 64 is that its
exercise must be subject to the overarching constitutional
scheme, including the balance of institutional roles and the
need to guard against excesses. On this basis, we invite your
Lordships to exercise judicial restraint and to defer to the
Electoral Commission on matters that touch and concern the
exercise of its core functions.
In the specific context of this case, the fact that Your Lordship
have had to painstakingly pore over pink sheets for months and
listen to tedious testimony on technical aspects of elections
could havebeen avoided if the Petitioners were compelled to
settle their grievances, in the first instance, through the
administrative process available for redress before initiating
their petition. In

this way, all that Your Lordships would have

been required to do in the exercise of your power under article

64 of the Constitution would have been to review the decision of
the Electoral Commission in line with the constitutional standard
of review under article 23 of the Constitution and decide whether

345

or not it was reasonable and in accord with the requirements

imposed by the Presidential Elections Act and the Public
Elections Regulations.
At this stage, let me quote also verbatim the provisions of article 23 of the
Constitution which provides as follows:-
Administrative Justice
Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act
fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements
imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise
of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress
before a court or other tribunal.
Evidence abounds in this Court that the first point of call by the Petitioners
was to send a letter of complaint to the Chairman of the 2nd Respondents in
which they catalogued a number of irregularities and sought his
intervention.
Exhibit N.D.C 43, which is a petition to the 2nd respondents by the
petitioners which was tendered by Counsel for the 3rd respondents through
the 2nd petitioner on 14th May 2013.

The Returning Officer

9th December 2012

Presidential Election 2012

Electoral Commission
Accra
346

Dear Sir
RE: REQUEST FOR AN AUDIT OF VERIFICATION MACHINES
AND RECOUNT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT
I write as Chairman of NPP to express concerns of our Party over the
conduct of this years general election, particularly with regards to the
Presidential poll.

I am doing so because I believe that the proper

conduct and declaration of results of a credible process is the surest

way to promote the peace and stability of our democratic nation.
I have attached here a copy of a statement I have issued, that has set
out in detail our concerns.
I ask that you consider the widespread and systemic abuse of the
electoral process, witnessed across the country and aided by H.E the
President, John Dramani Mahamas statement for people to vote
even if not verified by the machines, which is clearly unlawful, some
of which are cited in our attached statement.
We request that you, as the Returning Officer of the Presidential
Elections,
i.

Cause an audit of the Verification Machine to establish that

it tallies with Constituency Collated signed results and

347

ii.

Order a re-collation of the presidential ballot at the

constituency level to help establish the credibility and
accuracy of this years Presidential election.

This in my view would assist considerably to allay public
anxiety, which is growing hour by hour and due to the
announcements being made in the Ghanaian media. It would
also obviate any legal and protracted judicial proceedings on
the issues and permit the resolutions of our concerns
promptly, to enable due declaration to be made.

In the light of the above concerns, we request for an immediate
meeting with your good self to find a resolution to these matters
before you announce the results of the 2012 elections.

Yours truly,
Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey
National Chairman, New Patriotic Party
In the light of the above scenario, it is my opinion that, the Petitioners were
pushed to this court albeit prematurely by the indecent haste of the Chair of
the 2nd Respondent who took less than a day to address the concerns
raised in the above petition and asked the petitioners to go to court.
348

Perhaps, if the 2nd Respondent had exercised a little bit of tolerance and
discretion which are hallmarks of the type of office which the Chairman
occupies, the quick resort to this court may have been avoided.
It should also be clear to all and sundry that time begins to run immediately
the Presidential Elections results have been declared by the chairman of
the Electoral Commission. This is further buttressed by article 64 (1) which
provides a 21 day period within which the petition to challenge the election
of the President must be presented. As far as I am concerned, the
petitioners having been pushed to the wall by the 2nd Respondent, they
then had to act timeoulsy to ensure that time does not run against them. In
the circumstances I am unable to accede to learned Counsel for 1st
Respondent, Mr. Tony Lithurs submissions in this respect, questioning the
proprietary or improprietary of the request considering the independent
nature of the Electoral Commission vis--vis the Administrative bodies
intended in article 23 of the Constitution 1992.
I am of the firm conviction that, the petitioners have lawfully and validly
invoked this courts jurisdiction under article 64 (1) of the Constitution 1992
and this court rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
I cannot but agree with the petitioners that in a petition of this nature,
for the reasons stated hereunder, this Court can declare as invalid the
election of any candidate as a President of Ghana, as the quotation
from the written address of learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.
Philip Addison clearly depicts as follows:-

349

REASONS TO DECLARE INVALID THE ELECTION OF A

CANDIDATE AS PRESIDENT

(a) The candidate declared elected as President of Ghana at the
presidential election did not, in fact, obtain more than fifty percent
(50%) of the total number of valid votes cast at the election;

(b) There has been non-compliance with or violations of the Constitution,
the Regulations or any other law relating to the conduct of the
election and that the non-compliance/violations affected the result of
the election;

(c) The election was tainted by the perpetration of a corrupt, or other
criminal act, misconduct or circumstances which reasonably could
have affected the outcome of the election;

(d) The candidate declared elected as President of Ghana was at the
time of the election not qualified or disqualified for election as
President of Ghana in terms of article 62 of the Constitution.

OVER-VOTING
Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75 provides as follows:

A voter shall not cast more than one vote when a poll is taken

350

When the above provision is compared with the entries in columns A,B & C
that are required to be filled in on the pink sheets by the Presiding Officers
before the commencement of polls and in the case of Column C after polls
but before counting, then a somewhat clearer picture of what exactly over
voting means can be imagined. This is because, if columns A,B and C are
entered correctly on the pink sheets, then the number of ballots issued to
the polling station will be known, the range of the serial numbers of the
ballot papers will also be known as well as the number of voters on the
polling station register, including the number of ballots issued to voters on
the polling station register.
In column B for example, the number of voters on the polling station
register will be stated and filled in together with those on the proxy list. The
total number of the two items will give the total number of voters eligible to
vote at the polling station.
If therefore at the end of the polls any of the following scenario does occur,
then something irregular has occurred.
1. The total valid votes cast as found in the ballot box exceeds total
number of ballots issued out.

2. The total valid votes cast as found in the ballot box exceeds the total
number of voters on the register eligible to vote at that polling station.

351

Is this the phenomenon that is called over voting? In this case, the
petitioners, speaking through Dr. Bawumia, the 1st and 3rd Respondents,
speaking through Johnson Asiedu Nketia, and Dr. Afari Gyan for the 2nd
respondents have all given their own definitions of what is over voting. I will
therefore look at all these various definitions and attempt to see if a
common thread runs through them.

DR. BAWUMIAS DEFINITION
Q. Can you tell the court what you mean by over voting?
A.

Over voting comes in two forms. Essentially we have a principle

of one man one vote as we have in the Constitution in the laws
of Ghana. The two forms of over voting. First, over voting would
arise if the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the face of
the pink sheets exceeds the voters register at the polling station as
recorded on the face of the pink sheet. Secondly, over voting would
arise if the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the face of the
pink sheets exceed the total ballots issued to voters recorded in
Section C1 and C2 including proxy voters. So the total votes in the
ballot box if they exceed the number of voters you have given ballot
to, to vote then there is over -voting. So if hundred people line up and
you issue them 100

ballots and you count at the end of the day

and you find 150 ballots in the ballot box, then you have over voting. I
must add that this

phenomenon of over voting was one that

352

the 2nd respondent was very emphatic on before the election.

The Chairman of the 2nd respondent made it very clear and for
good reason, that if the ballots are counted at the end of the
day and it is found that even one ballot exceeds what was
issued by voters verified to vote,the results of that polling
station will be cancelled. My Lords this was because if that
happens even if you have one ballot above what was issued, then the
integrity of the entire voting process at that polling station is
compromised. And yet my Lords the 2ndrespondent not only made
this clear but actually put this into practice during the 2012 elections.
From the above quotation of 2nd Respondents testimony on 17th April 2013,
the following significant scenarios emerge for consideration. These are
i. If the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the pink sheets
exceeds the voters register as recorded on the pink sheets, then
there is over voting.

ii. The second scenario is when the total votes in the ballot box as
recorded on the face of the pink sheets exceed the total ballots
issued to voters as recorded in columns C1 and C2 including
proxy voters then there is over-voting as well.

In order to understand this second scenario, it must be clear what C1 and
C2 refers to. The C1 and C2 are columns in the Ballot Accounting section
353

of the pink sheet, normally referred to as the C column. This is to be filled in

at the end of the poll but before the commencement of counting.

C1 is to the following effect what is the number of ballots issued to
voters on the polling station register?

C2 has the following question what is the number of ballots issued to
voters on the Proxy Voters List?

If this is the state of what the 2nd Petitioner meant by over-voting, then why
did learned counsel for the 1st Respondent state thus in his address
On what constitutes over voting, the 1st Respondent states as follows:-
There is some divergence of opinion between the parties about what
constitutes over-voting. Petitioners claim there are three definitions.
The first one is the situation in which the ballots in the sealed box
exceed the number of registered voters in a particular polling
station. That definition is accepted by all the parties. Dr. AfariGyan describes that situation as the classic definition of over-voting.
That is where the agreement ends
Petitioners define over-voting further to include a situation in which
the ballots in the ballots box exceed ballots issued at the polling

354

station. The third definition is the situation where the issued

ballots exceed the number of registered voters.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Philip Addison, in
his address to the Court gave the following two scenarios as the classical
instances of over voting which 2nd Petitioner referred to:

i. Firstly, it is eminently clear that, where all the number of people
duly registered to vote at a particular polling station turn up
on election day to vote, (and this can be discovered from the
number of ballots issued); the number of ballots found in the
box at the end of the polls cannot be more than the number of
voters registered to vote at that polling station.

The above is quite straightforward and is a common sense approach to the
issue.

The second instance of over voting raised by learned Counsel for
Petitioners is as follows:-

(2)

Where a number less than the number of registered voters at

355

a particular polling station show up to vote (and this can also

be determined from the number of ballots issued) it goes
without saying that the number of

ballots found in the

box at the close of the polls should not be more than the
number of ballots issued to the voters.

In real terms, this second scenario is only a natural deduction from the first
one stated supra and it logically flows from it.

To put matters in proper perspective, I think it will be very beneficial for our
purposes if we consider in some detail the evidence and the explanation of
Dr. Afari Gyan on what he meant by classical definition of over voting
alongside that of the witness for the 1st and 3rd respondents, Johnson
Asiedu-Nketia.

BEGINNING WITH DR. AFARI GYAN
Q.

Oh yes my Lords the classical definition of over votes is where the

ballots cast exceed the number of persons eligible to vote at the
polling station or if you like the number of persons on the
polling station register that is the classical definition of over
voting. Two new definitions have been introduced there is nothing
wrong with that but I have problems with this new definition proposed
356

and the problem I have with both definitions is that they limit
themselves

visibly to what is on the face of the pink sheet

as I understand the definition.

Q.

Definition by?

A.

The petitioners of the two definitions of over voting, where the

number of ballot exceed issued the number of voters as indicated
on the pink sheet that is the definition.

Baffoe-Bonnie: Dr. all this while we are dealing with the pink sheets in
one breath the pink sheet is your reference point so in this
case just lets limit ourselves, I heard you say is an
excess votes or something
Witness:

I said when you see there will be an excess of votes.

Baffoe-Bonnie: So it will not be an over voting

Witness:

Well you see clear how you call it, this is why I have
problem with this definition is that it limits itself
exclusively to what is on the face of the pink sheet,
what if what is on the face of the pink sheet as we
have seen.

Dotse:

Before you proceed you were giving us the problems with

the two new definition of over voting. Can you finish the
problem associated with the two new definitions?
357

Witness:

I have a general problem with any definition of

over voting that limits itself exclusively to what is on
the face of the pink sheet because what is on the face
of the pink sheet.

Witness:

My Lords we have just seen an instance where on the

face of the pink sheet the Presiding Officer said he was
given 4 votes whereas in fact upon close scrutiny he was
given 325 votes so any definition of over voting that limits
itself suggests to me personally that you are saying so to
speak that the face of the pink sheet never is and
might be an error on the face of the pink sheet. If there
is an error on the face of the pink sheet it can be
corrected by reference to the register itself so my problem
is that this definition does not make any reference
whatsoever to the register which is the based document
for the conduct of the elections that is my problem.

Dotse:

Who does the correction you are talking of?

Witness:

Well if I were to read this document that one that said 4

and has given the serial range suggest that he has been
given 325 and has actually conducted an election
involving 198 people then I would be incline to take the
325 as the correct representation and not the 4.

Baffoe-Bonnie: In that case the correction is done by recourse to other

358

figures on the pink sheet which you say can also be

wrong, but in the other case what you are saying is that
you have to make recourse to the register which means
that for example the accounting information: what is the
number of ballot issued to voters on the polling station
register, you see we have a situation where we have the
polling station register and we have the question which
says the number of people who have been issued with
but if you have to make recourse to the register to find out
whether the number voting is actually over and above the
number registered then we dont even make room for
people dying or people not voting, on the voters register
you may have 100 and we may actually have and as you
have rightly aware with your 34 years or so you will
realize there is hardly a 100% voting in any situation so
if you say that over vote is only when it is above the
number of people in the register that is duly
something your
Witness:

Your Lordship I have not said over voting is only when I

said that was the classical definition now we have
adopted a new technology I was going to go on to that
and we spent a lot of money in buying that
technology and that technology should help us
modify our definition of over voting that I am saying, I

359

am making technical point when you limit it only to

what is on the face of the pink sheet then I have a
problem with it.
THEN JOHNSON ASIDEU-NKETIAS DEFINITION
This is the definition of over voting by the witness for 1st and 3rd
respondents, Johnson Asiedu Nketia.
Q.

What is your response to those allegations as made by the

petitioners?

A.

My Lord I can state that there was nowhere in all the 26,000 polling
stations where over voting took place.
I am saying this because we have come to know over voting to
mean an occurrence where the number of votes found in the
ballot box exceed the number of people who are entitled to vote
at that polling station. So that clearly is my understanding of
over voting and I do not have any indication of this happening in
any of the 26,002 polling stations which were involved in the
2012 elections.

Q.

You heard the 2nd petitioner also indicate that over voting is where
the ballots that are tallied at the end of voting for each candidate
where those exceed the number of ballots issued in a polling station?

A.

I have heard about it but that was my first time of hearing over
360

voting being defined that way in all my 34 years experience in

election in this country.
Q.

In respect of the over voting allegation, you also heard the 2nd
petitioner testified in relation to pink sheets where no number has
been entered in the column about ballots issued at a particular
polling station, where no number was present, it was blank. What do
you have to say to that?

A.

Yes my Lords. This must be as a result of some clerical error

because ballot papers are issued and then voting takes place,
then the box is opened at the close of voting, counting takes
place, sorting takes place, the tallies are made and the agents of
the parties attest to the results that are obtained, they certified
the results that are obtained and my Lords I think that if no
papers were issued then the election could not have taken place
at all. So I think that must be a clerical error and at all material times,
there are processes where people who are dissatisfied or parties who
are dissatisfied with the outcome can lodge a specific complaint
about what they are dissatisfied with on the spot and action is taken
subsequently on those complaints. And I am not aware of any polling
station where such complaints have been lodged besides what were
tendered about five or so polling stations by the 2nd petitioners.

Based on the above pieces of evidence, learned Counsel for the 1st
Respondent, Tony Lithur submitted very forcefully that with the introduction
361

of new technology, to wit biometric verification, whilst it would be worthwhile

to look at new definitions of over voting as stated by the petitioners, it would
be wrong to limit the extent of the newer expanded definitions to entries
made on the pink sheets alone, without looking at Polling station register,
the machines and conduct of the elections. According to learned counsel, if
wrong entries are made on the pink sheets, a phenomenon learned
counsel admitted has been demonstrated to have happened during
the trial, it would be wrong to disenfranchise voters thereby.
It is however very significant to note that there has been an admission of
occurrence of entries on the pink sheets which learned Counsel conceded
are errors. What then is to be done to those entries, since they were
the basis of the declaration of the results by the 2nd respondents?
In an attempt to offer some explanation as to how this phenomenon of
wrong entries which are errors are to be handled, Dr. Afari Gyan testified as
follows:-
2nd Respondent in his evidence on 3rd June stated thus on issue of
over voting:

Q.

You mentioned in your evidence some of the errors that were

committed by Presiding Officers in completion of the pink
sheets. Do you have a general comment on that?

362

A.

My general comment will be that the errors must be looked at

very closely in order to be able to reveal their true meaning. I
must say that at the end of the day, it is the Electoral
Commission that appointed these people, these officials and we
are prepared to take

responsibility for their actions. But

errors are to bedistinguished from intentional wrong doing.

A mistake is something that can be detected and corrected and
we all make

mistakes. So why we take responsibility for

their actions, so that we will keep in mind, may be all of us

make one mistake or the other in the course of our work, but I
will also hope that the candidates will take responsibility for the
agents they appoint.
Witness:

Let me put it in a very short sentence. If I notice on the

face of the pink sheet that there appears to be excess
votes, I will subject the situation to very close scrutiny
before I take firm determination as to what to do.

Q.

Where there is an excess of votes in the ballot box in

comparison with what is written on the pink sheet as the votes
issued to the polling station, what would be your reaction when
you see such a pink sheet?

A.

As I said just a moment ago, I will subject the situation to very

close

scrutiny. There are a number of things that will have

to be done. I will not assume that the Presiding Officer had

363

done anything directly or wrongly, I will seek to redo what was

supposed to have beendone, I will look at the ballot papers
to find out whether all of them fall within the serial range of
the ballot issued. I have narrated some of these things
before that I will go through the things that I mentioned.
But I must tell you that, I must do everything possible to
make sure that indeed, there are excess votes because we
are dealing with not abstract numbers but votes of people
who have a constitutional right to take part in the choice of
their leaders.
Based on all the above pieces of evidence, learned Counsel for the 1st
Respondent finally concluded his submission thus:
It is clear that, Petitioners have taken a very unsustainable and
unrealistic position in respect of what would constitute over voting.
Their position is that you look only to the form and not the substance.
In doing so, they discount any other source of information, including
the primary sources from which one can verify the information on the
voting accounting section of the pink sheet. In fact, they make no
allowance for any clerical or arithmetic errors on the part of officials of
2nd Respondent in filling the said ballot accounting section, and,
according to them, whatever information is on the voter accounting
section is sacred. In the words of 2nd Petitioner.
You and I were not there, the evidence is on the face of the pink
sheet.
364


Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent then referred to the Canadian
case of OPITZ and quoted from pages 38 and 39 of the report to draw
necessary comparison, to the effect that, the imperfections of the Presiding
officers in filing the forms should therefore not result in the annulment of the
votes of the affected polling stations affected by the error entries.
Juxtaposing the evidence in this case with the Canadian case, this is what
the 1st Respondents state:
This situation is not different from the one described by Dr. Afari-Gyan
in relation to the temporary officers that 2nd Respondent employs to
run general elections. The imperfections of the Presiding Officers in
filling the forms should therefore not result in the annulment of the
votes at the affected polling stations. Indeed on pages 38 and 39
(paragraph 57) of the Opitz case the Canadian Supreme Court held
that
In our view, adopting a strict procedural approach creates a
risk that an application under Part 20 could be granted even
where the result of the election reflects the will of the electors
who in fact had the right to vote. This approach places a
premium on form over substance, and relegates to the
back burner the Charter right to vote and the enfranchising
objective of the Act. It also runs the risk of enlarging the
margin of litigation, and is contrary to the principle that elections
should not be lightly overturned, especially where neither
365

candidates nor voters have engaged in any wrongdoing.

Part 20 of the Act should have be taken by losing candidates as
an invitation to examine the election records in search of
technical administrative errors, in the hopes of getting a second
chance.
Learned Counsel continued as follows:
By contrast, if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be
rejected in a contested election application because of an
irregularity, the voter would be irreparably disenfranchised. This
is especially

undesirable when the irregularity is

outside of the voters control, and is caused solely by the

error of an election official.
SUBMISSION OF 2ND RESPONDENT
On his part, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, James Quashie-Idun
referred copiously to the definitions of over voting and the statutory
definitions as well as the classical definition of Dr. Afari Gyan already
referred to supra. Learned Counsel also referred to Regulation 36 (2) (a) of
C. I. 75 to buttress his point in addition to Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75
already referred to supra and of particular importance to the submission of
learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent is his reference to exhibits EC 8,
EC9 and EC10 which were all tendered by the 2nd respondents witness Dr.
Afari-Gyan to debunk the allegations of over voting in some three polling
stations.

366

Learned Counsel also reiterated the earlier contentions of the 1st and 3rd
respondents to the effect that the evidence offered by the petitioners on
their 2nd definition of over voting which is based entirely on the face of the
pink sheets, are based only on errors made in completing the ballot
accounting part of the pink sheets.

Counsel concluded that if any over-voting had occurred, it would have been
detected during the counting of votes and the Polling agents would have
protested. Since there were no protests, Learned Counsel concluded that
there were no instances of over voting and urged this head of claim to be
dismissed.
SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL FOR 3RD RESPONDENTS
Even though the submissions of learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent
Tsatsu Tsikata are not fundamentally different from the other respondents,
there are some striking differences which I need to highlight.
In the first place, the phenomenon of blank portions in the C and
sometimes D columns of the pink sheets had been highlighted. In this
respect I cannot but agree with learned counsel for the 3rd respondent
that it is wrong to deduce that any blank on column C or D amounts to
over voting.
However, what has emerged from the very extensive and rigorous crossexamination of Dr. Bawumia by Counsel for 3rd respondents is that, there
were indeed entries on some of the pink sheets of the polling stations
367

which on the face of it gave the impression that there was over voting. But
the respondents contend that these are only clerical errors.
Secondly, learned counsel made reference to exhibits of polling station pink
sheets outside the range of exhibits mentioned in the affidavit of the 2nd
Petitioner. So far as I am concerned, the real issue for determination is
whether there was any instance of over-voting as denoted by the
definition of over-voting and whether those particulars exhibits i.e.
polling station pink sheets had been captured by the KPMG report,
and is also part of the range of exhibits mentioned in the affidavit.
If it is captured by the KPMG report, then this Court would have to
determine whether that instance of over voting affected the declaration of
the results, or constituted mere errors which only go to form and not to
substance.
Thirdly, it has to be noted that, the evidence of the petitioners on over
voting is really not based on directly accusing anyone of voting more than
once as is prohibited by law, but solely on the basis of entries made on the
pink sheets.
Learned counsel for the 3rd respondents, made his strongest attack to this
phenomenon of over voting in a very skating and concluding remark which I
consider as inappropriate use of language as follows:-
The cavalier approach of the 2nd petitioner towards the votes of
citizens, which makes him eager, for instance, to have votes
cancelled because of his dogmatic view that it is figures on the pink
368

sheets that should be taken and not words, is totally at odds with the
significance that our Lordship have given in many cases before this
Court to the importance of protecting the right to votes of the citizens
of Ghana. Seefor instance Tehn-Addy v A.G. & Electoral
Commission 1997-98 1 GLR 47, Apaloo v Electoral Commission
2001 2002 and

Ahumah-Ocansey v Electoral Commission

& Others, already referred to supra.

Whilst not downplaying the constitutional significance of the above
cases, it must also be observed that, the importance of entries made
on the pink sheets should also not be glossed over as being of no
significance. This is because, if my understanding of the evidence on
record is anything to go by, then entries made on the pink sheets, which
constituted the primary source upon which constituency collation centre
results were collated and transmitted to the 2nd respondents strong room in
Accra and which formed the basis of the declaration of the Presidential
results by the Chairman of the 2nd respondent which are under challenge in
this Court then the pink sheets, cannot be treated lightly, except in cases
where it is clear that the pink sheet entries are errors which can be
corrected by reference to other more authentic primary sources which may
include entries on the pink sheets itself, the polling station register and the
B.V.D.
The Apaloo v Electoral Commission case referred to supra, is authority
for the proposition that once the Electoral Commission has published
Constitutional Instruments numbers C.I. 12 and C.I. 15 respectively which

369

had regulations dealing with identity cards used in an election and under
which the 1996 elections were held, there being no distinction between
photo I.D. and thumbprint cards, the subsequent publication by the
Electoral Commission of a Gazette Notice, containing directives limiting the
I.D cards to be used for the 2000 election to photo I.D cards only
constituted an indirect amendment of relevant portions of regulations in C.
I. 12 and C. I. 15 and this was held to be ultra vires articles 51 and 297 (d)
of the Constitution 1992.
This Apaloo case is also authority for the proposition that the authority
given to Presiding Officers and their assistants to verify and check the
identity of prospective voters cannot be delegated to candidates agents,
highlighting the maxim of delegatus non potest delegare. Delivering his
opinion in this case, my very respected brother, Atuguba JSC made the
following pronouncements.
The ascertainment of the identity of a prospective voter is part of the
conduct of public elections and as the constitution places that duty
on the Electoral Commission, it can only

do so by itself and

its proper agentsTo surrender the judgment of the Presiding

Officer as to the identity of a voter to the candidates polling
agents, is in effect, to delegate that function to those agents,
contrary to articles 45 (c) and 46 of the Constitution.
It can therefore be seen clearly that despite the fact that the Supreme Court
upheld the constitutional right of the prospective voter of his right to vote
and was prepared to protect that right, the protection was done in tandem
370

with the other statutory provisions that the Electoral Commission was
permitted by article 51 of the Constitution to enact i.e. C.I. 12 and C. I. 15
respectively.
In the instant case, it would appear that once the directives of what
constitutes over voting are in Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75, the Courts also
have a duty to purposively look at the effect of those provisions and the
constitutional right to vote.
Similarly, it should be noted that, the Tehn-Addy v Electoral Commission
case is also authority for the proposition that the right of a citizen to register
is an inalienable right which the Supreme Court observed the Electoral
Commission failed to register the plaintiff therein and therefore enforced it.
I will however be comfortable with

a proposition which states that

since the right of a citizen to vote is constitutionally guaranteed by

and under the Constitution, that right must always be protected and
defended to ensure that participatory rights which are part of our
democratic rights via the electoral process is well guaranteed and
secured.
In this case, the rights of the voters in the December 2012 presidential
election did not come under threat, and is still not under any threat. The
plaint of the petitioners is to invite this Court to annul results on the basis of
entries on the face of the pink sheets of what appears to them to be
infringements under the law. Is this a legitimate request or claim? I think so.
But this Court must be in a position to distinguish between clear
instances of over voting which arise from clear breaches of the law in
371

Regulation 24 (1) of C. I. 75 as against errors made by the presiding

officers in the filling of the pink sheets etc. For example, if it is clear on
the pink sheet, that instead of stating the correct number of ballot papers
that had been issued to a polling station as 350 made up of (2) 100
booklets (2) 50 booklets and (2) 25 booklets making 6 booklets in all, the
Presiding officer merely states 6, but gives the range of serial numbers
from which the correct figure of 350 can be deduced then it would be wrong
to use such an entry to annul results.
In such an instance, once the information to correct the error made on the
pink sheet can itself be gotten from the pink sheet, then it should be
perfectly legitimate to use such an information to correct the error.
In situations of this nature the number of registered voters, and those who
actually were issued with the ballot would have exceeded the number 6
wrongly filled in on the pink sheet. Any mechanical interpretation of the
entries on the pink sheets will not only be absurd but lead to
incongruent results and consequences.
The Court should however use information on the face of the pink sheets to
correct this latent error. However, if the information to correct the error on
the pink sheet cannot be verified from the pink sheet, and that figure had
been used to declare the result, and if the wrong result has had an effect
on the declared result, then it should be possible to annul it, if there are no
credible primary sources of evidence like the polling station register to be
used to cross-check such an error entry.

372

In view of all the above discussions I will define over voting to mean an
instance where total votes cast as found in the ballot box exceeds the
total number of ballots issued out to voters at that particular polling
station.
So far as I am concerned, this definition should encompass all other
definitions be they classical or otherwise. This is because, votes cast as
found in the ballot box, be they valid or rejected votes would have been
issued based first after the voters have been verified by the machine and
also based on the polling station register. Thus, assuming there is a
100% turn out at a particular polling station, then the votes cast as
found in the ballot box will not and should not exceed, first the ballots
issued out and also total number of voters on the register at that
particular polling station including proxy voters.
It is only when there is a consistency between the entries on the pink
sheets and the primary sources which formed the basis upon which
the entries have been made and these include the polling station
register, ballots issued to the polling station and the results as
counted and declared that the entries on the pink sheets can be said
to be impeccable and not subject to any variation, change or
correction.
It has to be noted that, it is also possible to have a broad based definition of
over-voting which will link the total votes cast as found in the ballot box with
the number of voters on the polling station register. This is because, whilst
the number of voters on the polling station register is the maximum number
373

of persons entitled to vote at a polling station, the number of ballots issued

out to voters on the polling station register, represents the actual ballots
issued out to voters who turned out to vote.
This broad based definition will allow situations where the Presiding
officer has not made a diligent count of the ballots issued out or did not fill
in column C1 on the pink sheet to enable that determination to be made
using that formula.
What should be noted however is that, no matter what definition is
applied, the value is the same. The only problem is that, if a Presiding
officer has refused and or neglected to fill in column C or C1 in particular, or
columns A, B, C or D as has been found by me to have happened in some
cases, then the polling station voters register and the record of ballots
issued to this polling station remain the only authentic sources by which the
issue or phenomenon of over-voting can be verified.
For purposes of transparency, I believe the time has come for the 2nd
respondents to come out with a Constitutional Instrument to regulate and
direct the officers it engages for the conduct of elections in the country,
such that more severe sanctions than is currently applicable in PNDCL 284,
section 30 (a) & (e) can be applied to them when flagrant and inexplicable
infractions occur in their performance of their official duties has been
proven to have happened.
This phenomenon has become very critical because of observations I have
made in a very detailed study and analysis of pink sheets stated in Table
10A of volume 2B of the Petitioners address which is List of pink sheets the
374

Petitioners have relied on to prove the instances of over-voting, describing

them as (Respondents preferred Data Set) whatever that means.
In this examination, I found out that there were some clear instances of
over-voting. This resulted after comparison of the entries in C1 to Total
Votes in ballot box. Wherever there was an irregularity, resort is made to
other columns in the C column in order to account for the ballots.
When the ballots issued out cannot be reconciled with the ballots
found in the box using all available means of verification on the pink
sheet, then the conclusion is reached as an over- vote.
Secondly, the study and analysis revealed that there was either wrong
addition made of the entries on the pink sheets, or there was error on the
pink sheets. In such a situation, I think the errors have to be corrected if
possible by reference to primary sources of information.
Thirdly, there are instances where one can observe that the entries have
not been completed, or errors made in the filling process. Here again, if the
evidence to correct the errors can be gotten from the pink sheet, or from
records available to the polling station, then it should be used.
Perhaps this explains the reason why it is desirable for such concerns to be
raised at the polling station with the view that they be corrected at the
polling station.
This is by no means an endorsement of the view that this Court has no
jurisdiction in the matter. It is clear from the Constitution 1992 and the
Presidential Election Act, 1992, PNDCL 285 that this Court has jurisdiction
375

alongside C. I. 16 as amended by C. I,. 74 to question such infractions of

election regulations.
Fourthly, entries on some of the pink sheets clearly create serious doubts
about the authenticity of entries on the pink sheets. This is because even
though the pink sheets are photocopies, you see instances of fresh writing
on them and other entries which make it doubtful for it to qualify as an overvote. In this and other instances, the production of the original pink
sheet would have solved the problem.
In the fifth place, there were simply blanks in all the columns except A or B
and the results. What happens in instances like this? The guess is
anybodys that such pink sheets cannot be relied upon.
In the sixth instance, the writing on the pink sheets are clearly ineligible in
some of the columns or the entire sheet, apart from the results. Sometimes,
the results are also not clear. In such cases, since we rejected an earlier
application for the original pink sheets to be provided by the 2nd
respondents, the writings on the pink sheets remains ineligible. The
Petitioners unfortunately have to be declared as not having proven their
case in such instances.
Finally, in some instances, the observation is that the interpretation put on
the pink sheets by the Petitioners has been found to be clearly wrong and
untenable.
In retrospect, I am of the considered view that, taking the sheer numbers of
the affected pink sheets in this category into contention, it would have been
376

proper for the court to have ordered an Audit of the pink sheets, in this over
voting and indeed the other categories, in order for the count of all pink
sheets that qualify to be considered in line with the definition stated supra.
This would have been consistent with the request of learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Addison who raised the issue on 23rd May 2013 but did not
pursue it.
One would ask, what will be the effect of such an audit? In my mind, the
effect of such an audit will be to detect if for instance out of the number of
pink sheets the petitioners allege in this category of over voting reference
tables 10 and 10A in volume 2B of Petitioners address, pages 298-328 and
330-358 which gives the list of polling stations where over-voting occurred,
in general and also using the respondents preferred Data set respectively
those that indeed qualify under this definition can be identified without any
reservations.
Taking all the above factors into consideration, it would have been fairly
easy to tally the number of votes as far as my eyes can see in this overvoting category and decide the figures that are to be annulled in respect of
the 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent. But there is a key determinant in
the analysis on the pink sheets which may affect any tally for any of the
candidates. These are the entries in the C3 column of the Ballot Accounting
section on the pink sheets. As I have indicated elsewhere in this judgment,
there appears to me to have been sufficient indication from the 2nd
Respondents to the presiding officers not to fill in the C3 column because
of opposition from the political parties. As a consequence Form I C which

377

was going to be the yardstick used to fill in that column was not even
distributed to any of the polling stations.
As a result, I am of the considered view that, in order for any meaningful
tally of the votes in this category of over -voting to be properly made, any
entry in the C3 column which was used as a basis for this conclusion as an
over-vote has to be deleted. It will therefore be difficult, if not impossible for
me, considering the time constraints to make these detailed and thorough
analysis before coming out with the tally in the judgment.
In these circumstances whilst upholding the principle of over-vote as a
phenomenon capable of having votes annulled, I will hasten slowly with the
following as a roadmap.
All pink sheets in Table 10A of volume 2B of the petitioners address pages
330-358 already referred to supra, which are the pink sheets identified and
classified by the petitioners as being in this over-voting category, using the
Respondents preferred Data Set, (whatever that means) have to be sorted
out.
In this instance, an audit will have to be made, to clean the pink sheets in
that Table 10A, by ensuring that the following conditions have been met:-
1. That all the pink sheets have been captured by KPMG.

2. That all the pink sheets where the C3 column was used as a
phenomenon to denote this instance of over-voting should be deleted
and cleaned.
378


3. The residue of the pink sheets in Table 10A referred to supra are
those pink sheets that are to be tallied for the 1st Petitioner and the 1st
Respondent respectively and the total votes therein annulled from
their aggregates.

That is the only way by which my judgment will be consistent with my
decision on the C3 column.
For now, my decision on the over-voting category is that in so far as the
entries on the pink sheets constitute over voting in line and consistent with
relevant statutes, and the definition of over voting as has been stated
supra, those votes on the pink sheets that qualify under this definition and
clean up exercise under the road map agenda should be annulled after due
examination. In all other cases, where the entries on the pink sheets
indicating over -voting are errors in the filling of those pink sheets and the
information on the primary source is clear and verifiable to correct the
errors then no over-voting occurs. In such instances, there is no over voting.
VOTING WITHOUT BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION
The Petitioners state in their opening address on the above issue as
follows:-

379

Voting without biometric verification is also linked to the

protection of the integrity of the electoral process as well as to
the principle of universal and equal adult suffrage. It is to ensure
that only persons entitled and properly accredited to vote
exercise their franchise in accordance with the law.

I have already discussed the ingredients of what the constitutional right to
register and vote in public election means as contained in article 42 of the
Constitution 1992. There is no need to re-argue and discuss the same
points here. Suffice it to be that, pursuant to the above constitutional rights
and those of the Electoral Commission to make rules and regulations
governing the conduct of public elections in Ghana, C. I. 72 and C. I. 75
have been enacted.

It is therefore pertinent to consider some of the relevant provisions of C. I.
75 as follows:-
Definition under Regulations 18 (1), 47 (1) (3) and 34 (1) (c) all of
C. I. 75

Regulation 18 (1) of C. I. 75 makes it mandatory for every polling station
to be provided with a biometric verification device. It reads:

380

The returning officer shall provide a presiding officer with: (a) a number of
ballot boxes and ballot papers; (b) a biometric verification equipment;
and (c) any other equipment or materials that the commission considers
necessary.

Regulation 47 (1) of C. I. 75 defines a biometric verification equipment to
mean:

a device provided at a polling station by the (Electoral)
Commission for the purpose of establishing by fingerprint the identity
of the voter.

Regulation 30 of C. I. 75 reads:

1. A presiding officer may, before delivering a ballot paper to a person
who is to vote at the election, require the person to produce (a) a
voter identification card, or (b) any other evidence determined
by the Commission, in order to establish by fingerprint or
facial recognition that the person is the registered voter
whose name and voter identification number and particulars
appear in the register.

2. The voter shall go through a biometric verification process.

381

Regulation 34 (1) of C. I. 75 lists the specific grounds upon which voting

can be adjourned:

Where the proceedings at a polling station are interrupted or obstructed by
(a) riot, open violence, storm, flood, or other natural catastrophe, or (b) the
breakdown of an equipment, the presiding officer shall in consultation
with the returning officer and subject to the approval of the
Commission, adjourn the proceedings to the following day.

From the above legislation, it is clear that before a qualified and registered
voter is given the ballot to exercise his or her franchise, the Presiding
Officer shall perform all of the following functions:-

i. Require the voter to produce an identity or any evidence to establish
finger print or facial recognition that the prospective voter has his
name on the register.
ii. Thereafter, the voter shall go through a process of biometric
verification process.

It is to be further noted and observed that, so important is this issue of
biometric verification that Regulation 34 (1) of C.I. 75 states several
reasons some of which are force majeure or the breakdown of a biometric
equipment as some of the reasons to adjourn polling at a station to the next
day.

382

As was rightly stated by the Petitioners, biometric verification is basically

the fact of verifying that a person is whom he says he is and it is a unique
way of indentifying some distinct biological traits of the person. For now, it
appears the biological verification process produces the true identity
of the person no matter the methodology that is used.

It is therefore re-assuring that Dr. Afari Gyan in his cross-examination on
10th June 2013 stated in answer to questions germane to the above issue
as follows:

Q.

Would you agree that BVD device reinforces the principle of one
man, one vote?

A.

Yes my Lord I would agree that it reinforces and it enhances

it.
Q.

The BVD device also keeps account of successful verifications?

A.

My Lord it does

Q.

And therefore if election officials do what they are supposed to do,

nobody can vote more than once?

A.

My Lords that will be correct

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in re-emphasising this issue of
biometric verification as a pre requisite before the exercise of ones right to
vote and in an attempt to show that the 2nd Respondent properly enacted
C. I. 75 referred this Court to a number of local and foreign cases, some of
which are:
383


1.

2.

Apaloo v Electoral Commission [2001-2002] SCGLR I

D.P.P v Smith [1988] UK HL 11 (12 July 1990)

3.

Anderson v Celebreeze 460 U.S. 780 (1983)

4.

New National Party v Government of the Republic of

South Africa & Others (CCT9/99) 1999 ZACC5, 1999 (3) S.A
191, 1999 (5) B CLR 489, (13 April 1999)

5.

Norman v Reed 502 US 279, 288 289

6.

Mackay v Manitoba 1989 2 S.C.R 357 at 361-362

7.

Asare-Baah III v A. G & Electoal Commission [2010]

SCGLR 463 at 470-471 per Wood C.J.

8.

Republic v Tommy Thompson Books Ltd. [1996-97]

SCGLR 804 at 851

9.

F. Hoffman La Roche & Co v Secretary of State for

Trade & Industry [1974] 2 A.E.R 1128 HL

384

10.The Australian case of Commonwealth v Tasmania (The

Tasmania Dam Case) 158 CLR. 1

11.William Crawford v Marion Country Election Board 553
US (2008)

12.See also Ahumah-Ocansey v Electoral Commission,
Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (GHURCIL) v
A. G. & Electoral Commission Consolidated, already
referred to supra.

13.Gorman v Republic [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 784

14.The Indian Supreme Court case of A. C. Jose v Sivan
Pillai & others 1984 SCR (3) 74 at 75 paras 86 H-89G

15.Bush v Gore 531 U.S 98 148 L.ED 2nd 388

16.U.S case of Moore v Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S. CT.
1493, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1 1969

17.Canadian Supreme Court case of R v Oakes, 1986 Can.
LII 46 (SCC) 1986 S.C.R. 103 at 136

385

The gist in some of the above cases is that, despite the grant of the
right to vote which in most cases is a constitutional right, the
Electoral Administrator, in this case the 2nd Respondent, has an equal
constitutional and statutory duty and right to make rules and
regulations for the proper conduct of such an election.

Thus, where the regulations enacted by the 2nd Respondent, in this instant,
C.I. 72 and C. I. 75 have been properly and validly enacted by the
legislature in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution
reference article 11 (7) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, 1992, it
possesses all the trappings of validity. As such these subsidiary legislations
must be read alongside the Constitution to give meaning and content to it.
It was certainly in this context that the Supreme Court spoke with one voice
through Prof. Ocran JSC of blessed memory in the Gorman v Republic
case, supra as follows:-

However, we must always guard against a sweeping invocation of
fundamental human rights as a catch-all defence of the rights of
defendants. People tend to overlook the fact that the Constitution
adopts the view of human rights that seek to balance the rights of the
individual as against the legitimate interest of the community. While
the balance is decidedly tilted in favour of the individual, the public
interest and the protection of the general public are very much part of
the discourse on human rights in our Constitution.

386

It must therefore be well understood that, once the enactment of C.I. 72

and C.I. 75 have not been proven to have infringed the rights of persons or
any constitutional provisions protecting the rights of citizens to vote, those
provisions must be given their full legal effect and force.

The other cases also reiterate the fact that the Electoral Administrative
bodies must exercise their mandate whenever required within the
framework of constitutional provisions, statutory in respect of substantive or
subsidiary legislation and exercise their discretion only when the law so
directs or permits. The powers of the Electoral bodies are not meant to
supplant the Constitution and the law, but rather to supplement them. Since
I have not noticed anything unconstitutional about the provisions in C.I. 75
on biometric or face only verification before voting, I am not interested in
discussing the other cases save those that are relevant in some other core
areas of relevance.

I have to come to the above conclusion despite the submissions of the 1st
and 3rd Respondents to the contrary on this issue. Learned counsel for the
1st Respondents in his written address stated as follows:-

On 1st Respondents arguments on non legal effect of biometric verification
Your Lordships, the claim by the Petitioners that there has been a
violation of the rules relating to biometric verification is based on an
opportunistic reliance on sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 30 which

387

provides that: (2) The voter shall go through a biometric verification

process. Notwithstanding that this sub-regulation does not define
what view from the definition of biometric verification equipment in
Regulation 47 that it means the process of verifying the identity of a
voter by establishing by fingerprint the identity of the voter.
Even if this extrapolation were correct, we submit that within the
broader context of our electoral laws, a more expansive notion of
biometric verification is necessary in order to give meaning to the
right to vote as guaranteed by the Constitution. The restrictive
approach being put forth by the Petitioners harbors the potential of
nullifying or impairing the right of ordinary citizens who cannot be
verified biometrically by finger print to vote. For example, persons
who are lepers, or have coarse fingers due to farming or other
manual labour or double amputees cannot vote by reason of this
restrictive meaning of biometric verification.
With the greatest respect, I do not accept the above submissions and I
reject them. This is because it seeks to give election officials undue
discretion which reliance on biometric verification sought to remove by
making our electoral process more transparent.
The contention of the Petitioners which has been denied by the
Respondents, is that there had been many instances of people voting
without biometric verification as is evident on the face of the pink sheets.
The 2nd Respondent in particular has stated that, having examined all the

388

pink sheets in this category, their analysis confirmed that no voters were
allowed to vote without verification at any polling station.

This is in direct contrast to the evidence of Dr. Afari Gyan that it could be
possible for all prominent persons like Chiefs to vote without a biometric
verification. I must concede, that this statement coming from the Electoral
Commission Chairman is very unfortunate and completely nullifies the
effect of the provisions of Regulations 30 (1) and (2) of C. I. 75, which
states that The voter shall go through a biometric verification
process.
This in effect means that, every prospective voter, must go through
the process of biometric verification before casting his or her vote.
Any votes that are therefore found to have been cast without this
biometric verification stands the risk of being nullified.
Based on the above analysis, the Petitioners concluded their submissions
on this aspect of the case by stating as follows:-
It is our respectful submission that, when the account is taken of all
the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the elections and the
inconsistent and implausible answers given by Dr. Afari-Gyan,
petitioners have on the balance of probabilities proved that voting
without biometric verification occurred in various parts of the country,
contrary to the electoral laws of Ghana. It is the further contention of
the petitioners that, indeed, question C3 was deliberately put on the
389

pink sheet by the 2nd respondent because in the December 2012

elections the 2nd respondents officers were given discretion to
dispense with biometric verification contrary to the law. This is borne
out by Exhibit G, (The Biometric Verification Device (BVD) User
Manual, 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections) pages 16
and 20 tendered on 13th June 2013 by Counsel for Petitioners
through the Chairman of the 2nd Respondent, Dr. Afari-Gyan. Thus, it
is the aggregate of information entered in C3 on the pink sheet that
gives the total number of persons who voted without biometric
verification, contrary to the law.
Based on the above, the Petitioners in Table 11A of volume 2B of their
address have a list of Polling Stations where they allege there was voting
without biometric verification respondents preferred Data-Set (whatever
this means).
By this table 11A on pages 406-437 of Volume 2B, the Petitioners want this
court, to annul 221,678 votes of the 1st Petitioner, whilst also annulling
526,416 votes of the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Respondents response to the claims of the petitioners was swift
and vehement. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, Mr. Tony Lithur,
stated in his written address as follows:-
In the face of consistent absence of any proof of complaint in
prescribed manner at any level of the electoral system of the
irregularity alleged, (and this is the instance of voting without
biometric verification) it is submitted that the entries in C3 could not
390

by themselves form a sound basis for annulling votes cast by eligible

voters.
In further support of the above submissions, learned Counsel argued that,
from the evidence of the 2nd Petitioner during cross-examination by the
counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents, it came to light that the evidence
on this issue of voting without biometric verification was at best confusing,
based on pink sheets entries. According to learned Counsel, once the 2nd
Petitioner admitted not having received any evidence of voting without
biometric verification at any polling station which recorded 100% of such
voting without verification the allegations must not be accepted.
Learned Counsel therefore referred the Court to bits and pieces of
evidence during the cross-examination of 2nd Petitioner. The evidence on
this issue was based on same entries in Column C1 and C3 of the pink
sheets and according to respondents, this is not logical. These are the bits
and pieces of the evidence of 2nd Petitioner under cross-examination on the
issue of voting without biometric verification.
Q.

I am suggesting to you that nobody in the 2012 election (voted)

whose name and identity has not been checked through the biometric
verification?

A.

My Lords I was not at those polling stations all we can say is

on the face of the pink sheet this number of people voted
without biometric verification.

391

Q.

Before the election presumably every polling station had biometric

fingerprint verification machine. At least in every polling station?

A.

Yes those that worked.

Q.

I believe the hullaballoo started when it was discovered that some of

the verification devices were not functioning properly?

A.

I think the hullaballoo started when the machine was not functioning
properly and 1st Respondent asked that contrary to the law
people should be allowed to vote without biometric verification.

From the evidence on record, the confusion on this issue of voting without
biometric verification has been highlighted in the column C3 on the pink
sheets.

According to the 2nd Respondents witness, Dr. Afari Gyan, the Presiding
Officers were all under strict instructions not to fill in that column. However,
an examination of the pink sheets has revealed that some of the Presiding
Officers did not carry out this instruction and filled this column C3 even
though they did not have the requisite Form 1 C which was to be used to fill
in that column.
Eager to find out the method by which this directive to the Presiding
Officers was conveyed, I made an intervention which Dr. Afari Gyan
answered thus:-

392

Dotse: For the purpose of clarity so how were the presiding officers to fill
in that C3 column?
Witness: No, we told them that they should put zero because they wouldnt
have even the means, yes to fill.
Dotse: Was it communicated to them verbally or you wrote to them with
copies to all the parties?
Witness: Erm, well, I dont know whether we wrote to them but we
did make it part of the training.
From the above, it is clear the 2nd Respondents did not recall writing to their
Presiding Officers or just instructing them verbally.
In any case, no further evidence was solicited by any of the parties in this
case, and so we take it that, that part of the evidence that they made those
instructions on not filling column C3 an integral part of the training of the
presiding officers substantially, stands unchallenged and must be accepted.
Reference cross-examination of Dr. Afari Gyan by learned Counsel for the
petitioners on 6th June 2013.

Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, launched a systemic attack on
this phenomenon of voting without biometric verification. Because of the
clarity of thought and detailed references to the evidence of Dr. Afari-Gyan
as a basis for the creation of the C3 column, I will quote it in extenso:-

393

The witnesses for the Respondents denied that the entries on the
pink sheets in respect of C3 were evidence of voting without
biometric registration. They insisted that many of those entries were
clerical errors. The most decisive testimony in relation to this head of
claim was that given by Dr. Afari-Gyan, the Chairman of 2nd
Respondent in evidence-in-chief. He stated that the column C1 was
not required to be filled in at all by Presiding Officers. According to
him, that column was created to take care of those voters who had
been registered by 2nd Respondent during the biometric registration
exercise that preceded voting, but whose biometric data had,
unfortunately, been lost as a result of some difficulties that 2nd
Respondent had encountered.
As an election administrator, he thought his duty was to give every
such person the chance to cast his ballot. 2nd Respondent therefore
devised this facility to allow such persons to vote without going
through biometric verification. They would be required to fill in
Form 1C before voting. When the idea was mooted to the
political parties, they all rejected it. He therefore gave
instructions that the Form 1C should not be sent to the polling
stations. The C3 column was therefore not supposed to be filled.
.C3 was put there in an attempt to take care of those people
who through no fault of theirs would have valid voter ID cards in
their possession but whose names will not appear on the
register and therefore could not vote. But let me add that

394

when we discussed this with the political parties, some of

them vehemently said no, that we will not allow any
persons to be verified other than by the use of verification
machine. I am just explaining why the C3 came there. The
parties said no and we could understand that argument
that this facility is not given to one person, it is being given
to every presiding officer. So you are given this facility to
26,002 and it is possible to abuse it. So we do not want it and
we agreed that that facility would not be used. Unfortunately,
the forms had already been printed, these are offshore items,
so we could not take off the C3. And what we said, and we have
already said this in an earlier communication, was that we will
tell all the presiding officers to leave that space blank because
they had already been printed and there was no way that we
could take it off. And that explains the origin of C3 on the pink
sheet. It was a very serious problem.
This account of the origin of the column C3 on the pink sheet
was not challenged by Counsel for the petitioners in crossexamination.

Figures in the C3 column of the pink sheet, such as the same figure
in C1 being found in C3, also showed the difficulties that occurred
with this column as it was filled in according to how a Presiding
Officer interpreted it. 2nd Petitioner who did not fill in the pink sheets

395

was in no position to testify about the understanding of the Presiding

Officers which went into filling that part of the pink sheet.
The explanation of the Electoral Commission Chairman to me makes
sense. I would however have expected that such a decision not to use the
C3 column would have been communicated to the Presiding Officers in a
written form. However, as stated supra, that piece of evidence was not
challenged and it has therefore settled the matter.
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION
I have already stated that I find Dr. Afari-Gyans explanation on the C3
column on the pink sheets which is to this effect what is the number of
ballots issued to voters verified by the use of Form 1C (but not by the use
of BVD) quite convincing and reasonable under the circumstances.
It must be noted that, during the testimony of Dr. Afari-Gyan, he attempted
to explain how the BVD machine can be used to store data on all those
persons who voted at a particular polling station and explain how the BVD
machine works. An objection was taken by learned counsel for the
petitioners Mr. Addison to this evidence. However, by a majority decision of
7-2, the objection was over ruled.
Proceeding further, Dr. Afari Gyan then explained as follows:-
We had the machines brought to our headquarters in Accra and
verified the information and downloaded the data and made print out
of the information on the biometric verification machine.

396

After this explanation, Dr. Afari Gyan then sought to tender the printout of
this information from the BVD.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Addison objected and
following the discourse that ensued as captured by part of the proceedings
of 3rd June 2013, this is what transpired as per the records.
Addision: My lords we object to the tendering of this document. This is a
document that can be produced by anybody, there is nothing on
the face of this document which shows that it is an original that
comes from a particular BVD machine. In any event, this
evidence takes the petitioners by surprise. We have stated our
full case, we have filed our affidavit to which we attached a
number of pink sheets pursuant to the order of this court dated
2nd April 2013. The 2nd respondent has had the opportunity to
controvert the issues raised in our pleadings and affidavit.
Nowhere in its response was there any statement that BVD
machines have been recalled from various parts of the country
and that they were going to tender print outs of these machines
to contradict information provided by the petitioners. My lords,
more importantly, these matters were not put to our witness
when he was in the box and therefore they are trying to conduct
a new case behind our back. Again it violates the order of this
court on the 2nd April, they have not attached it to their affidavit
neither is there any indication in their affidavit. My lord I would

397

like to refer your lordships to the Evidence Act 1975 Section

52(C) and it provides: COUNSEL READS OUT.
Dotse:

Mr. Addison, I am not an IT specialist but I stand to be

corrected. Where there is a dispute on the pink sheets and as
we are been told, some data has been captured by the BVD
during the exercise, that is the voting and if as is been sought to
be done, the document is an accurate record of what transpired
during the polls, do we have the expertise to be sure that the
data captured by the machine is correct because in these
matters, that is why I believe Ghana opted for the BVD and we
cannot just throw it off like that, we must make use of it in times
of crisis or in times of dispute like this

Quashie-Idun: My lord I would first wish to say that there is a distinction

between admissibility of a document and the weight to be
attached to it and much of what my learned friend says

the

goes to the weight not the admissibility of the document.

Secondly, there is no surprise, when they were saying that
people were not biometrically verified, what they mean other
than verified by the machine. So there is no surprise, they know
the machine is there and they are saying it was not used. When
we were filing our affidavit we did not know the evidence that
was going to be led by them

398

By court:

By a majority of 7 to 2, Atuguba and Akoto-Bamfo, JJSC

dissenting, the objection is sustained. Document marked as
Exhibit R5.

As can be seen from part of the proceedings just referred to, an opportunity
to match the data allegedly captured from the BVD with the allegation that
some people voted without biometric verification was lost. This resulted into
the rejection of the document which was subsequently marked as Rejected
5.
This document R5 supposedly contains a list of persons who were
captured as having been verified by the BVD during voting at the polling
station. Other printouts could have been produced and compared with the
number that voted at the Polling Stations to match this allegation of voting
without biometric verification but since that document was rejected at the
instance of the Petitioners I cannot look at it.
But I can make the necessary inference and deductions. Having lost this
opportunity, I think it is inconceivable to disregard Dr. Afari Gyans
explanation especially as the evidence on record has not been challenged.
The 2nd Respondents have maintained some consistency in their
explanation of the origins of the C3 column on the pink sheets, reference
paragraph 15 (a) of the 2nd respondents amended answer.
Secondly, the petitioners themselves in Exhibit NDC 43, which is the letter
authored by the 3rd Petitioner dated 9th December 2012 and addressed to

399

the Chair of the 2nd respondent emphatically requested for Audit of

verification machines and recount of Presidential Ballot.
Even though I have already quoted this letter in extenso for purposes of
emphasis, I would want to refer to the following relevant portions again:- it
states:
We request that you, as the Returning Officer of the Presidential
Elections; (i) cause an audit of the verification machine to establish
that it tallies with constituency collated signed results.
The above is ample proof that, the petitioners themselves recognise and
admit the use of the verification machine to establish the tallies of the
election results. This is the main reason why I have stated that, it was
wrong first for learned counsel for the petitioners to have objected to the
tendering of the print outs from the Biometric machines to verify anomalies
whilst they themselves had requested for it as far back as 9th December
2012.
Perhaps, at that time, because of the contemporaneous nature of the
request and the conclusion of the election being almost at the same time,
they did not think about the problems of tampering with the machines.
However, there are certain things and practices as a nation we ought to
have confidence and trust in its administration, and a typical one is this
biometric verification device. Once we asked for it and it was provided, at
huge cost, we must accept it and learn to rely on it for the verification that it
was meant to provide.
400

The no biometric verification therefore in my estimation fails in its entirety.

As a matter of fact, if one considers the number of pink sheets where the
C3 column was inadvertently filled in, as apposed to those instances where
it was not filled in, the impression is that, the instruction not to fill in the C3
column was honoured more in the observance than in the breach, I will
therefore give the benefit of the doubt to the 2nd respondents and accept
their explanation.
This is because of the presumption of regularity which presumes that the
instructions to the presiding officers was regular on the face of it, no
contrary evidence having been led on the matter see section 37 of
Evidence Act NRCD 323. In circumstances like this, it is critical to consider
the write up on page 16 of Exhibit E. C. 2, tendered on 24/4/2013 which is
a Guide to Election officials, column D on the said page states as follows:-
Record the number of ballots issued to voters on the polling station
register by checking the number of ticks on the voters register.( for
this biometric register tick against the barcode) Adding the figure
obtained from the ticks in the proxy register should equal the number
of ballots in the ballot box on the assumption that each voter issued
with a ballot paper cast a ballot. The ticks on the Names Reference
List must also equal the ticks on the main voters register
The above constitute the procedure that Presiding Officers are to follow at
each polling station. If there should be an irregularity on the face of any
pink sheet, which should give a contrary opinion to the effect that there
were some instances where voting without biometric verification was
401

permitted, the first place to verify this will be the polling station documents
referred to in the quotation supra.
Another contention by the 2nd petitioner, despite his sterling performance in
the witness box which I find puzzling is that, all entries made in CI
wrongly should equal zero or dash.
See for example, table 10B of the petitioners address, volume 2B pages
360-363 where a list of polling stations where CI equals zero or blank. In
this instant, votes of 28,805 for the 1st Petitioner, and 62,576 for the 1st
Respondent are to be annulled.
Having considered this analysis vis--vis the evidence of Dr. Afari-Gyan on
why the C3 column was initially created but later abandoned at the
insistence of the political parties, I am left in no doubt that the whole
contention of voting without biometric verification has not been properly
made out. I will therefore for this and other reasons stated elsewhere in this
judgment, reject this voting without biometric verification as not having
been properly made out by the Petitioners. It is accordingly dismissed.
NO PRESIDING OFFICER SIGNATURE CATEGORY
In order to drum home the constitutional significance of the issue of this
contentious No Presiding Officer signature on the Pink Sheets it is
perhaps pertinent to quote verbatim how the provisions are articulated in
the Constitution.

Article 49 provides as follows:

402

49 (1)

At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by

secret ballot.
2.

Immediately after the close of the poll, the Presiding Officer

shall in the presence of such of the candidates or their

representatives and their polling agents as are

present ,proceed to count at that polling station, the ballot
papers of that station and record the votes cast in favour of
each candidate or question
3. The Presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives
(and in the case of a referendum,the parties contesting or
their agents and the polling agents if any shall then sign a
declaration stating

a. the polling station; and
b. the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or
question;
and the Presiding Officer shall there and then, announce
the result of the voting at the polling station before
communicating them to the returning officer.

Regulation 36 of C. I. 75 contains provisions to the like effect as has been
stated in article 49 of the Constitution supra.

The Petitioners contend that in a number of polling stations, the presiding
officers refused, neglected or omitted to sign the pink sheets thereby
403

constituting a breach of the constitutional provisions in article 49 (3)

of the Constitution.

In order to properly understand how these views have been articulated by
the Petitioners, it is pertinent to quote in extenso their written submissions
on the matter. They contend as follows:

It is especially significant to note that, indeed, article 49 is the
only occasion on which details of voting at elections and
referenda are specifically spelt out in the Constitution itself. In
all other situations, the power to determine the manner in which
elections shall be conducted is left to the 2nd respondent to
regulate through the enactment of regulations pursuant to
article 51. It is obvious that the Constitution itself recognises
that activities at the polling stations are at the bedrock of the
democratic system of governance, hence the need for specific
regulation of same by the Constitution, rather than being left to
determination by the Electoral Commission. The mandatory
provisions in article 49 have an even greater significance when
due account is taken of the Preamble to the Constitution.
Serving as the spirit within which the Constitution is enacted,
the Preamble operates as the yardstick by which the tenets of
good governance ought to be measured. In this vein, it is
humbly submitted that any conduct on the part of a person
which militates against the attainment of the principles spelt out
404

in the Preamble ought to be jettisoned by this Honourable Court.

When regard is had to the Preamble, this Honourable Court will
find that the Principle of Universal Adult Suffrage, as well as the
commitment to establish a framework of government in
accordance with democratic principles, run through the
Preamble. It is our further respectful submission that, this being
the case, any provision in the Constitution which aims at
advancing or regulating the conduct of public elections and
referenda in order to realise the goals of the Preamble must be
respected and enforced by this Court.

405

It must therefore be noted that, any constitutional provision, especially one

that deals with the ground rules for the exercise of our democratic choice of
our leaders in pursuit of the principles of universal adult suffrage is not to
be taken for granted.
Furthermore, if due consideration is given to the pride of place that the
Constitution occupies in the laws of Ghana as the Grundnorm or basic law,
then such provisions should not be treated with careless and reckless
regard. In my opinion, and I dare say the opinion of all those who have due
regard to the principle of Constitutionalism, the Constitution 1992 must be
regarded and considered as sacrosanct.
As such it must be given it due pride of place in the scale of laws of
Ghana as article 11 of the Constitution stipulates. This article puts the
Constitution first among the laws of Ghana and in descending order
to Acts of Parliament, Constitutional Instruments and others of similar
nature, the existing law and the common law.
It is in this respect that I wish once again to quote excerpts from the written
address or submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Philip
Addison on the philosophical underpinnings of the provisions in article 49 of
the Constitution. He writes:

PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF

PRESIDING OFFICERS SIGNATURE AS PROVIDED FOR IN
ARTICLE 49 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION 1992
It is the humble contention of the petitioners that, save in certain
instances where it can clearly be demonstrated that the subject

406

matter in question properly belongs to the class of matters that

can aptly be classified as having been consigned to the
exclusive authority of a particular branch of government, like
parliamentary proceedings (as held by this Court in the cases of
Tuffuor v. Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 CA and J. H. Mensah
v. Attorney-General [1996-97] GLR 320), every provision in the
Constitution is to be enforced by this Honourable Court. This is
what is contained in the principle of the enforceability of the
Constitution. The Constitution, being the primary law, serves as
the yardstick for good governance and the standard by which
the actions of all persons, particularly public officers, are to be
measured. It is for this reason that article 3(4) entrusts every
citizen with the duty to defend the Constitution, after article 2 (1)
has also accorded unto the citizen a right to bring an action in
the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Constitution. This
was the effect of this Honourable Courts decision in New
Patriotic Party v. Attorney-General [1993-94] 2 GLR 35 where the
Court held that every provision in the Constitution is capable of
enforcement by the Supreme Court. In so holding, the Court
stated that the doctrine of political question was inapplicable
in Ghana, because, under articles 1, 2 and 130, all issues of
constitutional interpretation were justiciable by the Supreme
Court. The Court, further stated that, in any event, the
Constitution itself was a political document, since every matter

407

which arose from it for interpretation or enforcement was bound

to have a political dimension.
The signing of declaration forms by the presiding officers, apart
from being in fulfilment of a constitutional duty, is also to
authenticate the results of the elections. It is submitted that any
announcement of the results of the polls, when same have not
been recorded and duly signed in accordance with article 49, will
render the subsequent communication of the results to the
returning officer unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.
This is because the returning officer, before acting on the
declaration containing the results of the polls at a particular
polling station, must be satisfied and ensure that the
constitutional requirement of a signature on the declaration form
has been discharged, and that the pink sheet is, in truth, the act
or deed of the official representative of the Electoral
Commission, i.e. the presiding officer at the polling station.

In direct contrast to the above submission, learned Counsel for the 1st
Respondent, Mr. Tony Lithur, in his written address on the subject,
recounted in extenso the evidence led by the 2nd Petitioner, Dr. Bawumia
during cross-examination on the subject and the evidence in chief of Mr.
Asiedu-Nketia the witness of the 1st and 3rd respondents and made the
following submissions:

408

The Constitution doesnt provide a remedy for the breach of the

provisions. In resolving the issue, we invite Your Lordships to
adopt the purposive approach. Under article 49 of the
Constitution the duty of the Presiding Officer to sign the
declaration form is preceded, first, by a count of the votes
validly cast, followed by the recording of the tallied results
(article 49 (2)). In the present instance, the Presiding Officers
had performed those duties, and the

complaint by the

Petitioners is not about the counting, the tallying or the

recording of those votes.
It is significant to note that under article 49 (2), the duties of the
Presiding Officer as stipulated above, are required to be
performed by him in the presence of polling agents. One of the
objects of Article 49 is, therefore, transparency. There is no
allegation by Petitioners in respect of this head of claim that, in
undertaking his duties in respect of the count and recording of
the tallied votes, the processes undertaken by the Presiding
Officer were not transparent.
After interrogating several issues learned Counsel sought protection under
the submission that, since the voters at those particular polling stations
have not been alleged to have committed any wrong during the voting, they
should not be penalized for the acts of the Presiding Officers.
Learned Counsel therefore enumerates in my view what are very weighty
and serious issues for the consideration of this Court. These are as follows:
409

In resolving the issue, therefore, we invite your Lordships to

take into consideration the following factors:

a.

Petitioners do not allege that the voter has committed any

unlawful act;
b.

Voters had no control over the acts and omissions of the

Presiding Officers.
c.

Petitioners do not allege collusion between the voter and the

Presiding Officers, or indeed between the Presiding Officers

and

any candidate or political party;

d.

They do not allege misconduct on the part of the Presiding

Officers, indeed it would have been counterproductive on the
part of Petitioners to allege willfulness on the part of the
Presiding Officer because then that would make Petitioners the
beneficiaries of such misconduct, if their claim in this regard
were upheld;

e.

There are no allegations of willfulness on the part of the

Presiding Officers.
f.

The Polling agents of the candidates signed their respective

portions of the pink sheets in accordance with Article 49 (3)

of

the Constitution;

410

g.

Petitioners are not alleging any other head of claim in

respect of the polling stations that have the exclusive

irregularity;
h.

Petitioners do not challenge the results that were tallied and

declared at those polling stations;

i.

petitioners have not complained in prescribed manner, either

at the polling stations or at the constituency collation centers, about

the conduct of the elections or the

declaration of the results.

Learned Counsel concluded his submission on this point by referring to a

quotation from Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 15 (4) at
paragraph 670 and also quoted a passage from the Canadian case of Ted
Opitz v Borys Wrzesnewskyj [2012] SCC 55 to support their contention.

No election is to be declared invalid by reason of any act or
omission by the returning officer or any other person in breach
of his official duty in connection with the election or otherwise
of the appropriate election rules. If it appears to the tribunal
having cognizance of the question that the election was
conducted substantially in accordance with the law as to the
elections, and that the act or omission did not affect the result.
The function of the court in exercising this jurisdiction is not
assisted by consideration of the standard of proof but, having
regard to the consequences of declaring an election void, there

411

must be a preponderance of evidence supporting any

conclusion that the rule was affected.
This position is in accordance with persuasive authority. In the Orpitz case,
(supra), it was held on page 42 (paragraph 66) as follows:
By contrast, if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be
rejected in a contested election application because of an
irregularity, the voter would be irreparably disenfranchised. This
is especially undesirable when the irregularity is outside of the
voters control, and is caused solely by the error of an election
official.

Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, Mr. Tsatsu-Tsikata in his written
address also made similar submissions in terms as referred to supra. The
only difference is that he combined the role of the party agents alongside
those of the presiding officers and the effect of other subsidiary legislations
on the no presiding officer signatures phenomenon, in C. I. 75.
In effect, the thrust of Mr. Tsikatas submissions on this point is briefly that,
once the party agents of the Petitioners have signed the pink sheets in
accordance with the constitutional and statutory requirements, they must
be deemed to have accepted the results as declared to be correct and
consistent with all requisite laws and regulations.
On this point, Mr. Tsikata specifically submitted as follows:-

412

It is worth emphasizing that what is certified by the candidates

agents includes certifying that the poll was conducted in
accordance with the laws and regulations governing the conduct
of the elections. In almost all of the exhibits filed as
attachments to the affidavit of the 2nd Petitioner, the agents of
the 1st Petitioner were present and their signatures on the pink
sheets on which Petitioners rely constitute admissions of
regularity of the election results. On the face of their own
documentary evidence, therefore, the Petitioners are confronted
starkly by these admissions made on their behalf at the polling
stations. There is also evidence that these admissions were
repeated at the constituency collation centres where these
results were entered on the collation sheets and signed off again
by representatives of candidates.
Concluding his submissions on this matter, learned Counsel invited the
Court to reject the invitation to the Court to annul votes of citizens of Ghana
who exercised their constitutional right to vote in the 2012 Presidential
elections by relying on pink sheets which he considered unreliable.
On his part, learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. James QuahsieIdun, the main respondent i.e. Electoral Commission, whose conduct
formed the basis of the violations had a very brief comment to make to the
following effect:-
In response to the Further and Better Particulars submitted by
the Petitioners on this subject, and in Exhibit P, tendered by the
413

Chairman of the 2nd Respondent on 8th July 2013, the 2nd

Respondent maintained that out of the 905 pink sheets that were
not signed by the Presiding Officer, 99% were signed by the
Polling Agents of the Petitioners. Dr. Afari-Gyan admitted the
obligation of the presiding officers to sign the declaration of
results but stated that where he omitted to sign but the Polling
Agents signed, the 2nd respondent considered it acceptable for
the purposes of the declaration of the results. In this context,
reference is made to paragraph 19 above to emphasise the fact
that votes at each Polling Station were counted and declared in
public. We respectfully urge your Lordship to conclude that on
the evidence presented, there is no basis to annul the votes of
any Polling Station on the basis of the absence of the signature
of a Presiding Officer. The Petitioners have not shown how that
affected the outcome of the elections.
The above is the entire submission of the 2nd Respondent on the subject.
What is not in dispute is that, indeed, some of the Presiding Officers who
are agents of the 2nd Respondent at the polling stations did not sign the
pink sheets.
Secondly, there is evidence on record from the 2nd Respondent that, when
some of the Returning Officers detected the phenomenon of the non
signing by the Presiding Officers at the collation centres, they as it were
called the erring Officers to order and requested them to sign. It should

414

however be noted that, at that stage, all the party agents must have left
with their unsigned copies of the pink sheets by those Presiding Officers.
Thirdly, it must be noted that, any results declaration form that is not
signed by the Presiding Officer is in breach of article 49 (3) of the
Constitution 1992.
The issue that begs for an answer is whether the failure of the Presiding
Officers to sign the results declaration form (pink sheets) being a
constitutional requirement was a violation, omission, malpractice or
irregularity of the Presidential election held on 7th and 8th December 2012
and whether these affected the outcome of the results of the
elections.
What is the purpose of the provisions in article 49 of the Constitution being
inserted therein instead of leaving it for the Electoral Commission to make
rules and regulations as provided for in article 51, 63 (2) and 65 of the
Constitution 1992?
The draft proposals and report of the 1992 Constitution do not provide any
answer.

It is however safe to surmise that it might be due to our turbulent political
history in the past especially where there has been allegations of ballot
stealing and stuffing and other electoral malpractices prevalent in the 1st
Republic and thereafter.

415

It is therefore safe to conclude that it is an attempt to entrench that part of

our constitutional democracy by protecting the integrity of the ballot from
the very foundations of the law, that is the Constitution.
Indeed, if one considers, the provisions of article 49 (1) which guarantees
that in all public elections in Ghana, voting shall be by secret ballot, the
above deduction of protecting the integrity of the polls cannot be gainsaid.
For example, if there are allegations that during an election, at a particular
polling station, the casting of the ballot was not secret, that will definitely be
an infringement of the Constitution. Even though the consequences of a
breach of that provision has not been provided, a Court of law such as this
Supreme Court, vested with powers under article 2 (1) and (2) of the
Constitution 1992 to enforce and or interprete all or any of the provisions of
the Constitution as the Supreme law of Ghana as has been provided in
article 1 (2) of the Constitution 1992 cannot sit idly and do nothing.
Indeed, there are other provisions in the Constitution which makes general
provisions about the doing or performance of an event or conduct, without
necessarily providing the mechanisms for enforcement and or provide
sanctions for breach of those provisions.

For example, article 144 (7) provides that, the office of a Justice of the
Superior Court shall not be abolished while there is a substantive holder in
office.

416

In that respect therefore, even if Parliament should enact a law to abolish

any of the levels of the Superior Courts, whilst there is a holder of that
office, such a conduct will be declared unconstitutional if an action is
commenced to that effect. This is irrespective of whether the holders of the
office acquiesced in it or not.
It is in this respect necessary to regard the Constitution 1992 as a
sacrosanct document capable of biting to enable it have sanctity and
honour.
Besides, it must also be assumed rightly that the Constitution did not want
to leave these provisions contained in article 49 to the whims and caprices
of any institution or body of persons to meddle and toy with that is why
such detailed provisions on procedure at voting during public elections
have been made. If these provisions in article 49 are compared with the
provisions in article 63 and 65 of the Constitution 1992, the difference in
approach is clear and without doubt. Being an entrenched provision, article
49 cannot even be amended by a party with an overwhelming majority in
Parliament, unless by a referendum.
In article 63 (2) (a) and (b) the Electoral Commission has been granted
enormous powers to make by constitutional instrument regulations to
prescribe the conduct of Presidential elections including the date of the
election inter alia.
Article 65 on the other hand prescribes that the Electoral Commission shall
by constitutional instrument make regulations for the conduct of the
presidential elections generally as stated in article 63.
417


In this respect therefore, it is quite clear that the provisions in article 49 are
so precise and mandatory that it requires no other meaning other than what
has been attributed therein. That is why this particular provision is one of
the few entrenched provisions.
It has been forcefully argued by all the Respondents that because the Party
agents have signed the pink sheets, and the results declared after they had
been sorted and counted in public, the complaint of the petitioners is not
well founded and must be dismissed.
Reference has already been made to the locus classicus case of Tufuor v
Attorney General [1980] GLR 637 and I think I need to refer to it here
again. See also the case of J. H. Mensah v Attorney General [1996-97]
SCGLR 320.
Sowah J.A, (as he then was) made a notable pronouncement when he
spoke on behalf of the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Supreme Court in the
Tufuor v A.G. case as follows:-

...The decision of Mr. Justice Apaloo to appear before
Parliament cannot make any difference to the interpretation of
the relevant article under consideration unless that decision is
in accordance with the postulates of the Constitution. It is
indeed the propriety of the decision which is under challenge.
This court does not think that any act or conduct which is
contrary to the express or implied provisions of the Constitution
418

can be validated by equitable doctrines of estoppel. No person

can make lawful what the Constitution says is unlawful.
person can

No

make unlawful what the Constitution says is

lawful. The conduct must conform to due process of law as laid

down in the fundamental law of the land or it is unlawful and
invalid...
The above statement is binding on this court and I find no cogent reason to
depart from it. Besides, the Court in the Tufuor v A.G. case also justified its
statement with the following explanation which is hereby adopted as my
own words.
Neither the Chief Justice nor any other person in authority can
clothe himself with conduct which the Constitution has not
mandated. To illustrate this point, if the Judicial Council should
write a letter of dismissal to a Judge of the Superior Court of
judicature and that Judge either through misinterpretation of the
Constitution or indifference signifies acceptance of his
dismissal, can it be said that he cannot subsequently resile from
his own acceptance or that having accepted his dismissal, he is
stopped by conduct or election from challenging the validity of
the dismissal? This Court certainly thinks not. The question
whether an act is repugnant to the Constitution can only be
determined by the Supreme Court. It is that Court which can
pronounce on the law.

419

And since it is to this Supreme Court that the Petitioners have come to for
the interpretation and enforcement of the breach of this article 49 (3) of the
Constitution 1992, I hold that notwithstanding the conduct of the
Petitioners agents in signing the pink sheets that act, cannot clothe the
unconstitutional conduct of presiding officers in not signing the pink sheets
with constitutionality.
Quite recently, the Supreme Court in two landmark decisions upheld the
supremacy of the Constitution in the hierarchy of legal norms and laws in
the legal system and stated that these principles have to be preserved and
jealously guarded.
See the unreported cases of Martin Amidu v The Attorney-General and 2
others (a.k.a The Woyome case) S.C. No. J1/15/2012 dated 14th June
2013 and Martin Amidu v Attorney-General and 2 others, (a.k.a Isofoton
case) S.C J1/23/2013 dated 21st July 2013.
ROLE OF PARTY AGENTS
The Respondents have in their combined responses urged this Court to
consider the position of political Party Agents endorsement of the pink
sheets and purposively interprete that part of the constitution to give validity
to the non-signing of same by the Presiding Officers.
STATEMENT OF POLL FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF GHANA
FORM EL 21B AND THE DECLARATION FORM EL22B REFERRED
TO AS PINK SHEETS

420

An examination of the uncompleted pink sheet gives a very vivid and

clearer vision of the real intention and effect of the non-signature of a
Presiding Officer on a pink sheet.
1.

Column A:- Ballot Information

The indication at the top of the column A, is to the effect that it is to be filled
in at the start of the poll. The two questions stated therein really become
relevant when this is considered in context. These are:
i. What is the number of Ballots issued to this polling station?
ii. What is the range of serial numbers of the ballot papers issued to the
polling station?
The question which any critical mind should ask before proceeding any
further with the examination of the information on the pink sheet, is to ask
who is responsible for the filling in of the questions on the pink sheet.

Undoubtedly, this is to be the sole duty of the Presiding Officer. Indeed
Regulation 17, sub-regulation (2) states the following inter alia, as the
duties of the Presiding Officer:

a. setting up the polling station;

421

b. taking proper custody of ballot boxes, ballot papers, biometric

verification; equipment and other materials required and used for the
poll;
c. Filling the relevant forms relating to the conduct of the poll;
d. supervising the work of the polling assistants;
e. Attending to voters without identify cards;
f. Attending to proxy voters;
g. Maintaining order at the polling station;
h. Undertaking thorough counting of the votes;
i. Announcing the results of the election at the polling station, and
j. conveying ballot boxes and other election materials to the returning
officer after the poll.

On the other hand, sub-regulation 3 of Regulation 17 states that, a polling
assistant among other duties shall work under the supervision of the
Presiding Officer in charge of the polling station.

On Polling Agents, Regulation 19 sub-regulation (2) states as follows:-

422

A candidate for Presidential election may appoint one Polling Agent

in every polling station nationwide.

Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 19 of C. I. 75 which spells out the role of a
Polling Agent of a candidate states as follows:-

An appointment under sub-regulations (1) and (2) is for the purpose
of detecting impersonation and multiple voting and certifying
that the poll was conducted in accordance with the laws and
regulations governing the conduct of elections.

Sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 19 which is also relevant states as
follows:-
A Presiding Officer shall give a polling agent the necessary access to
enable the polling agent to observe election proceedings at a
polling station.

In view of the provisions of Regulation 17 and 19 as referred to supra
concerning the functions and roles of a Presiding Officer and his
assistant vis--vis those of the Polling Agents of the candidates, it is
clear that whilst it is the duty of the Presiding Officers to manage,
control and be responsible for all activities connected with the poll
423

which includes the filling in of the pink sheets, the candidates agents
are merely to OBSERVE the election proceedings at the polling
station and certify at the end of the poll that it was conducted in
accordance with the laws and regulations governing the election.

From the questions in column A, and the clear provisions of regulation 17
(2) (c) of C.I. 75, it is clear that it is only the presiding officer or in his
absence, his assistant who can fill in and answer those questions.

Column B
This is a continuation of column A, to the effect that it has to be filled in at
the start of the poll by the Presiding Officer. The questions therein stated
are:-

1. What is the number of voters on the polling station register?

2. What is the number of voters on the proxy voters list?

3. What is the total number of voters eligible to vote at this polling
station? B1 plus B2

424

Column C

This column C to me is a very important and critical part because this is the
ballot accounting section of the pink sheets. It states at the top as follows:-

(To be filled in at END of the poll before counting commences)
Questions in this column are as follows:-
1. What is the number of ballots issued to voters on the polling
station register?

2. What is the number of ballots issued to voters on the Proxy Voters
List?

3. What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of
Form IC (but not by the use of BVD)?

4. What is the total number of spoilt ballots?

5. What is the total number of unused ballots

425

6. What is the total of C1, plus C2, plus C3 plus C4? This number
should equal A1 above.

Since Form 1C was not distributed to the Polling Stations C3 was not to be
filled in.

Column D

This is significant in the sense that, whilst it is a detailed account of rejected
ballots, it also indicates that this is to be filled in at the end of poll after
counting is completed.

It should be noted that, despite all the above important questionnaire that
the Presiding Officer is expected to fill in on Form EL 21 B, which is one
half of the pink sheet, no provision is made for the signature of the
Presiding Officer to authenticate the said information provided by him on
the forms. It is also to be further noted and observed that, Forms EL 21B
and 22B have been joined together and must accordingly be read together
as one document in order for the full meaning and understanding of same
to be made.
The next item or column on the pink sheet is the Presidential Election
Polling Station Results Form.
426


Here, the names of the candidates are in one box, with indications as to
their party or independent status in another box, then votes obtained in
figures and in words are also in different boxes.

At the end of this column are columns A , B and C for Total Valid Votes for
Column A, Total Rejected Votes from D6 above for B, Total Votes in Ballot
Box (A+B) for C.

It must again be noted that in all these, there is no indication for signature.

The Declaration is the place indicated on the pink sheet for the signatures
of the Presiding Officer and the Polling Agents of the candidates.

The words opening on this Declaration are important and is worthy to be
quoted in full. It states: We, the undersigned, do hereby declare that the
results shown above are a true and accurate account of the ballots in this
polling station. Immediately after this comes the Names of Presiding
Officer, His Signature, Date and Time before the names of the Polling
Agents, their party affiliation or status, signature and reasons if they
refused to sign.

427


The point at issue here is that, since by law, the Presiding Officer is the
Officer required and mandated by law under Regulation 17 (2) (c) of C. I.
75, to fill in the columns on the pink sheets, i.e. columns A, B, C, and D on
the pink sheets, as well as the results declaration, the signature of the
Presiding Officer is mandatorily and constitutionally required to authenticate
not only the results, but also the filling of the forms as required by law.

Thus any pink sheet, which has not been signed by the Presiding
Officer lacks this crucial authentication and must be rejected as not
satisfying the requirements of the Constitution and the law.

The difference in weight between the role and functions of the Presiding
Officers and the candidates agents is so clear that any attempt to equate
the two, and to raise the candidates signatures to the level of the Presiding
Officer signature is not only to undermine the constitutional provisions on
this issue as enshrined in the Constitution 1992,

but also crucify the

bedrock upon which the democratic foundations of the representative

Government that the people of Ghana have embarked upon since January
7th 1993. That position has been made clear in the Tufuor v A. G. case
already referred to supra.

428

As a consequence, I am of the very considered view that, not having

signed and authenticated the entries made by them on the pink
sheets, the non signature of same by the Presiding Officers has
invalidated the offending pink sheets, and to that extent, by virtue of
article 49 (3) of the Constitution 1992, same are declared null and
void, and of no effect. The result therefore is that all votes at all the
polling stations where this phenomenon of no presiding officer signature
has occurred is hereby annulled and or cancelled. If they are annulled, then
all votes attributed to any candidate at those polling stations will be
deducted from the total tally.

If however, they are cancelled then the polls will have to be re-run in those
particular polling stations.
In the opening pages of this judgment, I referred to a statement attributed
to Benjamin Cardozo a former associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court in which he wrote that in deciding a case that there is no precedent
for the Judge to follow, what does he do?

In seeking to reach a decision that may become a precedent for the future,
I have to be consistent and logical in my legal reasoning.

It has been urged upon this court, that since the voters in the offending
polling stations did not commit any wrong, it will be a denial of their rights if
429

their votes should be annulled for the failure of a public officer in the
performance of their duties.

If the results of this category of no presiding officer signature as has been
upheld by me to be annulled, are annulled as ordered then the problem that
will arise is what criteria and number of pink sheets that are to be affected?

This question is relevant in view of the mess that had been created by the
Petitioners in their use of polling station pink sheets in their analysis of the
various categories.

I am however aware that the Petitioners in volume 2B of their appendix to
their address, in their table 12 A, have a list of polling stations indicating
List of Presiding Officers signature, (Respondents preferred Data Set).

The assumption I believe is that, this list in table 12A is devoid of the many
instances of mislabeling, and use of Exhibits outside the range of exhibits
marked in the affidavit of 2nd Petitioner and also devoid of the duplications
and or triplication that some of the pink sheets of the Petitioners have
become notorious for. I also believe that all the pink sheets in this category
have been counted by KPMG and are therefore in the KPMG unique count.

430

Using this table 12A, the votes that are attributed to the 1st
Respondent, are 382,088 whilst those of the 1st Petitioner are 170,940.
See page 497 of Volume 2B of the address. Subject however to
verification and scrutiny based on the KPMG unique count. To
prevent double use of polling station results that are to be cancelled,
care must be taken to ensure that only the residue of the polling
stations that have not been affected by over-voting category are to be
affected in this category. Since I am of the view that, it is more
equitable to cancel the results of the polling stations in this category
and order a re-run in only those polling stations, I will go for that
option.

What then is to be done to the Presiding Officers who failed woefully to
perform this sacred constitutional duty as is stated in article 49 (3) of the
Constitution 1992?

The resolution of this issue will involve a discussion of the Canadian case
of Opitz v Wrzesnewskyi 2012 SCC 55-2012-10-256 to determine its
applicability. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondents has referred this
Court to a quote in the Canadian case of Opitz just referred to supra which
states as follows:-

431

The practical realities of election administration are such that

imperfections in the conduct of elections are inevitable. A federal
election is only possible with the work of thousands of Canadians
who are hired across the country for a period of a few days or, in
many cases, a single 14 hour day. These workers perform many
detailed task under difficult conditions. They are required to apply
multiple rules in a setting that is unfamiliar. Because elections are not
everyday occurrence, it is difficult to see how workers could get
practical on the job experience. The current system of electoral
administration in Canada is not designed to achieve perfection, but to
come as close to the ideal of enfranchising all entitled voters as
possible. Since the system and the Act are not designed for
certainty alone, Courts cannot demand perfect certainty. Rather,
Courts must be concerned with the integrity of the electoral
system. This overarching concern informs our interpretation of the
phrase irregularities that affected the result opinions of Rothstein
and Maldaver JJ

In the Ghanaian context, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission Dr.
Afari-Gyan in his evidence in chief also lamented over the fact that all the
Presiding officers and their assistants, including even the Returning
Officers, who all play very critical roles in the electoral administration are
temporary staff of the Electoral Commission.

432

According to him, these are recruited only some few weeks to the date of
the election and given some form of training.

My examination of some of the contentious pink sheets, which were
identified and upon which some cross-examination has been conducted
upon in court has revealed that some of the Presiding Officers appeared to
be illiterates and know next to nothing. They do not only have very bad
writing skills, but cannot express themselves in simple language and even
denote figures in words correctly. I will in this context blame the appointing
authorities of such low caliber of staff.

It is in this respect that I think the Electoral Commission Chairman, Dr. Afari
Gyan cannot escape blame. My observation is that, Dr. Afari Gyan
appeared to have concentrated his oversight responsibility at the top notch
of the election administration, thereby abdicating his supervisory role at the
grassroots or bottom, where most of the activities critical to the conduct of
elections are performed.

In this instance, he even appeared not to be conversant with some of the
basic procedural steps and rules that are performed by his so called
temporary staff. So far as I am concerned, Dr. Afari Gyan has cut a very
poor figure of himself, and the much acclaimed competent election

433

administrator both nationally and internationally has evaporated into thin air
once his portfolio has come under the close scrutiny of the Courts.

Can the Canadian Supreme Court observations be relevant and applicable
in Ghana?

Taking a cue from his testimony on the subject, and bearing in mind
the wealth of experience Dr. Afari-Gyan should have gained since
1993, I am of the considered view that he cannot entirely escape
blame for the many infractions of the Returning Officers, Presiding
Officers and their assistants and to some extent their printers. To that
extent, I will hesitate in applying hook, line and sinker the
observations of the Canadian Court in the OPITZ case, bearing in
mind that there was a powerful dissent in that case.
I also observe that, whilst the Presidential Election Act, 1992 PNDCL 285,
does not contain any provision of criminal sanctions on breach of election
duties, its sister Act, Representation of the People Law, 1992 PNDCL 284,
has adequate and detailed provisions stipulating criminal sanctions for
breach of all electoral regulations.
I also observe that, article 49 of the Constitution 1992 in its entirety does
not provide any sanctions for the breach of any of its provisions mentioned
therein.

434

In this respect, I will like to make reference to section 30 (a) and (f) of
PNDCL 284 referred to supra.
These sections provide as follows:
(30) An election Officer, clerk, interpreter or any other person who has
a duty to discharge, whether under this Act or otherwise, in
relation to an election, and who
(a) makes in a record, return or any other document, which is
required to be kept or made in pursuance of this Act or of the
Regulations, an entry which that person knows or has reasonable
cause to believe to be false, or does not believe to be true, or
(f) without reasonable cause acts or fails to act in breach of
official duty,
commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred
penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or
both the fine and the imprisonment.
I am of the opinion that, considering the fact that, the issue in contention
here is Presidential elections, there should be a higher requirement of
compliance of election officials to their duty than is required in other
instances.
I will therefore urge the application of the sanctions provided for in this
section 30 of PNDCL 284 to any breach of article 49 (3) of the Constitution.
This is because the conduct of the presiding officers in not signing the pink
sheets amounted to a failure to act in the performance of their official duties
435

as provided for in section 30 (a) and (e) of PNDCL 284 I will further direct
that aside the punishment of a fine and imprisonment, the 2nd respondents
should as a matter of policy blacklist all such offending presiding officers to
prevent them from ever acting for the 2nd respondents in future. This I
believe will serve as a deterrent.
Finally, I will also recommend that, henceforth, the Electoral Commission
should apply merit based criteria to the appointment of their key electoral
staff, albeit temporary to avoid the appointment of people who appear to be
crass illiterates.

To conclude this matter, I will state that even though I find the Canadian
case of OPITZ quite instructive, I am of the considered opinion that having
appprized myself of the facts of that case, it is wholly inapplicable under the
circumstances of this election petition. This is precisely because the
infractions alleged by the petitioners here are based on constitutional and
statutory violations and or irregularities, not so much on the voter not being
qualified to vote, or properly identified as is the case of the no biometric
identification, no vote (N.B.N.V) phenomenon.

In view of all the above discussions, I will uphold the petitioners claims
under the category of Presiding officers not signing the pink sheets.

DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS ON PINK SHEETS
436

Learned counsel for the Petitioners, in his address on the above head of
claim submitted that, one of the methods by which the 2nd Respondents
has sought to guarantee the security of the election materials by avoiding
the substitution of election materials by unscrupulous persons who might
be determined to compromise the electoral process was to secure the
integrity of the electoral process as follows:
One of the means by which the 2nd respondent has over the
years sought to do this, alongside other measures, has been to
pre-emboss electoral materials with unique serial numbers. This

is to ensure that specific electoral materials, so far as

possible, are used only once at every polling station and also to
detect the introduction of forged materials into the electoral
process. Thus, for example, the ballot papers have serial
numbers embossed on them to ensure that each ballot paper is
unique in its identity. The series equally ensures that ballot
papers are allocated to constituencies and polling stations in
accordance with serial numbers known to the 2nd respondent. In
the same way, in order to avoid the threat of replacement of
official ballot boxes with unofficial ballot boxes, the ballot boxes
officially used by the 2nd respondent have embossed on them
serial numbers. Even the tamper proof envelops, into which
presiding officers at polling stations put all election materials
post announcement of the results at the poll, have serial
numbers in order to enable detection of any attempt to replace
an authentic tamper proof envelope with a counterfeit one. It
437

should be noted that, in each of these examples the serial

numbers come already embossed on the article from the
manufacturers/printers. It would, accordingly, be astonishing, if
not self defeating, where the primary record of the election,
which are the pink sheets, on which results are declared, has no
serial number as a security feature to prevent substitution or
forgery of such critical electoral materials.
The above statement had been re-emphasised supra in paragraph 56 of
the affidavit sworn to by the 2nd Petitioner in which reference has been
made by the Petitioners to 6,823 polling stations where they claimed
exclusive instances of the malpractice of same serial numbers on pink
sheets with different results took place.
It must be noted that, this category of malpractice is by far the largest
category and it was therefore not surprising that the petitioners devoted
some valuable and quality time to this phenomenon.
What then is the evidence in support of this? Dr. Afari-Gyan who testified
for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent admitted in his testimony the use of
some pink sheets with duplicate serial numbers. Admittedly, the evidence
given by the petitioners in their MB P series of exhibit supports the use of
pink sheets with duplicate serial numbers.
What is the meaning of this? In effect, what this means is that, a pink sheet,
which has a number embossed on it from the printing stage 0002895 for
Ghartey Hall Block B U.E.W polling station in the Effutu Constituency in
the Central Region will have the same corresponding serial number on
438

another pink sheet for another polling station in a constituency either within
the same region or another region. The evidence however showed that this
phenomenon of same serial numbers was duplicated in different regions,
not same region and constituency.
In effect, whilst the number on the pink sheets for these two polling stations
are the same, the polling station name and code are different.
However, according to the petitioners, there is an assumption that, the
numbers on the pink sheets are generated serially and so ought to be
unique to a particular polling station.
In circumstances like the above scenario that I have given, the results
attributable to each polling station as per the pink sheets are different, with
different presiding officers and party agents.
However, the Petitioners contend that as an electoral material, it must have
a unique security feature which is the number embossed on it from the
printing press, and once this number has been generated, it is unique and
applicable to only one polling station. They therefore contend that the
widespread use of duplicate serial numbers of pink sheets is a malpractice
for which reason results of all the polling stations in which this phenomenon
was manifested must be annulled.
In order to understand the basis of this claim, it is perhaps useful at this
stage to quote the words of Dr. Afari Gyan when he testified on 10th June
2013 as follows:-
Q.

Dr. Afari Gyan, we will go to the duplicate serial number, the alleged
439

duplication of serial numbers. You heard the evidence of Dr. Bawumia

the duplication of serial numbers should result in an annulment of the
votes on all polling stations where the same serial number exists for
two polling stations on the pink sheet.
A.

My Lords, I strongly disagree with that.

Q.

Can you tell us why?

A.

Well, in the first place the serial numbers that you find on the pink
sheets are not even generated by the Electoral Commission. They
are generated by the firm or company that printed the pink sheets.
Also unlike in the case of ballot papers, where the law requires that
we print numbers, there should be a number on every ballot paper, I
have seen no reference in the Constitution or a Stature or an
Instrument to a serial number of the pink sheet. The serial
number is important only to the extent that it allows us to keep
count of the number of pink sheets produced. The pink sheets are
distributed randomly and the serial number printed on the pink sheet.
It has absolutely no relevance to the compilation and declaration
results. We identify our polling stations by their unique code and by
their names and in fact throughout this trial so far I have never heard
anybody identify a polling station. If two polling stations have the
same serial number that will in no way affect

Q.

Do you mean two pink sheets. Two pink sheets with the same

440

number for different polling stations, it will not have any effect
whatsoever on the validity of votes cast. Why?
A.

Each of the two polling stations will have a different code and a
different name. There will be two different presiding officers and two
different sets of officials, there will be two different sets of candidates
agents and there will be two different results entirely. So I see no
problem, and when the results are taken from the polling station
to the collations center, they are dealt with on the basis of
polling stations codes and not serial numbers. So I do not see the
basis for the allegations surrounding the serial numbers. I see no
basis at all.

All the respondents have denied the allegations of the petitioners on the
duplicate serial numbers with such vehemence that, the issue calls for
thorough analysis and understanding. For example, learned counsel for the
2nd respondent, James Quashie-Idun in his very brief but incisive written
submission

stated on this duplicate serial numbers on pink sheets as

follows:
Your Lordship, this category can properly be described as the
weakest link in an already weak chain.
On his part, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, Tsatsu-Tsikata in his
written statement stated on this malpractice as follows:-
Indeed, there is no basis whatsoever for a number printed on
the pink sheet which was not generated by the Electoral
441

Commission and which was not known to the political parties as

a distinguishing mark of polling stations, to be used
retroactively to disenfranchise millions of innocent voters.
Even though I am not comfortable with the explanations of Dr. Afari-Gyan,
in his evidence on the duplicate serial numbers as has been reproduced
verbatim, the petitioners have to my mind not discharged the burden of
proof that lies upon them in such cases as has been stated supra.
I have previously quoted in extenso, the written statement of learned
counsel for the petitioners Philip Addison on this point, wherein he asserts
strongly that it should be desirable that pink sheets with specific numbers
should be assigned to specific polling stations as is done with codes and
ballot papers.
It would have been quite easy for me to accede to the contention of
the petitioners if they had led evidence to establish that, in the past
elections, or at least the last 2008 presidential elections, all pink
sheets had serial numbers embossed on them which were assigned
specifically to particular polling stations. In that respect, there would
have been an established practice that, the number embossed on the
pink sheets is assigned to a polling station just as a polling station
code is assigned using a regional alphabet followed by the numbers,
i.e. constituency identification number, and the unique polling station
number which all make up the unique code.
No evidence whatsoever on this matter has been led by the petitioners, to
establish such a practice. In circumstances where the petitioners have
442

failed with any degree of certainty to establish that, it had been the practice
of the Electoral Commission to assign the numbers on the pink sheets to
polling stations making them a unique feature, the case of the petitioners
must fail in this respect.
For now, what has been established as the practice in our electoral process
and administration is that, the following are the security checks and
features that are attributable to a polling station and by which it is known.
1. Name though this may be similar e.g. E.P. Primary School or C.M.B
Shed, Finger of God etc.

2. Unique Polling Station Code by which the region, constituency
and polling station are clearly identified making it really unique.

3. Ballot papers the serial numbers on the ballot papers are unique to
a polling station in the sense that, no two polling stations can have
and use the same ballot papers with same serial numbers.

REFORMS
The importance of the Statement of Poll and Declaration of Results forms,
pink sheets has informed me to suggest a number of reforms in our
electoral process, including better management of the serial numbers on
these pink sheets.
443


It really does not make sense for the Electoral Commission Chairman, Dr.
Afari Gyan to state that it is the printers who generate the numbers on the
pink sheets in order for them to keep count of the number of pink sheets
they have printed. This is not only absurd but also exposes the Electoral
Commission as lacking any control mechanism to really check the actual
number of pink sheets delivered to them.

For example, if a printer generates his own numbers from say 0000001 and
goes on to 9,000,000, whilst in actual fact, the physical count is less than
the quantity the Electoral Commission paid for, then the Electoral
Commission would have been short changed.

Dr. Afari Gyan to me, was not convincing on this point at all, just as he was
on many other issues. But for the weakness in the petitioners case on this
issue, I would have dismissed the Electoral Commissions explanation as
not being reasonable.

It is for this and other reasons stated in this judgment that I am of the view
that there are indeed urgent reforms needed in our electoral process and
administration.

444

In the first place, it does appear to me that there is the need for the Inter
Party Advisory Committee (IPAC) to consider legislation to legitimise the
use of serialized pink sheets in just the same way as there are unique
polling station codes. Does it not matter that, the pink sheets, which form
the primary documents upon which election results are declared by the
Electoral Commission are not serialized to prevent their multiple use and
abuse as was apparent in some few cases in the December 2012
Presidential elections?

In order to give validity and raise our elections to a higher pedestal, I think it
will not be a bad idea if IPAC and indeed the entire country will consider
proposals aimed at legislation to ensure that, security features are
enhanced on the pink sheets, to make them identifiable to a particular
region, constituency and polling station just as it is with the polling station
codes.
Even though the above suggestion is likely to be a strain and an
added burden on the Electoral Commission, it is better to put such a
stringent requirement on them, than to live with the type of mess that
was created by the lack of control in the printing, marking,
distribution and use of the pink sheets.

Secondly, since the Electoral

Commission Chair, who is the returning

officer for the presidential elections was not present at the polling stations
445

and could in any case not be present thereby lending credence to the 2nd
petitioners oft quoted statement of You and I were not there a lot of
caution and circumspection ought to be exercised in anything that has to do
with reliance on entries on the pink sheets.

This is because, if the pink sheets for now remain the only authentic,
valuable and credible document upon which the results are declared, then
everything has to be done to ensure their sanctity, credibility and legitimacy.
Situations, such as those recounted by Dr. Afari-Gyan about how pink
sheets for the December 2012 elections were ordered, printed and
distributed are so bizarre that it could have been a recipe for disaster.
Urgent steps should therefore be taken to reform the electoral landscape
promptly to ensure a clean, fair and a level playing ground.

I am making these suggestions against the background of the explanation
given by Dr. Afari Gyan as the basis for the printing of two (2) sets of pink
sheets. Even though the reasons are not credible and lack candour, the
claims of the petitioners about the widespread use of the duplicate serial
numbers category to perpetuate most of the malpractices and violations
have not been well made out.

For instance, if it is because of the late settlement of the issue of the actual
number of contesting presidential candidates that led to the printing of the
446

two sets of pink sheets thereby accounting for the duplications, then only
one set could have been used, since the other set of candidates never had
the green light. Besides, the names of the candidates on the first set of
printed pink sheets, is the same as the second set. This therefore has
exposed the Electoral Commission as not being candid in their explanation.

It is possible that something sinister could have been the basis
behind the printing of the two sets of pink sheets. But since a court of
law such as this Supreme Court does not deal with speculation and
conjecture in a serious and volatile matter as disputed presidential
election results, it is better to err on the side of caution than to yield
to assertions which have not passed the litmus test of proof on the
balance of probabilities as has been discussed elsewhere.

My concluding remarks on this matter of duplicate serial numbers on
the pink sheets is that, once the petitioners have failed to prove the
existence of an established practice in the use of assigned specific
serial number on pink sheets to poling stations in past presidential
elections and their further inability to also prove that these resulted
into the massive malpractices they alleged in this category save for
the isolated instances, mentioned supra, I reject the invitation being
made to this court to annul votes in this category. It is accordingly
rejected.

447


SAME POLLING STATION CODE RESULT ON DIFFERENT PINK
SHEETS

The petitioners have based their contention on the malpractice of same
polling station code results on different pink sheets on Table 14 in volume
2B of their address.

The petitioners rely also on the testimony of Dr. Afari-Gyan when he said in
court on 30th May 2013 as follows:-

The code is unique; first in the sense that no two polling
stations ever have the same number or code. It is also unique in
the sense that the code is consciously crafted to contain
information that directs you to the location of the polling station.
And the system we use is alpha-numeric; that is to say, it
combines the letters of the alphabets and numbers; and the
system is a letter followed by 6 digits and it may end or may not
end with another letter.

As I have started supra, there is incontrovertible evidence that polling
station codes are unique to each polling station and the occurrence of
448

multiple results as per pink sheets in some few polling stations can indeed
only be the work of the Hand of God.

In this respect, the petitioners tendered a number of exhibits through Dr.
Afari-Gyan and I will refer in this instance to exhibits S and Y just to
mention and rely on a few.

It is also interesting to observe that, Dr. Afari-Gyan was emphatic during his
testimony that no one polling station should have more than one pink
sheets. In answer to a question, Dr. Afari-Gyan put it bluntly as follows:-

I am saying that no polling station should have two pink
sheets.

The petitioners do not accept the explanation of the Electoral Commission
Chair that this discrepancy may have occurred as a result of special voting
having taken place at those polling stations thereby explaining the
occurrence of the two pink sheets, or the splitting up of the polling station
into two due to its size.

449

This court in order to do justice will have to give meaning and content to
Regulation 21, sub regulation 11 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2012
(C. I. 75) which deals with special voting procedures and other matters. It
provides thus:-
The returning officer shall at the end of the special voting

a. Ensure that the ballot boxes are kept in safe custody after the
poll has closed.

b. Ensure that the ballot boxes are sealed with the seals of the
commission and candidates who wish to add their seal; and

c. Arrange for the ballot boxes to be opened at the time of the
counting of the votes cast on the polling day and the ballot
papers shall be counted in the same manner as those contained
in the ballot boxes used on the polling day.

Regulations 35 (7) and 36 (1) (2) and (3) of C.I. 75, deals with the manner
in which the votes are counted at a polling station in any general election.
The votes in a special voting are also to follow the same pattern stated in
the C. I. 75 referred to supra.

450

It should be noted that, after the sorting out of the ballots into valid and
rejected categories, the votes are then counted and the votes obtained by
each candidate are registered against their names and rejected ballots are
also recorded after which the results are announced.

I believe this is the procedure that the counting of the special voting is to
follow. If that is the case, then there must be an indication by which the
special voting is to be indicated to denote it separately from the general
voting.

The address of learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Quashie-Idun
on this issue is very terse. As stated earlier, it deals with the issue of
special voting and split polling stations.

The evidence also unfolded that where polling stations are split, they are
denoted as A & B. However, in the Table 14, which the petitioners have
attached to their address, this distinction is not well made out. For
example, L/A Primary School Mame Krobo East A, which are numbers
5 and 6 on the Table 14, all have one polling station code number E.
261001A in all the two instances with no indication that it is a split
polling station. The same phenomenon is exhibited in respect of St.
Emmanuel Nursery/Primary School Zenu indicated in numbers 9 and 10 on
the Table and there is no indication that it is a split polling station.
451


Then there is the infamous Juaso Court Hall indicated in numbers 11 and
12 and the Finger of God which has really turned into the Hand of God
features prominently in numbers 20 and 21 all in Table 14 but most of these
stations had been deleted in Exhibit Y.

My understanding and appreciation of the above analysis is that, there was
indeed no indication whatsoever as to whether the polling stations were
used as a split polling station in which case I presume they ought to be
identified as A & B to prevent confusion.

This conclusion is irrespective of the submission of other learned counsel
for the 1st and 3rd Respondents who all base their positions on the
testimony of Dr. Afari-Gyan on the splitting of large polling stations and use
of the polling stations for special voting.

In the absence of clear proof that the duplicated polling station codes with
different pink sheets results have either been used for special voting or split
into two, I am inclined to accept the petitioners claims that the 2nd
respondent used the said phenomenon in clear violation of accepted
practice in electoral process and as spelt out in C.I. 75. However, if one
considers the deletion of certain polling stations from this category as is
evident from Exhibit Y, which is headed Duplicate Polling Station Codes,
452

where these pairs of numbers 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are deleted then the

basis of the claims has somehow been eroded. In this respect, the
petitioners themselves had deleted 2 polling stations each of Juaso Court
Hall, Finger of God Church, Kubekro B and Kalpohin S.H.S A.
There is also the observation that some of the remaining polling stations on
Exhibit Y have already been captured in the no Presiding Officer category.
To prevent double count, I will not give any further consideration to this
category.

UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS

Ground 2 (a) of the petition is to the effect that presidential elections were
conducted in 22 locations which did not form part of the 26,002 polling
stations created by the 2nd respondent for purposes of the December, 2012
elections.

The 2nd petitioner was however candid in his evidence that a polling station
apart from its name is also identified by the unique code which is special to
453

the polling station. Nonetheless, the petitioners contend that elections were
held in these 22 locations by the 2nd Respondent in the December 2012
elections outside the official list of the 26,002 polling stations designated by
the 2nd respondent contrary to C. I. 75. The petitioners rely on a list
prepared by them in Table 15 of volume 2B of their address to this court.

I have tried to examine whether this list of 22 locations is additional to the
26,002 or is part of the 26,002 but only that they are not known to the
petitioners as per the list supplied them by the 2nd respondent. My
examination has revealed that the 22 locations form part of the 26,002
designated polling stations.

The 2nd respondents argued very forcefully that, because the petitioners
sent agents to those 22 unknown polling stations, they should be stopped
from questioning their lawful existence.
The 1st and 3rd respondents responded to this head of claim by relying on
exhibit EC3 which is a letter signed by the 1st petitioner among others
tendered by the 2nd respondent that party agents were indeed appointed by
the petitioners to those 22 locations.

In view of the serious doubts that have been cast on the authenticity of
those exhibits 1 will not rely on them.

454


It will be recalled that, on 15th April 2013 Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the
General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress, who testified on
behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondents, swore to an affidavit which is quite
revealing. In substance, the depositions contained in paragraphs 15F,
under the heading UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS (i) (ii) and (iii) show
clearly that the basis of the petitioners claims under this category has not
been well founded or grounded.

In essence, what the depositions, together with an exhibit JAN 5 which
was attached, contained details of the constituencies with the variations in
their names and mistakes in mislabeling which positively depict that the
petitioners have no case. Out of abundance of caution, it is useful to
reproduce the relevant portions of the said affidavit referred to supra in
extenso for the full force and effect of the conclusion reached that this head
of claim ought to be dismissed.

(i)

I was in court when the counsel for the petitioners indicated that
they were restricting this allegation to the 22 polling stations they
identified on the basis of the orders of the court to supply further and
better particulars. Counsel for the petitioners confirmed they no
longer were making claims in respect of 28 polling stations as they
originally alleged. The affidavit of 2nd Petitioner now refers to 23
455

polling stations meaning there is one polling station in respect of

which further and better particulars have not been supplied as
ordered by the Court.

(ii)

We have also checked the details of the polling stations

provided by the petitioners, and have found that their confusion
arose, in some instances, out of the wrong spelling of the names
of the polling stations and, in others, they misquoted the polling
station codes. In some cases, the polling stations were used for
special voting. All the polling stations exist and were part of the
26,002 polling stations that were created by the 2nd Respondent
for the conduct of the December 2012 elections. Anyhow, the
pink sheets exhibited by the petitioners in respect thereto reflect
the genuine results of supervised election signed by the
Petitioners and 1st Respondents polling/counting agents

(iii) I attached to this affidavit, marked exhibit JAN 5 an analysis of the
details relating to the Petitioners allegation. The 2nd and 3rd columns
show the details provided by the petitioners in their allegation. The 4th
and 5th columns show the correct details of the polling stations. The
6th column shows the constituencies under which the polling stations
falls.

456

I have looked at Table 15, prepared by the petitioners as an explanation to

their address in Volume 2B. I have compared the polling station codes in
that Table 15 with the particulars contained in the affidavit of Asiedu Nketia
sworn to on 15th April 2013 already referred to with the Exhibit JAN 5 and I
am satisfied that the polling station codes are the same for all the 22
locations.

In respect of some of the names, there are some similarities. I am therefore
unable to accede to the request of the petitioners to annul results in this
category. This claim by the petitioners is accordingly dismissed.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS ABANDONED BY PETITIONERS

Since the petitioners have evinced a clear intention not to proceed with the
allegations of padding and reduction of votes save in one polling station as
well as the allegations on STL issue, no time whatsoever will be spent in
dealing with these.
BLOATED VOTERS REGISTER
There is no doubt, that the Petitioners claim of a bloated voters register has
been admitted by the 2nd respondents in paragraph 8 of their second
amended answer.

457

The explanation for this phenomenon has been attributed to error.

Explaining further, the 2nd respondent stated that this error resulted in the
figure of 14,158,890 instead of 14,031,793 being announced as the total
registered voters who turned out for the 7th and 8th December 2012
presidential elections.
They however state that the error would only affect the turn out percentage
and change the percentage from 79.43% to 80.15%.
The error effect is really very negligible and but for the credibility effect it
has on the 2nd respondents as an electoral administrator I will not give it
any serious thought.
However, if I consider the effects of Exhibits U and V, which are final voters
register for Adaklu constituency, polling station code number D090201,
(Adaklu Torda in the Volta Region) and for Afadjato-South constituency,
polling station code number D170901, E. P primary school respectively,
then the fine attributes of the biometric registration as the panacea to the
double and or multiple registration is a far cry from being over.
Refer also to instances of double registration which occurred in the
registration of prospective voters conducted outside the country for those
working in Foreign Missions, International Organisations and those
studying abroad.
However, since the effect of these infractions in the registration exercise
has not been proven to have had any effect on the final outcome of the
election, I will dismiss them, as I hereby do.
458


CONCLUDING REMARKS

This Court has set down two issues in the memorandum of issues it had
settled for the parties. These are as follows:-
i. Whether there were violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities
of the Presidential election held on 7th and 8th December 2012 and

ii. Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities, if any affected the outcome of the results of the
elections.

Having reviewed the entire pleadings and the evidence in this case, there is
absolutely no doubt in my mind that there have been some violations,
omissions, malpractices and irregularities of the Presidential elections held
on the 7th and 8th December 2012.

What must be noted is that, even though these infractions were not proven
to have been orchestrated by either the 1st or 3rd Respondents, but by the
agents of the 2nd respondents, once they are infractions which have been
established in some instances, I will uphold them. This is pursuant to
459

powers conferred on this Court under article 64 (1) and (2) of the
Constitution, 1992.

The resolution of the second issue is somewhat difficult to resolve. This is
because, it has to be determined whether these violations, omissions etc,
affected the outcome of the results.

In a vast majority of the categories, I can conclusively say that they have
had no effect on the outcome of the elections whatsoever. However, when
cumulatively put together, the said violations may affect the outcome of the
elections.

My decision on the

i. Duplicate Serial numbers;

ii. Voting without biometric verification; and

iii. Unknown polling station categories;

460

iv. Duplicate polling station results

is that I reject those claims outright and no consequence arises. They are
therefore dismissed.

However, since I have upheld in its entirety the No presiding officer
signature category, albeit with a different and much reduced set of pink
sheets, I must admit these may affect the outcome of the results of the
presidential elections. See Table 12A of Volume 2B of petitioners address
referred to above and my conclusion on this category as stated in the main
body of the judgment.

The petitioners relief one will therefore be granted in respect of the No
Presiding Officer Signature Category in terms of my decision as is
contained in the main body of the judgment.

Similarly, the petitioners would be deemed to be successful in respect of
their relief one in the over-voting category in terms as shall be determined
using the road map as indicated in the main body of the judgment during
the audit of the affected pink sheets.
Relief two is however accordingly dismissed. In respect of relief three, and
in view of my decision in the over voting and no presiding officer signature
461

category, and subject also to the total tally of votes in these two categories
that the audit shall disclose, where the total tally of votes in the said
category, reduce the total votes attributed to the 1st Respondent to fall
below the 50% plus one percentage, then in that case in line with
constitutional provisions in article 63 (3) I will direct that there should be a
re-run of the presidential elections in only the affected polling stations
between the 1st Petitioner and 1st Respondent.
Subject to the above decision, the petitioners claims stand dismissed.
To me the lessons in all these for the 2nd respondents as an institution is
very important. As an electoral administration body, the 2nd respondents
and I dare say the political parties who are major stakeholders have a duty
to review our entire electoral system with particular reference to entries on
the pink sheets. This has become very critical in view of the many errors,
that have become a routine feature of the pink sheets.

If it is understood that, these pink sheets are the documents that are
used to declare the results if no objections are raised, then the
method of recruitment, training and general orientation of the staff
that fill those forms at the polling stations, be they temporary or
permanent engaged in performing critical core functions on election
day has to be revised.

462

Similarly, I will also appeal to the political parties or candidates to ensure

that those persons they engage as agents to observe the elections at the
polling stations are not only loyal and dedicated party persons, but persons
who are competent enough to understand the implications of the recordings
on the pink sheets and the sequential nature of the said recordings.

I will also take this opportunity to congratulate the parties and their Counsel
for their conduct and assistance to the Court. This was despite the fact that,
even though tension was initially very high with loss of confidence and trust
among the Lawyers, with the passage of time, those barriers were removed
and the case progressed apace to its conclusion.

Todays judgment is a victory I believe once again for Ghanas democratic
credentials, to wit, the rule of law and our pursuit of governance related
issues. Let me therefore conclude this judgment with my favorite childhood
poem of Lord Alfred Tennyson THE BROOK.

I am sometimes really amazed at whether Lord Tennyson had in his
mind rivers and streams like the Volta, Dayi, Tordze or Onyasia when
he wrote The Brook which I believe many people were made to
memorise in their basic school.

463

Since

I find the words therein very apt and useful for the closing

pages of this judgment, I have decided to use them by adopting it to

our local situation.
I come from haunts of coot and hern,
I make a sudden sally
And sparkle out among the fern,
To bicker down a valley.
By thirty hills I hurry down,
Or slip between the ridges,
By twenty thorps, a little town,
And half a hundred bridges

The little town might well be Accra.

I chatter over stony ways,
In little sharps and trebles,
I bubble into eddying bays,
I babble on the pebbles.

464

With many a curve my banks I fret

By many a field and fallow,
And many a fairy foreland set
With willow-weed and mallow.

I chatter, charter, as I flow
To join the brimming river,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on ever.

And I add, for NPP and NDC may come and go, but Ghana goes on
forever as a country.
I wind about, and in and out,
With here a blossom sailing
And here and there a lusty trout
And here and there a grayling,

And if I may substitute Tilapia for the trout that will be more
meaningful
465


And here and there a foamy-flake
Upon me, as I travel
With many a silvery waterbreak
Above the golden gravel,

And draw them all along, and flow
To join the brimming river,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on for ever.

And I add that individual political giants may come and go,
but we as citizens of Ghana continue with our lives

I steal by lawns and grassy plot,
I slide by hazel covers;
I move the sweet forget-me-nots
That grow for happy lovers.

466


I slip, I slide, I groom, I glance,
Among my skimming swallows;
I make the netted sunbean dance
Against my sandy shallows.

I murmur under moon and stars
In brambly wildernesses;
I linger by my shingly bars;
I loiter round my cresses;
And out again I curve and flow
To join the brimming river,
For men may come and men may go,
But I go on for ever.

And I add that as Nkrumah, Busia, Limann, Rawlings,
Kufuor and Mills have all come and gone, but we as
Ghanaians will go on forever

467


It is a happy thought that the brook in our context, the Volta goes on
for ever: but we come and go.

In this respect, I will liken the river in the poem to the Volta and other rivers
and streams mentioned supra. The Volta flows from the North by different
tributaries until it is dammed at Akosombo.

Thereafter it flows swiftly through to another Dam at Kpong and flows
thereafter through the turbines to the dry savanna lands through Adidome,
Sogakope until it enters into the sea at the estuary at Ada.

Is it not a joy to realise that whilst the Volta flows into the sea every second
and in the process loses its identity, the phenomenon of its flowing down
through its tributaries in to the sea goes on forever.

I will therefore entreat all my countrymen and women to bear this happy
thought about the brook, which goes on forever, but we the players, i.e.
those of us who benefit from the brook we come and go. Life must
definitely continue to go on forever despite the reverses we suffer one way
or the other.

468


GOD BLESS GHANA.

(SGD)

J. V. M. DOTSE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT

ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C

The petitioners herein by an amended petition dated the

8/02/2013 claimed the following declaratory reliefs:
i. A declaration that John Dramani Mahama, the 2nd
Respondent herein was not validly elected president of the
Republic of Ghana.
469

ii. That Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the 1st Petitioner herein
was validly elected President of the Republic of Ghana.
iii. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet.
The facts of this matter appear not to be in any serious
controversy as the events culminating to this petition were not
disputed by the parties herein.

THE FACTS:
Ghana went to polls to elect a president on the 7th

and 8th

December 2012. The presidential election was constested by

eight candidates. The first petitioner herein Nana Addo Dankwa
Akufo-Addo was the candidate for the New Patriotic Party
whereas the first respondent His Excellency John Dramani
Mahama was the candidate for the National Democratic
Congress. The second respondent herein who under Article 45 of
the Constitution is the sole constitutional body charged to
conduct elections declared the first respondent herein as winner
of the presidential election. The first respondent obtained 5,571,761 votes
representing 50.7% of the valid votes cast thereby satisfying the
constitutional requirement under Article 63(3) of the Constitution. The first
petitioner obtained 5,248,898 votes representing 47.74% of the valid votes
cast. The contestants obtained votes as follows:
(1) John Dramani Mahama

--5,574,761

50.70%

470

(2) Dr.Henry Herbert Lartey

--88,223

0.35%

--5,248,898

47.74%

(4) Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom

--64,362

0.59%

(5) Akwai Addai Odike

--8,877

0.08%

--24,617

0.22%

(3) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo

(6) Hassan Ayariga

(7) Dr.Michael Abu Sakara Forster

--20,323

0.18%

(8) Jacob Osei Yeboah

--15,201

0.14%

--------------------------- -----------10,995,262

100%

---------------------------- ------------

Pursuant to the declaration of the results by the second respondent that the
first respondent had obtained 50.7% of the valid votes cast, the petitioners
invoked our jurisdiction under Article 64(1) of the Constitution by this
petition challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent on
several grounds captured in the petition. Some of the grounds were, overvoting, lack of signatures on the declaration forms by the presiding officers,
lack of biometric verification of voters, and duplicate serial numbers,
unknown polling stations and duplicate polling station code.

471

The respondents resisted the allegations of electoral improprieties

catalogued by the petitioners by stoutly denying all the
allegations of improprieties leveled against the second
respondent. Reading the answer of the second respondent to the
petition, it became clear that the second respondent never
admitted any of the irregularities or electoral improprieties
leveled against it and maintained throughout that the election
was conducted fairly and devoid of any such lapses as contended
by the petitioners. The answers of the other respondents were
supportive of the line of defence of the second respondents.
It must be pointed out for a fuller record in such a monumental
case that this petition was initially against the first two
respondents. The third respondent, however, successfully applied
for and obtained an order for joinder making them the third
respondent to this petition. Pursuant to the order for joinder, the
third respondent proceeded to lodge its answer to the petition.
Several interlocutory applications were made to us in course of
the proceedings (apart from the other for joinder) in the form of
further and better particulars, interrogatories, production and
inspection of documents etc. These interlocutory applications in
my view narrowed the scope of the trial.
At the applications for directions stage, the parties raised
several issues for the court to determine. However, this court
472

mindful of the pleadings and the nature of the reliefs sought

`imposed' only two issues on the parties for determination of
this petition. These issues were couched as follows:
i. Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices
and irregularities in the conduct of the presidential elections
held on 7th and 8th of December 2012; and
ii. Whether or not such violations, omissions, malpractices
and irregularities, if any, affected the outcome of the said
election.
At the application for directions stage, parties were directed to
file affidavits and annexed any relevant evidence they intended
to rely on during the trial within a specified time frame. It was
also ordered that irrespective of the fact that the court had
ordered filing of affidavits, parties were at liberty to give
evidence through their representatives. All the parties gave
evidence through their representatives and several exhibits were
tendered through them.

BURDEN OF PROOF:
Under the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 of 1975 a party who bears the
onus of proof has, an obligation to establish a requisite degree of
belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the
court.
473

According to Thayer in Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at The Common

Law page 355, the nature of the burden is as follows:
"The peculiar duty of him who has the risk of any given
proposition on which parties are at issue - who will lose the case
if he does not make this proposition out, when all has been said
and done".
It has been urged on this court that the evidential burden has not been
discharged by the petitioners. Writing on this topic, Professor Rupert Cross
in his invaluable book: Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 12th Edition states
at page 122 as follows:
"An evidential burden is not a burden of proof. It determines
whether an issue should be left to the trier of fact, while the
persuasive burden determines how the issue should be
decided".
In this petition, however, the burden of proof is squarely on the petitioners.
In an election in which results were officially published, the results must be
deemed as correct and any person challenging same ought to prove that it
wasn't so. Another point worthy of mentioning is that, the second
respondent, which is the only statutory body constitutionally charged to
conduct such elections in its official capacity must be presumed to have
regularly performed its official functions as it did in this case. This common
law position is statutorily supported by section 37(1) of the Evidence Act,
NRCD 323 of 1975. The presumption of regularity therefore holds in favour
of the second respondent.
474

Another common law principle to guide jurists in ascertaining which party

bears the burden of proof is this: which of the parties will lose if no
evidence is called. From the nature of the reliefs sought and the pleadings
in this case the petitioners will lose if no evidence is called. Under section
17(1) of the Evidence Act NRCD 323 of 1975, the petitioners obviously
bear the burden of producing evidence to establish that the election was
fraught with the irregularities they complained of. Applying basic common
law principles and the Evidence Act, it appears that the burden of proof is
squarely on the petitioners. This was indeed acknowledged by the
petitioners in their written address submitted to the court at the close of the
case.
STANDARD OF PROOF:
The petition is simply a civil case by which petitioners are seeking to
challenge the validity of the presidential elections. From the pleadings and
the evidence, no allegations of fraud or criminality were ever introduced by
the petitioners. The standard of proof of allegations in civil cases is proof
by preponderance of probabilities. It is only when crime is pleaded or
raised in the evidence that the allegation sought to be proved must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. See ARYEH & AKAKPO v AYAA
IDDRISU (2010) SCGLR 891 and FENUKU v JOHN TEYE (2001-2002)
SCGLR 985. The fact that this petition is brought under Article 64 of the
1992 Constitution does not make any difference in the applicability of
the standard of proof. The allegations in the petition that were
denied by the respondents in their answers to the petition ought
to be proved as required in every case. The fact that the petition
is a constitutional matter is also entirely irrelevant. The standard
475

of proof in all civil cases is the usual standard of proof by

preponderance of probabilities and no more.
From the various written submissions on record, none of the
parties has raised any question or issue as to any higher standard
of proof required to be applied in a purely civil litigation of this
nature.
THE EVIDENCE
The second petitioner's evidence followed the order for filing of
further and better particulars of the petition. In lengthy evidence
covering several days in the witness-box, the second petitioner
was subjected to rigorous and far-ranging cross-examination by
all the counsel for the respondents. His evidence, however,
touched on virtually all the irregularities or violations leveled
against the second respondent. It must be pointed out at this
stage of this delivery that from the pleadings no allegations of
electoral improprieties or irregularities were made against the
first and third respondents herein. It does appear that the
presence of the first respondent is simply based on the fact that
he was the sole beneficiary of the allegations of electoral
irregularities and improprieties leveled against the second
respondent.
The petitioners, pursuant to an order of this court filed several Statements
of Poll for the Office of President of Ghana which shall be referred to in this
476

delivery as Pink Sheets for the polling stations which results appeared to
be in controversy. In course of the evidence of the second petitioner it
became clear that the number of pink sheets filed was in doubt. It is part of
the official records of this petition that learned counsel for the first
respondent wrote to the Registrar to demand extra pink sheets which he
claimed had not been served on him. Learned counsel for the third
respondent made similar complaints of not having been served with the
exact number of the pink sheets allegedly filed by the petitioners in support
of their case. This controversy also affected the second petitioner. In his
evidence, the second petitioner said on oath that by his affidavit they were
to lead evidence to cover 11,842 polling stations, but ended up with 11,221
polling stations. This did not end there as according to him 83 polling
stations were later deleted to reduce the number of polling stations to 1
1,138. The second petitioner, however, ended up saying that the petitioners
were relying on 11,842 pink sheets. This was in his evidence under crossexamination on 9/05/2013.
As the confusion raged on about the figures, this court made an order for
the appointment of official referee to count the total number of pink sheets
filed by the petitioners. The referee, KPMG came out with the figure of
8,675 as the total number of polling stations that were uniquely identified in
course of the counting of the pink sheets. Upon filing its report to the court,
the official referee gave evidence through its representative. It turned out
during cross-examination of the official referee's representative, one Nii
Amanor Doodo that the total number of 13,926 were exhibits that they
counted and out of that 1,545 were not eligible so that reduced the number
to 12,381.Out of this number the exhibit numbers appearing once came up
477

to 9,504 and the polling station codes also appearing once came up to
5,470.
I must confess that I was very uncomfortable with the way and manner this
highest court of the land was left unassisted by the second respondent in
whose custody the original pink sheets are kept. It appeared from the
reports of the official referee that as many as 1,545 of the pink sheets
supplied by the petitioners as filed exhibits were not legible. In a serious
matter in which the mandate of the entire voters of this country is being
questioned through a judicial process one expected the second respondent
as the sole body responsible for the conducting of elections to have
exhibited utmost degree of candour to assist the court in arriving at the
truth. Surprisingly, the second respondent opted for filing no pink sheets
leaving this court unassisted and thereby placing reliance only on the pink
sheets supplied to the agents of the

petitioners at the various polling

stations in issue. Why the second respondent elected to deny a court of law
in search of the truth in a monumental case of this nature is beyond my
comprehension. I think this must be deprecated in view of its constitutional
autonomy granted to it to perform such vital functions under the constitution
for the advancement of our democratic governance. The second
respondent strongly resisted an Application to produce Documents for
inspection filed by the petitioners The Results Collation Form which are in
the exclusive custody of the second respondents were never exhibited,
indeed not a single constituency collation form was before the court This
court was thus left to consider only the pink sheets supplied by the
petitioners which were copies of the original.

478

Section 163(1) of the Evidence Act NRCD 323 offers some assistance in
relying on the pink sheets which were supplied to the petitioners by the
second respondent's agents at the various polling stations affected by
the petitioner. The section states as follows;
"An "original" of a writing is the writing itself or any copy
intended to have the same effect by the person or persons
executing or is issuing it"
This definition of " original" above , takes care of section 165 of the Act
which states as follows:
"165. Except as otherwise provided by this decree or any other
enactment, no evidence other than an original writing is
admissible to prove the content of writing"
From the evidence led there was no quarrel with the exhibits in the form of
pink sheets provided by the petitioners as regards their admissibility. To go
further, section 166 of the same Act provides as follows:
"166 A duplicate of a writing is admissible to the same extent as
an original of that, unless
A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original
or the duplicate; or
In the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in
lieu of the original"
I have said earlier that the respondents, especially the second respondent
who gave only copies of the pink sheets of the various polling stations did
479

not doubt the authenticity of the any of the pink sheets. As it was given only
in the normal official business of the second respondent, a strong
presumption is raised as to its authenticity under section 37(l) of the
Evidence Act.
I have taken time to discuss the admissibility of the pink sheets under the
laws as it stands now for the simple reason that the pink sheets appear to
be the only evidence which emanated from the various polling stations
which are in controversy before this court. As pointed out earlier, none of
the three respondents ever, even faintly, doubted the authenticity of any of
the pink sheets. On record copies of same had been served on parties
pursuant to the applications for directions before the second petitioner gave
evidence on oath. In the absence of any allegations challenging any of the
pink sheets I find as a fact that they clearly represented the official records
of whatever took place at the various polling stations throughout the
country with particular reference to the areas in controversy. The
presumption of its regularity and authenticity are clear. Throughout the
proceedings the court, the parties and the official referee appointed by the
court relied on the various pink sheets as representing the official records
of the polling stations. It may be argued for judicial purpose that the pink
sheets only raise a rebuttable presumption in favour of those who tendered
them, that is, the petitioners. Assuming that it was so no evidence, contrary
to and inconsistent with what appeared on the pink sheets was led to rebut
any presumption of regularity and authenticity. In any case, on the
authorities of YORKWA v DUAH (1992-93) GBR 278 CA and FOSUA &
ADU POKU v ADU POKU MENSAH (2009) SCGLR 1, the court have
established the principle of law to the effect that `wherever there was in
480

existence a written document and oral evidence over a transaction, the

time-honored principle is that the court was to lean favourably towards the
documentary evidence, especially if it was authentic and the oral evidence
conflicting'.
In my respectful opinion, save the pink sheet that fell into the category of
over-voting, no attempt was made by second and indeed, other
respondents for that matter, to rebut the presumption raised in favour of
the petitioners. The details of their evidence would be addressed
later in this delivery.
In the petition, the further and better particulars supplied by the
petitioners and the evidence catalogued the alleged irregularities,
malpractices and violations into six categories. It would, in my
opinion for the sake of clarity be appropriate to refer to them in
detail:
a. Widespread instances of over-voting
b. Widespread instances of voting without prior biometric
verification
c. Widespread instances of absence of the signatures of
presiding offices or their assistance on the Declaration forms
known as the 'Pink Sheets'.
d. Duplicate serial numbers
481

e. Unknown polling stations

f. Duplicate polling station codes
OVER - VOTING:
A look at all the statutes governing elections in this country
including even the Constitution is bereft of the definition of overvoting. The Peoples Representative Law PNDCL 284 of 1992, Cl
75 and any other statutes, touching on elections have not defined
over-voting. In course of his evidence, the second petitioner who
gave evidence for and on behalf of the other petitioners stated
that over-voting may occur when the total number of votes cast
exceeded the number of ballots issued to voters. Another
instance of over-voting is when the total number of votes cast in
the polling station exceeded the number of registered voters at
that particular polling station. The representative of the first and
third respondent, Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketiah disagreed with the
second petitioner on the definition. He was of the view that overvoting would occur only when the total number of votes cast
exceeds the registered voters for the polling station in
controversy. This definition of over-voting by Mr. Johnson Asiedu
Nketiah was supported in its entirety by the second respondent
who gave evidence as the Electoral Commissioner himself when
he said that a classical definition of over-voting is when the total
number of votes cast exceed the total number of registered
voters. This so-called classical definition prompted my brother
482

Baffoe-Bonnie JSC to question him whether this definition holds

as there would never be hundred percent turnout in any
elections. The second respondent's representative, that is, Dr.
Afari-Gyan insisted on this definition. However, when he was
subjected to rigorous and far-ranging cross-examination he
admitted that certain pink sheets qualified to be declared as overvoting notwithstanding that the total number of votes did not
exceed the registered voters in some polling stations.
It must also be pointed out that in course of his evidence the
second petitioners admitted that some of the pink sheets which
he initially considered as over-voting were not indeed so. Under
cross-examination the second petitioner had to admit out of
candour that some were arithmetical errors which did arise out
of the filing of the figures on the affected `pink sheets'.
The lack of any statutory definition presents an invidious situation
for the court to decide the fate of several polling stations which
the petitioners have presented to us to annul the votes on the
simple but cogent grounds that the results had been
compromised and that there was clear want of transparency at
the affected polling stations. Under this category of over-voting
the representatives of the first and third respondent was of the
view that in course of the voting a 'foreign material' may be
found in the ballot box to lead to over-voting. I must confess that
I found it very difficult to agree with him how a so-called
483

transparent electoral process could be so. In any case he was not

re-examined on what a `foreign material' meant and I can safely
presume that a `foreign material' may be some material that is
foreign to the ballot paper in the ballot box or something different
from the ballot papers in the ballot box.
In my opinion, over-voting may occur when the total number of
ballot papers issued to voters at a particular polling station is
exceeded by the total number of ballot papers in the ballot box.
Secondly, it may occur when the total number of ballot papers in
the ballot box exceeds the number of registered voters on the
polling station register. To define overvoting by limiting it to the
second part of the definition would not hold in that it is a fact of
history that it is always impossible to get a hundred percent,
turnout at any public elections. For the purpose of this delivery I shall limit
myself to the first definition of over voting.
The latter one put forward by the second respondent which was
supported in its entirety by the representatives of the first and third
respondents would not be helpful.
Assuming without admitting that there is merit for considering the other
definition put forward by the respondents, it cannot be pointed out that both
definitions in principle are against the idea of allowing one person to have
more than one vote. This in my view would run counter to the preamble of
the constitution which talks of "The principle of universal adult suffrage"
484

which guarantees to the citizen qualified to vote only once in every election.
I am of the opinion that in the exercise of the right to vote if it turns out that
an individual has voted more than once as required under the constitution
in an election, the whole electoral system is compromised by the abuse of
that right. In the local case of TEHN ADDY V ELECTORAL COMMISSION
& OR [1996-97] SCGLR 589 Acquah JSC [as he then was] made the
following observation in his opinion at page 594 when he pointed out the
onerous duty imposed on the second respondents as follows:

"Article 45 entrusts the initiation, conduct and the whole
electoral process on the Electoral Commission and article 46
guarantees the independence of the commission in the
performance of its task. A heavy responsibility is therefore
entrusted to the Electoral Commission under article 45 of the
constitution in ensuring the exercise of this constitutional right
to vote"

Under regulation 24(1) of Public Elections Regulations 2012 C.l 75, no

voter should cast more than one vote. It states as follows;
24(1) A voter should not cast more than one vote when a poll is taken
It is therefore unconstitutional and contrary to regulations 24(1) of Cl 75 for
one person to be allowed to cast more than one vote. It must be pointed
out for further clarity that the Public Elections Regulations 2012, Cl 75 was
enacted pursuant to powers conferred on the second respondent under
article 51 of the constitution which provides as follows: 51."The Electoral
485

Commission shall by constitutional instrument make regulations for

the effective performance of its functions under this constitution or
any other law and in particular for registration of voters , the conduct
of public elections and referenda including provision for voting by
proxy"
Apart from the principle of Universal Adult Suffrage boldly stated in the
preamble to the constitution, Cl 75 which regulates elections also grants
"statutory injunction" against the abuse of electoral process when one
voter cast more than one vote as required by law. As the second
respondent failed to prevent the abuse of electoral process it stands to
reason that its own regulations governing the elections was clearly
breached when it recorded several instances of over-voting as
presented by the petitioners It is a clear case of illegality proved to my
satisfaction on the evidence presented to this court in the nature of
documentary evidence, that is, the pink sheets. Donaldson J [as he then
was] in BELIVIOR FINANCE CO LTD v HAROLD G. COLE & CO [1969] 2
ALL ER 904 said at page 908 as follows:
"Illegality, once brought to the attention of the court, overrides
all questions of pleadings including any admissions made
therein"
It should also be noted that all elections here and elsewhere, especially in
constitutional democracies are regulated by statutes. It is within the limits
of the statutes that elections elsewhere and in this country are conducted.
In the very recent case of REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK
486

DIVISION) ACCRA; EX-PARTE NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY

( G H A N A L O T TO O P E R ATO R S A S S O C I AT I O N & O T H E R S
INTERESTED PARTIES) [2009] SCGLR 390 at 397 the worthy president
of this court ATUGUBA JSC said:
"It is communis opinio among lawyers that the courts are
servants of the legislature. Consequently any act of a court that
is contrary to a statute such as Act 722 s 58(1)-(3) is unless
expressly or impliedly provided a nullity"

The question is if a court of law does not give effect to the law who
will?
In the above-cited case, Date Bah JSC, one of the most illustrious and
lucid exponents of our contemporary judiciary said at page 402 as
follows;
"No judge has authority to qrant immunity to a party from
consequences of breaching an Act of parliament . But this was the
effect of the order granted by learned judge. The judicial oath enjoins
judges to uphold the law, rather than condoning breaches of Acts of
parliament by their orders. The end of the judicial oath set out in the
second schedule of the 1992 constitution is a follows: `I will at all
times uphold preserve protect and defend the constitution and laws
of the Republic of Ghana: ... is entirely inconsistent with any judicial
order that permits the infringement of an Act of Parliament"

487

In my respectful opinion any attempt to endorse a clear illegality in the

nature of over-voting which is contrary to and inconsistent with our
constitution and the constitutional instrument made thereunder would itself
be unconstitutional in the sense that it would defeat the principle of
Universal Adult Suffrage stated in our constitution.
I am of the opinion that no matter the number of votes involved that may
constitute over-voting; it is a clear illegality and should not be endorsed by
a court of law, more so by the highest court of the land. I will therefore
proceed to annul all votes which were proved by the petitioners to be so.
The figures and the polling stations would be addressed later in this
delivery.
NO SIGNATURE OF PRESIDING OFFICER
It is part of the case for the petitioners that some of the polling stations'
statement of poll and Declaration of Results for the office of the President
form known in these proceedings as the Pink Sheets were not signed by
the presiding officers of the polling stations affected . It should be clear
beyond question that on this allegation of fact the parties did not join issue
The only disagreement on this issue was the legal effect of the lack of
signature of the presiding officers at the polling stations involved. It has
been argued vigorously in the closing address of the petitioners that it
amounted to a serious irregularity as it was a clear breach of a
constitutional provision. This provision is Article 49(l) (2) and (3) of the
constitution which states as follows:
49(l) At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret
ballot.
488

(2) Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall, in the
presence of each of the candidates or their representatives and their polling
agents as are present proceed to count at that polling station, the ballot
papers of that station and record the votes cast in favour of each candidate
in question.
(3)The presiding officer, the candidate or their representatives and, in the
case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agent and the polling
agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating
(a)The polling station; and
(b)The number of votes cast in favour of each candidate in
question; and the presiding officer shall, there and then,
announce the results of the voting at that polling station before
communicating them to the returning officer.
It has been argued and indeed maintained throughout these
proceedings that the signature of the presiding officer at the
polling stations appear to be mandatory and failure on the part of
the presiding officer to sign the pink sheets is tantamount to
electoral irregularity in the form of constitutional violation.
The respondents stoutly denied the effect of no signature by the
presiding officer. In his evidence on 27th May 2013, this was what
the representative of the first and third respondents said in his
evidence-in-chief:

489

Q. You are also aware that reference has been made to pink
sheets on which there is no signature of the presiding officer at
the polling station?
A. Yes my Lord I am aware of that allegation.
Q. What is your response to that?
A. My Lord it is true that we are all trained by the 2nd
Respondent that at the close of poll after sorting and tallying
votes to the candidates you have all the party agents including
the presiding officers who must sign then there is a declaration
then after the declaration each party agent is given a copy of the
pink sheet and the presiding officer has a duty of conveying the
results of the polling stations to the collation centre. So my Lord I
am aware that there is requirement that the presiding officer
must sign.
Learned counsel for the petitioners subjected his evidence to
crossexamination on this part of the evidence-in-chief.

He said under cross examination as follows:

Q. Are you aware that there are several instances where the
presiding officer did not sign the pink sheets?
A. Yes I have seen some instances where the presiding officer did
not sign.
490

Q. And your agents brought you several pinks sheets where the
presiding officer had not signed?
A. Yes I have seen some of them
Q These are your well trained agents?
A. Yes
Q. And they did not see that the presiding officer failed to
sign was a malpractice?
A. My Lord the agents are not to direct the presiding officer
about how they do their work. It is the presiding officer who
invites the agents to come and testify. So anytime the agents
disagree with the way and manner the work has been done, they
cannot, compel the presiding officer to do it, but they will raise
an objection if they think that would affect the outcome of the
results. But in this case, the signature or lack of it of a presiding
officer does not affect the results; it cannot add votes to any of the
contestants.
The representative of the second and third respondents in further answers
to the questions put to him under cross examination said:
"So it can only be a matter of omission because I cannot see
anybody who will finish his work, invite others to come and
attest to his work and then proceed to declare results, proceed to
transmit the declared results to the collation centre. And I am
491

sure if the presiding officers had time to revise their analyses

they would have detected this and correct it".
This was part of his answers under cross-examinations on the same
27/05/2013.
On the part of the second respondent who conducted the elections in
controversy, the lack of signature of presiding officers on the various
polling stations amounted to a mere irregularity if I understood him. For a
more detailed evaluation of the relevant evidence on this issue I refer to
the evidence of Dr. Afari Gyan under cross-examination by counsel for
petitioners.
Q. One of the reasons you gave for the non signature of the presiding
officer is that the presiding officer could be influenced not to sign?
A. My Lord I have not given any reasons for the presiding officers not
signing.
Q. You did not say that the presiding officer could be influenced, you
never said that?
A. What I said was that we should be worrying because if we are not, the
presiding officer could be induced not to sign simply because he wants to
achieve a desired result.
Q. So rather you said that they could be induced not to sign for a desired
result. First of all what will that desired result be?
A. My lords I would not know.
Q. And who could induce the presiding officer?
492

A. Anybody who is an interested party.

Q. Could the presiding officer also be induced to enter wrong figures?
A. I guess anybody could be induced to do anything.
In an answer to a question by learned counsel for the third respondent
the witness said that:
"Our conclusion, as a commission, is that the very fact of the
presiding officer not signing will not injure any particular
candidate and therefore we accept the validity. You see, I don't
know what you lawyers mean by malpractice. In election
language that will not be a malpractice unless you can show that
the reason why the presiding officer did not sign was because he
wanted to favour or to injure somebody. In other words, it is a
simple irregularity".
Q. In fact Dr. Afari Gyan , you would agree that if presiding
officers had the ability by not signing to make the votes of
people not count that will actually be a danger to the rights of
people who have queued to vote, would you not?
A. My lords, I would agree because somebody could be
prevailed upon not to sign.
I think all the respondents against whom this allegation of no
signature of the presiding officer has been made agree that it was
a mere irregularity. It is to me the duty of the court to form an
opinion what would be the legal effect of lack of signature of the
493

presiding officer .l have already quoted above the constitutional

provisions under Article 49 clauses 1,2 and 3.
In interpreting a provision of a statute and constitutions for that
matter, at times it would assist the court for guidance if reference
is made to the law as it then stood before the coming into effect
of the provisions under consideration.
Perhaps it may be very useful for a moment to embark on a
journey into constitutional history of this country in the search for
clues to know how a constitution of this country should have this
provisions entrenched in under Article 290(1) (e) to render it not
vulnerable to easy amendment by Parliament. It is clear from a close
reading of the 1960 Republican constitution that no such provision existed.
In both the 1969 and 1979 constitutions, this country never had any similar
provisions whereby the presiding officer of a polling station was given
constitutional duties of this nature in such a serious matter which
determines the fate of public elections and referenda. A search into the
proceedings of minutes of the Consultative Assembly dated the 17th of
March 1992 would yield some clues. The contributions from J.C AmonooMonney and Mr Muhammed Mumuni on this issue appears to be very
instructive and invaluable.
The requirement of the presiding officers signature on polling stations
declaration forms or Pink Sheets emerged as a constitutional requirement
for the first time in our post-republican constitution of 1992. As a country
494

with a desire to entrench democracy based on universal adult suffrage and

transparency and accountability the framers of the 1992 constitution had
cause to debate and insert this very important provisions in the constitution.
Care must be taken to avoid any attempt to multiply words through
linguistic manipulations to deny it effect as a constitutional provision,
entrenched for a purpose.
It has been vigorously argued and urged on us by citation of leading
cases like TEHN ADDY V ELECTORAL COMMISSION ; CENTRE FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES (CHURCIL) V ATTORNEYGENERAL AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION [consolidated] [2010]
SCGLR 575 that any rejection of the votes cast by voters in the exercise
of their constitutional rights as enshrined in the constitution on the
grounds that the presiding officer at any polling station did not sign will
be contrary to the constitutional rights of the individual to cast a valid
vote. Both cases appear to support the argument that nothing should be
done to deny any qualified Ghanaian his constitutionally guaranteed
rights to vote at public elections. I must place it on record that I was a
member of the panel which delivered the judgment in the AHUMAHOCANSEY case 'supra' on the interpretation of Article 42 of the
constitution.

I said as follows at page 676:

"However, Article 42 which is under interpretation is a
constitutional provision and, indeed an entrenched one which
stands on its own. Under Article 42 of the constitution, it is a
495

constitutional right which the framers of our constitution have

entrenched in the constitution to be enjoyed as a basic tenet to
democratic governance in electing our leaders. No wonder the
preamble of our constitution talks of the principle of universal
Adult suffrage"
I came to the conclusion in the above case in support of the opinions of my
worthy colleagues including the Chief Justice to make it abundantly clear
that prisoners ought to vote in public elections and should be registered to
exercise that fundamental constitutional right. Reference were indeed
made to the TEHN ADDY'S case by members on the panel to support the
constitutional right vested in the Ghanaian who is qualified to vote to be
registered to vote.
In this case, it is not the case that those electorates who would be affected
by any ruling adverse to their rights to vote were denied their rights to
vote. They voted in the normal course of the elections on the days the
elections were held. The only point raised against their votes is that the
presiding officers who were enjoined by the constitution to sign the Pink
Sheets did not sign them. The right to vote in my respectful opinion is not
just limited to voting but to have the vote counted. In the case of UNITED
STATES V CLASSIC 313 US 299 it was said that:
"the right to participate in the choice of representative for
congress includes the right to cast a ballot and to have it
counted at the general election whether for the successful
candidate or not".

496

I recognise, like it was done in the TEHN ADDY'S case, the individual's
constitutional right to vote and to have the vote counted as a
constitutional right. My only problem is that the requirement of the
signature of the electoral officer which is also a constitutional
requirement is seriously in issue.
On this, the case of MILWAUKEE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PUBLISHING
Co V BURGLESON, 255 US 407 comes to mind. In that case the court
was of the opinion that constitutional rights should not be fritted away by
arguments so technical and unsubstantial.
Before I proceed to form an opinion on this vital issue of constitutional
importance affecting the rights of the voters whose votes were cast in the
normal course of the elections, I think it would not be out of place for me to
examine in detail the role of the presiding officer whose lack of signature on
such a vital electoral document has sparked controversy. Apart from Article
49 of the Constitution which deals with the role of presiding officer in an
election, nowhere in the constitution is presiding officer mentioned.
However, Article 51 of the constitution mandates the second respondent to
make regulations for elections and referenda. It is a fact of electoral history
that several of such regulations were made by the second respondents
prior into the coming into force of the current one which is: Public Election
Regulations, 2012 (CI 75). Regulation 17 spells out the functions of the
Presiding officers and polling assistants.

497

The nature of this case is such that I have to quote ad longum the official
duties of the presiding officer under regulation 17(1) of C.I 75: 17 (1) The
commission shall appoint
(a) a presiding officer to preside at each polling station; and
(b) a number of polling assistance that the commission may consider
necessary to assist the presiding officer in carrying out duties.
(2)The duties of the presiding officer include
(a) setting up the polling station ;
(b) taking proper custody of ballot boxes, ballot papers,
biometric verification equipment and other materials
required and used for the poll;
(c) filling the relevant forms relating to the conduct of
the poll;
(d) supervising the work of the polling assistants;
(e) attending to proxy voters;
(g) maintaining under order at the polling station;
(h) undertaking thorough counting of the votes;
(i) announcing the results of the election at the polling station;
and
(j) conveying ballot boxes and other election materials to the
returning officer after the polls.
498

From the functions imposed by the instrument on the presiding

officer, it stands out clearly that virtually all the administration
and even including security matters for the smooth running of the
polls are vested in the presiding officer. The constitutional duties
imposed on the presiding officer apart from signing a declaration
stating the polling station and the number of votes cast in favour
of each candidate also includes announcing the results .It stands
to reason that he is deemed as the representative of the Electoral
Commissioner at the polling stations. In my respectful opinion the
signatures of the polling agents and the representatives of the
political parties at the polling station may be dispensed with as
from the available Pink sheets most of the political parties never
presented their representatives or polling agents at many polling
stations.
From the evidence on record apparent on the pink sheets many
political parties did not send agents or representatives to many of
the polling stations. None of the parties herein is making a case
out of that, in that, the interpretation one can put on Article
49(3) is that political parties are not bound under the constitution
to send agents to the polling stations. Their absence at any
polling station and for that matter not signing any pink sheets as
representatives or agents of the political parties would not
amount to any irregularities or malpractice in the electoral
process. A close reading of regulation 19 Of C.1 75 that is The
499

Public Elections Regulations 2012, in my view shows the limited

vote the polling agents play at the polling stations. The polling
agent does not have any major role to play in course of the
elections. It is clear under regulation 44 of C.l 7 that the nonattendance of the polling agent shall not invalidate the act or a
thing done The role of the polling agent is to detect
impersonation and multiple voting and certifying that the poll was
conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations governing
elections.
The constitutional duties imposed on presiding officers at polling
stations as regards the result of elections are repeated in C.l 75
under regulation 36.The presiding officer is enjoined to sign the
declaration stating the name of the polling station, the number
of votes cast in favour of each candidate, and the total number of
rejected ballots, before proceeding to announce the results to the public.
The signature of the presiding officer is mandatory in the constitution and
the regulations made thereunder which is under consideration.
Some statutory provisions may express the performance of an act in
several forms. It may be permissive or mandatory. The courts in Ghana
have shown remarkable consistency in this regard. As far back as1972 in
the case of REPUBLIC V DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ACCRA; EX PARTE
ADIO [1972] 2 GLR 125 CA, the Court of Appeal was of the view that as
the town clerk who was mandatorily required by paragraph 19 of Act 54,
sched.Vll to affix a notice before a premises could be sold to recover rates
500

owed or intention to occupy that premises, had not done so the sale was
quashed on the grounds that a mandatory statutory condition was not
performed.
In all statutes, the courts apply mandatory provisions as expected and
failure of non-compliance are not waived in some circumstances The
current constitution has been interpreted in line with the time-honoured
principle that mandatory provisions must be respected. In A-G V FAROE
ATLANTIC COMPANY LTD [2003-05] GLR 580, Date-Bah JSC said at
page 601 as follows:
"The plain meaning of clause 5 of article 181 of the constitution
1992 would appear to be that where the government of Ghana
enters into " an international business or economic transaction
" it must comply with requirements, mutatis mutandis, imposed
by article 181 of the constitution. Those requirements clearly
include the laying of relevant agreement before parliament in
terms of clause (1) of Article 181 of the constitution, 1992. And
under clause (2) of article 181 of the constitution 1992, the
agreement is not to come into operation unless it is approved
by a resolution of parliament"

Article 181 clause 2 is a as follows:

(2) An agreement entered into under clause (1) of this article shall be laid
before parliament and shall not come into operation unless it is approved
by a resolution of parliament.

501

Effect of this mandatory provision has always being recognized in recent

cases of MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU V A-G &ORS (unreported) suit No. J
1 /15/2012, a recent decision of this court is also in point.

In the FAROE ATLANTIC case, Akuffo JSC said at page 613:

"Had the court of Appeal considered article 181(5) of the
constitution, 1992 critically, it might have realized that, taking
into account its language the overall effect is that, as with
loans, international business or economic transactions to
which the government is a party also require parliamentary
authorization shall be required for certain transactions, then
any transactions to which the provisions are applicable that is
concluded without the authorization of parliament cannot take
effect".
I have quoted at length the dicta of this court's esteemed jurists to
demonstrate the effect of mandatory provisions in statutes and the
constitution for that matter. The current Interpretation Act which is in
operation provides further support.

Section 42 of Interpretation Act, Act 792 of 2009 is as follows:

"42. In an enactment the expression "may" shall be construed
as permissive and the empowering and the expression "shall"
as imperative and mandatory".

502

The question that I respectfully ask is simply this:

If in an ordinary statute shall should be construed as imperative and
mandatory, what interpretation should we place on the same word shall if it
appears in our constitution and calls for construction?
I am of the firm view that the framers of the constitution inserted the word
shall there for a purpose and should be construed as imposing a
mandatory duty on the presiding officers to perform their statutory duty
which appears clearly as a condition for the declaration of the results at the
polling stations. When there is clear breach of mandatory provisions of a
constitution it must be so declared and no effect is given to the act
performed in breach of the provisions in issue.
As the constitution is the supreme law, equitable defences of estoppels, etc
would obviously be inapplicable See TUFFOUR V A-G [1980] GLR
637.The forceful argument that the agents of the various parties including
that of the petitioners signed in my respectful opinion would not matter.
Learned counsel for the first respondent has urged on this court that as the
presiding officer counted the votes and the results properly tallied, entered
onto the declaration form and declared by the presiding officer the court
must adopt a purposive approach to the interpretation of Article 49(3) and
should not invalidate the results for lack of signature by the presiding
officers. It was also urged on us that the polling station agents did not
protest in any prescribed manner as required by electoral laws and further,
it would accord with preserving the votes of the Ghanaian voters if the court
should resolve this issue in favour of the respondents under Article 42 of

503

the constitution on which the two landmark cases of TEHN ADDY and
AHUMAH-OCANSEY supra, were decided by this very court.
I have considered the issues raised by counsel for the first respondent on
this issue of lack of signature of the presiding officer. It appears the
submissions of other counsel for the other respondents support his views
which he has seriously pressed on this court.
My personal view is that Article 42 which gives every qualified citizen of
Ghana the right to vote in public elections cannot be read in isolation in this
case. Every right conferred on the citizenry is regulated by the constitution.
A citizen of Ghana who is eighteen years and above and of sound mind
cannot go to a polling station and cast a vote without going through the
procedure of registration laid down by law. Even the voting at the polling
station which ultimately ends up with sorting out ballot papers for valid and
invalid votes, announcement of results after the necessary entries on the
pink sheets are all statutorily regulated.
In my opinion, the article under consideration, that is, Article 49(3) is very
clear and unambiguous it is trite law that when the provision of a statutes
and constitution for that matter is clear and unambiguous it is not the duty
of a court of law under the guise of interpretation to scan the provision to
interpret the clear and unambiguous provisions. This has been the position
of the law since the oft-quoted case of AWOONOR-WILLIAMS v
GBEDEMAH [1970] CC 18 was decided.

504

If the fundamental law of the land which is the constitution has entrenched
Article 49(3) to make it a constitution precedent for the validity of the
election results, I am of the view that effect must be given to it
notwithstanding the fact that Article 42 preserves the right to vote.
My position on this issue may be seen by some jurist as not preserving the
right conferred by Article 42 but a judge's duty is to uphold the
constitution which is the supreme law of the land. I always remind myself
that some citizens who queued to vote may have their votes annulled
under the circumstances by applying Article 49(3). But as it has been said
in several cases that provision of the constitution must be upheld in all
times. In the case of HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION V
BLAISDELL
290 US 398 at 483, Justice Sutterland had this to say:
"I quite agree with the opinion of the court that whether the
legislation under review is wise or unwise is a matter with which
we have nothing to do. Whether it is likely to work well or work ill
presents a question entirely irrelevant to the issue. The only
legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional. If it
is not, its virtues, if it have any, cannot be invoked to accomplish
its destruction. If the provisions of the constitution be not upheld
when, they pinch as well as when they comfort then must as well
be abandoned" [emphasis mine]

505

My constitutional duties would be fulfilled as a judge if I enforce the

constitution. Our judicial oath taken on our appointment as judges enjoins
us to at all times uphold the constitution which is the supreme law as
clearly stated in the second schedule to the 1992 constitution .
If Article 49(3) would work injustice against the citizenry who registered,
queued and voted, it is regrettable that I cannot in upholding the very
constitution engage in any manipulation of language and deny its effect
when it has been thrown to us for the first time ever in the history of this
court . I will uphold the constitution and proceed to give effect to it by
annulling the votes cast which were not, on the face of the pink sheets,
signed by the presiding officer to reflect what actually took place at the
various polling stations involved .
The arguments that the agents signed and the result publicly declared by
the presiding officers would not hold as in my opinion there is a clear
breach of a vital constitutional provision which is a condition precedent to
the declaration of the results involved in the affected polling stations.

VOTING WITHOUT BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION DEVICES

This is yet another ground on which the petitioners are seeking to annul
votes cast. The petitioners in their pleadings and the further and better
particulars supplied made available several Pink Sheets which they claim
support their allegation that some votes did not go through biometric
verification process.

506

It is their contention that under regulation C.I 75 of 2012 a voter must go

through biometric verification to make his votes valid. The said regulation
states as follows:
30(1) A presiding officer may, before delivering a ballot paper to a
person who is to vote at the election, require the person to produce
(a) A voter identification card or
(b) Any other evidence determined by the commission
In order to establish by fingerprint or facial recognition that the person is
the registered voter whose name and voter identification number and
particulars appear in the register.

The voter shall qo through a biometric verification process.

It is a fact of history in our electoral process that this is the first time in
Ghana that biometric verification process was introduced in public
elections. A short trip into history since 1992 in my respectful view will
suffice. In 1992 a ballot box was not transparent for any voter to see what
was in it. Voters cast their votes without any voter identification card
provided the voter did register at a particular polling station, he or she could
vote. Voters' identification and transparent ballot boxes were later
introduced but voters' identification cards were initially limited to few areas
in Ghana. Another development which emerged was the introduction of
voters' identification card for all registered voters in Ghana. Perhaps the
last one is the introduction of biometric verification machine process,
which was hitherto unknown in our electoral process. Its
introduction, as said above is supported by C.l 75 of 2012.
507

In my respectful view the issue of voting without biometric

verification could be resolved by determining whether indeed
some voters were not biometrically verified and secondly,
whether or not lack of the biometric verification should lead to
the annulment of votes cast. The petitioners contend that some
voters did not undergo any verification as required under the
regulation as it then stood. The respondent deny vehemently this
allegation of lack of biometric verification. Like any other denials
in civil litigation it calls for proof by preponderance of
probabilities.

On this issue, it is clear that the petitioners bear

the burden of proof to satisfy this court that indeed some voters
were not biometrically verified as pleaded in their pleading based
on which further and better particulars of the allegations were
filed later.
The respondents, to be precise, the second respondent said the
challenges which emerged from the use of the biometric
verification machines were later successfully overcame and
nobody voted without biometric verification and therefore there
was no breach of the regulations.
The pink sheets in evidence to prove this issue of no biometric
verification necessitates a closer evaluation of the rival
testimonies.The evidence of the second petitioners is to the effect
that the entries made by the presiding officer is column C3 of the pink
sheets which is obviously the ballot accounting column provided a basis to
508

support their allegation. The petitioners are of the view that column
provided a basis to support their allegation. The petitioners are of the views
that column C3 represents the same details on the voter identification cards
captured by the second respondent and duly issued to those who were
biometrically registered. That column was intended to, as it were, capture
the number of those who voted at the elections with the aid only of their
voters identification cards and did not obviously go through prior fingerprint
verification as required by C.I 75. In the opinion of the petitioners any entry
of figures made by the presiding officer in that column represents the
number of voters who did not undergo biometric verification before voting.
In his evidence on this issue the second petitioners again relied exclusively
on the pink sheets to make his case. No wonder in several answers to
questions he said:
"You and I were not there"
In his answers to questions under cross-examination from counsel for the
first respondent these are some of the answers:
Q In all instances that you alleged people voted without biometric
verification you are not suggesting for a moment that somebody voted
whose name was not in the voters register. Are you?
A We are suggesting that the face of the pink sheets indicates a number of
people who voted without biometric verification.
Q. This is a direct question, you cannot evade it and I am
asking you a direct question. Are you alleging that anybody
voted who was not qualified to vote?
509

A. I wasn't at the polling station so I can only go by what is on

the face of the pink sheet.
These answers to probing question from the first respondent's
counsel shows how the petitioner was relying, as it were,
exclusively on the materials on entries on the pink sheets.
In his evidence, the first respondent's representative, Dr. Kwadwo
Afari Gyan said by way of denial that the entries on the pink
sheets in respect of C3 were evidence of voting without biometric
verification . He further insisted that those entries were clerical
errors and that column C3 was not required to be filed at all by
the polling station presiding officers. He continued in is evidence
that column was placed there to cater for those voters who had
been registered by the electoral commission during the biometric
registration exercise before the voting but whose biometric data
had got missing as a result of some difficulties that the electoral
commission had encountered. He went further to say that as he
wanted to give everybody the opportunity to vote he devised this
facility to allow those persons to vote without going through the
biometric verification and that would involve the filling in form 1 C
before one could vote. According to the witness this proposal was
rejected outright by political parties; and he instructed that Form
1 C should not be sent to the polling stations and that the C3
column was not supposed to be filled by the Presiding Officers.
Dr. Afari Gyan said in details as follows;
510

"C3 was put there in an attempt to take care of those people who
through no fault of theirs would have valid voter ID cards in their
possession but whose names will not appear on the register and
therefore could not vote. But let me add that when we discussed
this with the political parties , some of them vehemently said no,
that we will not allow any person to be verified other than by the
use of verification machine. I am just explaining why the C3 came
there. The parties said no and we could understand that
argument that this facility is not given to one person, it is being
given to every presiding officer, so you are given this facility to
26,002 and it is possible to abuse it. So we do not want it and we
agreed that facility would not be used". Unfortunately, the forms
had already been printed, and these forms are offshore items, so
we could not take off C3. And what we said, and we have already
said this in our earlier communication was that we will tell all the
presiding officers to leave that space blank because they have
already been printed and there was no way that we could take it
off. And that explains the origin of C3 on the Pink Sheets .It was
a serious problem".
I have gone very far to quote the crucial evidence of the second
respondent on this matter of no biometric verification. In his view
C3 was not to be filled but they were filled by some presiding
officers. The case of the petitioners on this matter, as pointed out
earlier in this delivery, is only limited to the entries on the face of
the pink sheets and no more. The second respondent on this
511

issue tendered Exhibit EC 2 on 24th April 2013. Exhibit EC 2 is: A

guide to Election officials' E lection 2012 Presidential and
parliamentary Elections.
This book or manual as one may call it, was prepared by the
second respondent to guide the public on voting procedure On
the face of the pink sheets or the statement of poll for the office
of President of Ghana the C column of which C3 should be filled
or not to be filled is designated as the Ballot Accounting (To be
filled in at END of the poll before counting commences).If indeed
this was what was officially used to train the presiding officers it
does not contain C3 but on the right hand side of it a provision is
made for C3 to be filled . On the left hand side column it
commences from C 1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6.
At C6 it is stated thus:
What is the total of Cl, C2, plus C3, plus C4? (This number
should equal A.1 above) Why the deletion of C3 appeared on the
left hand side and was stated on the right hand side is
incomprehensible to me. Whether it was as a result of bad
printing was not explained. When it was printed and how the
training was done as regards this problem is still shrouded in
doubt.
My problem is that these pink sheets cumulatively form mass
documentary evidence amassed by the petitioners. They were
512

filled and given to the agents of the parties after the close of
polls. The only contribution from the agents in generating pink
sheets at a polling station is that they sign the form if they are
present. If they also want to protest formally, this they could do,
and no more. The pink sheet to me is under the exclusive control
of the presiding officer from the time polls start till after he has
signed them and issued them out. This is a statutory document
required by law and even under the constitution to be signed by
the presiding officer. It stands to reason that if entries are made
thereon, prima facie, the entries are deemed as the official
recordings of whatever took place at the polling station and no
more. I do not think that any of the parties to this petition will
dispute the fact that the recordings on the face of the pink sheets
are deemed to reflect what the presiding officer in his official
capacity recorded at the polling station for the declaration of the
results. This is a documentary evidence of a transaction very
serious and vital in every respect. To me it raises a strong
presumption of regularity and satisfies, in my view the best
evidence under the circumstances provided the evidence is
admissible.
I do not find any objection to the admissibility of the pink sheets. In J.SABA
& Co LTD V WILLIAM [1969] CC 52 CA it was held as follows:
"MAJOLGBE V LARBI has been considered by this court in its
judgment in the recent case of the Republic v Asafu-Adiaye No 2
513

[1968] CC 106 CA in which it was held that the dictum quoted

above is no authority for the proposition that a judicial tribunal
cannot decide an issue on the evidence of one witness or on the
oath of one person against that of another"...
When the statement therefore refers to an averment capable of
proof in some positive way, e.g. by producinq document it can
only mean such an averment as by its very nature requires to
be proved by than a mere assertion on oath. What evidence is
required to prove an averment can only depend on the nature
of the averment"
The evidence by the presentation of the pink sheets by the petitioners in
my opinion raises prima facie evidence of what officially took place at the
various polling stations. In my opinion the petitioners have discharged the
burden of proof as none of the pink sheets supplied in respect of lack of
biometric verification attracted any objection on admissibility. The
respondents who on the pleadings and the evidence doubted what is
officially recorded on the pink sheets must satisfy this court that the
recordings are incorrect or suffer from any defects known to admissibility of
evidence. As regards the second respondents whose agents, that is the
presiding officers, prepared, signed and issued the pink sheets to the
petitioners agents at the various polling stations they are estopped from
denying their authenticity. Under section 26 of the Evidence Act, NRCD323
of 1975 the law is clearly stated as follows
"26" Except as otherwise provided by law including a rule of
equity, where a party has, by his own statement, act or omission,
514

intentionally and deliberately caused or permitted another

person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief,
the truth of that thing shall be conclusively presumed against
that party or his successors in interest".
From the evidence of the second respondent's representative he relied on
all those pink sheets to declare the results and he cannot just deny its
contents. He is bound by the entries on the face of the pink sheets. I find
his explanation as most unsatisfactory in that he could not indeed tell the
court when and by which means it was officially made known to the
presiding officers not to fill C3.lf he was in serious doubt , a court of law
must not leave this vital evidence led in rebuttal to guess or conjecture. I
am aware of the submissions from counsel for the first and third
respondents that this evidence on the C3 was left unchallenged by counsel
for petitioners.
I accept the proposition of law that when evidence led against a party is left
unchallenged under cross-examination the court is bound to accept that
evidence, see AYIWAH V BADU [1963] 1 GLR 86, NARTEY V VRA
[1989-90] 2 GLR 368 and TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V SAMI FARI
[2005-06] SCGLR 882, but it was clear that Dr.Afari Gyan who gave
evidence on this issue was just conjecturing and it would be a sad day for
me to believe such evidence, more so when throughout his evidence
under-examination be demonstrated want of credibility. I find that the
respondents, especially the second respondent who led evidence to rebut a
documentary evidence prepared by his duly authorized agents failed to
lead credible evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity of officials
acting in their statutory capacity and performing their constitutional duty.
515

The evidence on the face of the pink sheets that there were no biometric
verification has not been rebutted by the second respondent as required by
law in civil cases .I find as a fact that the petitioners have proved that the
entries show conclusively that those voters were not verified
biometrically .On this I cannot rest without citing the case of HAWKINS V
POWELLS TILLERY STEAM COAL Co LTD [1911] 1 KB 988,996 where
Buckley LJ said:
"When it is said that a person who comes to court for relief must
prove his case, it is never meant that he must prove it with
absolute
certainty. No fact can be proved in this world with absolute
certainty. All that can be done is to adduce such evidence as that
the mind of the tribunal is satisfied that the fact is so. This may
be
done either by direct evidence or by inferences from facts. But
the matter must not be left to rest in surmise, conjecture or
guess".
In my opinion the various affidavit filed against this issue of lack of
biometric verification do not in the least rebut the documentary evidence
duly prepared by the second respondent's agents, signed by them and
duly used for the declaration of the results which is in controversy. I feel
that this is not the type of evidence needed to rebut the presumption of

516

regularity raised in favour of the pink sheets covering lack of biometric

verification.

Having found that the clear regulation has been flouted by the second
respondent, I will uphold the claim of the petitioners on this category and
proceed to annul votes cast without the biometric verification as required by
law.

UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS, DUPLICATE POLLING STATION

CODES, AND DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS
These categories in my view could be dealt with together. I had a draft copy
of the opinion of my esteemed brother Dotse JSC on these remaining
categories. I took time to have detailed discussion with him on his draft. It
appeared that my learned brother had put a lot of industry in preparing his
opinion on these categories of electoral irregularities or malpractices. I find
his reasons very convincing in law based on the evidence adduced before
us by the parties. I am in support of the reasons canvassed by him for the
dismissal of these categories and I cannot multiply words to justify my
agreement with him. I therefore, like my brother proceed to dismiss these
categories as not proved by the standard expected of a suitor.

CONCLUSION
Before I rest my opinion on this petition, I must comment on the point
raised by learned counsel for the first respondent who argued that the
petitioners did not exhaust the remedies available by petitioning the second
517

respondent herein. I have considered the evidence on record and it

appears that the petitioners presented a petition to the second respondent
to postpone the declaration of the results. This, the second respondent
declined. He said it was unmeritorious and according to Dr. Afari Gyan, the
evidence supplied to him later by the petitioners' party was woefully
insufficient to justify the postponement of the declaration of the result. I
have taken time to refer to this point raised in his closing address as I think
he was the only counsel who raised this point and therefore calls for
attention on the part of this court which owes counsel a duty to comment on
it.
I deferred the computation of the voters whose votes were to be annulled
under the three categories fully discussed by me earlier on in this
judgment. It has become very difficult in the computation of the figures as
pointed out earlier in that there were changes in the figures on several
occasions and the KPMG report as the report of the only official referee
was not conclusively helpful. It must be pointed out that when parties filed
their respective addresses the petitioners compiled a data and had it
served on counsel for the respondents. These data contained the list of
Pink Sheets used in this petition and those deleted. It is on record that
these data were served on the respondents for their study before the court
invited oral submissions from counsel. It turned out that no question was
raised against the data submitted by the petitioners. It probably may not be
an accurate representation of the exact figures from the pink sheets filed in
this petition. However, I have noticed that all the pink sheets captured in
the date were in the KPMG report which was accepted by the court as the
official record of pink sheets to be considered by this court which had also
518

taken care of pink sheets not legible as well as others that suffer from
other deformities.
On the several pink sheets that fell within the category of No Signature,
the invalid votes which were declared as annulled by me would be
659,814 out of which the first petitioners' annulled votes would come to
170,940 whereas that of the first respondent would come to 382,088. It
does appear that his would reduce the first petitioner's valid votes to
5,077,958 whereas that of the first respondent's would come up to
5,192,673. It must be pointed out that other contestants obtained
insignificant numbers.
However, neither the first petitioner nor the first respondent would obtain
fifty per cent plus as required under the constitution as the first petitioner's
percentage votes would be 48.68% whereas that of the first respondent
would be 49.78% of the total valid votes cast.
As regards over-voting the first petitioner's votes after annulment of the
invalid votes would be 5,040,176 forming a 48.88% of valid votes whereas
that of the first respondent would be 5,112,667 making a percentage of
49.59% of the valid votes cast.
On no biometric verification, the invalid votes to be annulled against that of
the first petitioner would be 221,678 leaving his valid votes to 5,027,220
and making a percentage of the total valid votes cast stand at 49.14% in
percentage terms, whereas the first respondent's total annulled votes
would come up to 526,416 leaving him with 5,048,345 and a percentage of
49.35% of valid votes cast.
519

THE ISSUES: I do not think that from the evidence of the petitioners, both
documentary and oral, any one would doubt that the petitioners failed to
prove multiple irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations against
the second defendant. I am of the firm conviction that issue (1) was proved
to my satisfaction by the available evidence on record and I accordingly
proceed to resolve same in favour of the petitioners.
On Issue (2), I find from the evidence that given the number of votes
affected by the violations, omissions and malpractices and the
irregularities appear to be such that they impacted adversely on the
results, I would also resolve issue (2) in favour of the petitioners.

I would have readily proceeded to grant the reliefs sought in its entirety but
the ONLY problem is that from the available evidence, the widespread
violations, omissions and malpractices appeared to be of such proportions
that it would not be proper for me to declare the first petitioner as winner of
the elections in controversy in terms of the reliefs sought. I find the
malpractices, omissions and violations enormous which rock the very
foundation of free and fair elections as enshrined in our constitution which
was itself breached through over-voting, lack of presiding officer's signature
and lack of biometric verification which takes its validity from Article 5l of
the very constitution.

I would therefore grant the relief (i) in view of the evidence led and decline
to grant relief (ii). I, however, as consequential order, order the second
respondent to organize an election to elect a president as I cannot rely on
520

an election which was seriously fraught with all the malpractices,

irregularities and statutory violations proved in this petition to declare the
first petitioner as having been duly elected.
Before I rest my delivery, I would want to point out that so much reliance
was placed on the Canadian case of OPTIZ V BORYS WRZESNEWSKYS
[2012] SCC 55. It must be pointed out that this Canadian case which was
cited by all must be read within its own context for its persuasive value. It
was decided on the legislation as it then stood, that is, Canada Elections
Act, S.C 2000, C9, SS. 524 (1) (b), 531(2) involving an electoral petition in
which a candidate in federal election was defeated by margin of twenty-six
votes alleging irregularities.

No matter the persuasive effect of this decision which was split, care must
be taken not to allow foreign decisions to persuade us when our own
legislations or constitution are placed before us for interpretation. In the
case of SAM NO.2 V A-G [2000] SCGLR 305, Her Ladyship Justice
BanfordAddo JSC cautioned us in the following words at page 315:
"In interpreting our constitution, it is important that the
constitution should be interpreted in the light of its own wording
and not by reference to their constitution in other jurisdictions,
for example, that of the United States. Our constitution is
peculiar to us and we must therefore interpret it in accordance
with its clear words as well as its spirit.

521

Therefore cognizance must be taken only of the expressed

provisions in our constitution and in accordance with the clear
intentions of the drafters of the constitution. No reliance should
be placed on the requirements of the constitutions in other
jurisdictions, whose constitutions are structured to suit their
individual needs"
With this admonition at the back of my mind, I am done.

(SGD)

ANIN YEBOAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT

522

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC:
On the 7th and 8thdays of December, 2012, Ghanaians went into general elections to
elect 275 members of parliament and an Executive President and Vice President.
The Elections were conducted by the second respondents, a constitutional body
vested with the exclusive powers to conduct public elections in Ghana. The
Parliamentary elections though, had its own problems, is not the subject of this
petition. So any reference to the December Election in this judgment, unless
otherwise contrarily stated, is a reference to the 2012 Presidential Elections in
Ghana.
The Executive Presidency was contested by 8 persons and their running mates
who, by law, would be designated Vice-President when such person is so elected.
Seven of the candidates were sponsored by Political Parties, namely:
1. National Democratic Congres(NDC)JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA,
2. New Patriotic Party (NPP)NANA ADDO DANQUAH AKUFFO-ADDO,
3. Convention Peoples Party (CPP) DR MICHAEL ABU SAKARA FOSTER,
4. Peoples National Convention(PNC)HASSAN AYARIGA,
5. Great Consolidated Peoples Party(GCPP),DR.HENRYHERBERT
LARTEY;
6. Progressive Peoples Party (PPP) Dr. PAPA KWESI NDUOM
7. UNITED FRONT PARTYAKWASI ADDAI ODIKE
One person JACOB OSEI YEBOAHstood as Independent candidate.

523

O n t h e 9th o f D e c e m b e r, t h e s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t , p e r i t s
ChairmanKwadwoAfariGyan, who is constitutionally designated as the returning
officer of the Presidential Elections, declared the NDCs John DramaniMahama,
duly elected as President with a 52 per centum majority, and the NPPs Nana
AddoDankwaAkuffo-Addo, as runner-up with 47 percentum of the votes. The
declaration, showing positions and percentage of votes won has been gazzeted as
C.I. 85.
Feeling aggrieved, the 1st petitioner, Nana AddoDankwahAkuffo-Addo, who stood
on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party as presidential candidate, his running mate,
Dr.MahamaduBawumia,and Jake ObetsebiLamptey, the Chairman of the New
Patriotic Party, filed a 33-paragraph petition challenging the declaration by the 2nd
of the 1st respondent as the validly elected president. The reliefs that the petitioners
seek are:
1.

a declaration that John DramaniMahama was not validly elected as president

of the Republic;

2.

a declaration that Nana AddoDankwahAkuffo-Addo, the 1st petitioner,

rather was validly elected president of the Republic of Ghana; and

3.

consequential orders as to this court may seem meet.

The petition had initially been brought against the President elect and the E.C. but
the NDC was joined to the action as a third party on the basis that they sponsored
the 1st respondent, and were therefore necessary parties. Their application to join
was approved by a 6to 3 majority. After the initial pleadings, amendments, further
amendments and a host of interlocutory applications from all parties, which said
applications included an application for further and better particulars, an
application to serve interrogatories, etc, the case was finally set down for hearing.
524

After sifting through a mass of pleadings the Court set the following two issues
down for trial:
1.

Whether or not there were irregularities, malpractices, and/or statutory

violations in the conduct of the December 2012 Presidential Elections;
and

2.

Whether or not these irregularities, malpractices and statutory violations, if

any, substantially or materially affected the outcome of the December
2012Presidential Elections.

Giving further directions as to the mode of trial the court decided that trial was
going to be by affidavit evidence and that parties could give viva voce evidence
and be cross examined. Witnesses who filed statements may be cross examined
with the leave of the court.
THE PETITIONERS CASE
It is the case of the Petitioners that during the conduct of the December 2012
Presidential Elections, there were several irregularities, malpractices, omissions
and commissions and downright violations of statutory provisions including
constitutional provisions that were pervasive in a significant number of polling
stations throughout the nation. These anomalies were such that certain number of
polling stations totaling about 11,138 (specifically identified), should have their
results annulled. Some of the anomalies pointed out by the Petitioners were as
follows:
1.

Failure of the Presiding officer of the polling station to sign the declaration
of the results;

2.

The use of Pink Sheets with Duplicate Serial numbers;

525

3.

Allowing some people to vote without Biometric Verification; and

4.

Over voting.
Two other in fractions were also isolated ie. Pink Sheets of Unknown
polling stations, and Polling stations with duplicate pink sheets. But the
second petitioner sought to abandon these when he said the numbers
involved in those two infractions were not significant to affect the
outcome of the elections.

FAILURE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO SIGN DECLARATION
FORMS (PINK SHEETS)
It is the case of the petitioners that, anumber of polling stations pink sheets were
not signed by the presiding officers as required by law and so all those polling
stations should have their results annulled and the figures so annulled be deducted
from the results as declared. They claim that if the votes are annulled for this
constitutional or statutory violation alone the results as declared will be affected. It
is their case that the use of the word shall in a document connotes a mandatory
situation as against may which is permissive. And when it is used in a no less
statute as the constitution of the State, anything done contrary to what shall be
done is a violation that cannot be saved.
The 2nd respondent put up three defences to this claim.This is what they said in
their response to the petition;
The 2nd Respondent denies paragraph(f) of ground 1 of the 2nd Amended Petition
and says that upon being served with the further and better particulars provided
by the Petitioners following orders of this honorable court dated February 5 and
526

7, 2013, it conducted an examination and analysis which showed that: of the

2,009 pink sheets that the Petitioners claimed to be unsigned, 1,099 were in fact,
signed by the Presiding officer at the polling station or, at the instance of the
Returning Officer at the Collation Centre; 905 were unsigned, representing 3.5%
of the total number of pink sheets nationwide; and 1,989 pink sheets,
representing 99% claimed to be unsigned were signed by the Polling or Counting
Agents of the candidate. Thus, the 2nd Respondent maintains that the request by
the Petitioners that votes cast at the said polling stations are invalid and should
be deducted is without merit and should be refused. It should also noted that
when several pages of paper impregnated with carbon are used in order to have
several copies of each page, it could happen that if the person signing or writing
thereon does not press hard enough on the paper, the signature or writing could
appear faint or illegible on some of the pages.
In addition to this Counsel has also submitted that the absence of the signature of
the presiding Officer is not sufficient to annul the votes of persons who have
exercised their franchise under the constitution, particularly in a situation where
the accredited representatives of the parties or the candidates have duly signed to
authenticate the regularity of the conduct of the polls. The right to vote as
guaranteed under the constitution is paramount and not only must it ensure that
persons qualified to vote exercise it, but it must also be ensured that peoples votes
once regularly exercised are not annulled on the basis of technicalities. Failure to
sign by the presiding officer ought to be seen as an irregularity that does not affect
any party or conduct of the polls. The call for annulment of votes under this head is
therefore misplaced.

527

THE USE OF PINK SHEETS WITH DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS

It is the case of the Petitioners that the Pink Sheets were imported into the country
with numbers embossed on each pink sheet to differentiate it from any other pink
sheets. In that case each pink sheet should bear a different serial number in all
26002 polling stations in the country. However this was not done. They detected
that out of the over 11000 pink sheets reviewed, over 10000 had their counterparts
or duplicates used instead of their original pink sheets. This was done because
the second respondents had intentionally imported more pink sheets with the view
to manipulating the results of the polls. The use of counterpart pink sheets instead
of different pink sheets for each polling station is an irregularity which should lead
to annulment of votes in all polling stations affected, in this case about 10,000 plus
polling stations with a total voter population of over 2.5 million voters.
The response of the second respondent to this claimis that the petitioners claim has
no basis and not well founded. Yes it is true that each pink sheet has a different
number, but they are not in series and therefore not serial numbers properly so
called. The numbers are not security numbers that can be used to track the polling
stations in which they are actually used. So any pink sheet with any number can be
sent to any region, constituency or polling station. Pink sheets are packed at
random and their distribution does not follow any pattern in terms of the numbers
embossed on them.
Rather, when the pink sheets are sent to the regions thence to the constituency and
polling stations, they are blank. It is when they are filled in that the polling station
codes become the identifying marks and reference points.For example, when one
picks a pink sheet with a number likeA170202 written in the polling station code
number column, even without reference to the name one can say that this pink
sheet comes from a constituency in the western region. The letter A is western
528

region, the first two digits are constituency codes and then polling station etc .In
effect a pink sheet is not identifiable by the number embossed on it but rather by
the polling station code written on it. So whether two pink sheets bearing the same
embossed numbers are used by two different polling stations either in the same
region or in different regions it doesnt matter and definitely cannot call for the
annulment of ballots validly cast. This category should also be dismissed.
VOTING WITHOUT PRIOR BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION.
For the first time in the history of elections in this country, the

2012 general

elections was supposed to be conducted with identification of potential voters by

biometric verification. The nation spent a lot of time and energy registering eligible
voters biometrically. Biometric registration involved taking the finger prints of
eligible voters in addition to facial recognition. In the round up to the elections a
lot of inter party discussions took place and it was finally decided that voters who
could not be biometrically verified on the election day would not be allowed to
vote even if they had their names in the register. There appeared in the political
landscape the popular slogan NO VERIFICATION, NO VOTING. C.I.75 reg
30(2) supportedthisslogan. The constitutionality of this CI is being challenged in
court, so I will stay off discussion on this for now.
Be that as it may, constitutionality or otherwise, all the parties went into the general
election with the understanding that no verification, no voting.The whole concept
of biometric registration and verification before voting had been introduced as a
way of reducing to the barest minimum, if not eradicate completely, the incidence
of claims of double voting and impersonation that crop up after every election. It
was supposed to increase transparency and enhance peoples acceptability of the
election results.Indeed at one of the numerous press conferences the electoral
commissioner made it clear that at the end of the polls,

where the votes cast

529

exceed the number of persons verified to vote by even one vote, the results of the
said polling station will be cancelled. Based on this understanding, some voters
were turned away from some polling stations and were not allowed to vote because
they could not be verified. But as borne out by some of the pink sheets at a number
of polling stations reviewed by the petitioners, some people were allowed to vote
without prior biometric verification. In fact in quite a number of cases recordings
on the pink sheet indicated that all voters voted without prior biometric
verification.
The response of the respondents, particularly the EC, was that no persons voted
without biometric verification as agreed on by the parties before election day. And
that the entries found in the pink sheets which creates the impression of people
voting without prior biometric verification, were wrongly made and part of the
administrative lapses that did not affect the conduct of the polls. That the
respective polling agents signed at the various polling stations without any excuse
belies the claim that any electoral irregularity went on.

OVER VOTING
The petitioners claim that there were indications that in quite a number of polling
stations there was over voting. And this is evident on the face of the pink sheet.
The petitioners give three main definitions of over voting:
1.

Where the ballots found in the ballot box exceed the number of ballot
papers issued to the polling station;

2.

Where the ballot papers found in the ballot box exceed the number of
persons REGISTERED to vote in the polling station; or

530

3.

Where the ballots found in the box exceed the persons actually verified
to vote, i.e.those registered and actually appearing at the polling
station, verified and given ballot papers to vote and actually voting.

According to the petitioners all these figures are verifiable from the face of the
pink sheets. The votes in all such polling stations should be annulled and same
deducted from the overall votes garnered by the parties. Statistically, this infraction
alone could lead to a change in political fortunes of the two.
The respondents disputed this three tier definition and said the classical definition
of over voting is where the ballot papers actually exceed the number of persons
actually registered at the polling station. Even then when it comes to over voting
the pink sheet may not be the primary or only source of information. And that if
figures on the pink sheet indicates that the ballot papers found in the box actually
exceed the figure written for the number of registered voters, one will have to cross
check from the actual register of the polling station. It might well be that the
presiding officer might have made a mistake when writing the figure of number of
registered voters.
In their estimation there was no over voting and therefore this category should also
be rejected.

ANALYSIS

531

Before going into the evidence given by the parties in support of their respective
cases, there are some three subject areas that I want to get out of the way. Their
impact on the substantive matter before the court will be seen in the course of
delivery.
BURDEN OF PROOF
I must begin the analysis of this case with the statement that in spite of its nature
and despite all the emotions that this case has aroused, the rules and procedure for
arriving at the conclusion of this case, unless specifically spelt out by C.I. 75are
still the same. So who bears the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion and
what is the degree or standard of proof? Generally speaking, this depends largely
on the case, that is, the facts averred and therefore the facts in issue. In the absence
of express or statutory provisions to the contrary, the ordinary rules that obtain in
civil causes or matters should apply. Generally, the burden of proof is therefore on
the party asserting the facts, with the evidential burden shifting as the justice of the
case demands. The standard or degree of proof must also necessarily be proof on
the preponderance of the probabilities
In the case ofAckah v Pergah Transport Limited & Others [2010] SCGLR 728,
my very able sister Mrs. Justice Sophia Adinyira, JSC, summed up the law on the
burden of proof in civil cases, at page 736, as follows:
It is a basic principle of law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of
proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality
of credibility short of which his claim may fail.It is trite law that matters that
are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that, on
all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of a fact is
more reasonable than its non-existence. This is the requirement of the law on

532

evidence under sections 10 (1) and (2) and 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act,
1975 (NRCD 323).
Even though election petitions seem different it has been held that the laws relating
to the burden of proof and standard of proof are the same as those in civil cases.In
the Nigerian election case of Abubakar v YarAdua [2009] All FWLR (Pt 457) 1
SC, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that the burden is on the Petitioner to
prove, not only non-compliance with the electoral law, but also that the noncompliance affected the results of the election.
In the same vein, the Canadian case of Opitz v Wrzesnewskyi2012 SCC
55-2012-10-256, the Canadian Supreme Court held, by majority opinion, that:
An applicant who seeks to annul an election bears the legal burden of proof
throughout
Also, in Col. Dr. KizzaBesigye v MuseveniYoweriKaguta& Electoral
Commission, Election Petition No. 1 of 2001, the majority of the Ugandan
Supreme Court Justices held as follows:
the burden of proof in election petitions as in other civil cases is settled. It
lies on the Petitioner to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court. The only
controversy surrounds the standard of proof required to satisfy the Court.
As to how this burden of proof is discharged see the cases of Majolagbe vLarbi
1959 GLR1`90 AT PG 192 where OllennuJ repeating his dicta from the case of
Khoury v Richter(unreported)said;
Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party
makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, eg by producing
documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances or
533

circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going
to into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it
repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts
and circumstances, from which the court can be satisfied that what he avers is
true
It bears emphasis therefore that unless the burden shifts the petitioners bear the
burden of proof on all matters raised and the standard of proof is on the
preponderance of probability

DEFINITIONS
Elections are complex systems designed and run by fallible humans. Thus, it is not
surprising that mistakes, errors, or some other imperfection occurs during an
election. Because absolute electoral perfection is unlikely and because finality and
stability are important values, not every error, imperfection, or combination of
problems supports an election contest, voids the election, or changes its outcome.
This court must spend sometime to determine whether votes affected by minor
irregularities are nonetheless valid, and if so, separating them from the votes that
are invalid because they are tainted by more serious irregularities.

As indicated in the opening pages of this ruling, the claim of the petitioners is
based on allegations of irregularities, malpractices and downright constitutional
violations. These anomalies are such that they cannot be glossed over and that if
they are taken into consideration it would affect the fortunes of the contestants.
Irregularity is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary as follows

534

Activity or a practice which is not according to the usual rules, or not

normal: alleged irregularities in the election campaign
Malpractice on the other hand is defined as careless, wrong, or illegal behavior
while in a professional job.
Constitutional violation is where a person goes against, or refuses to obey a
provision in the constitution.
From the various definitions it can be seen that while constitutional violations and
malpractices are all irregularities, not all irregularities may be constitutional
violations or malpractices.
The petitioners have isolated essentially four main irregularities as having affected
the elections. While conceding that the isolated irregularities,and even more
irregularities might have occurred, the respondents assert that these
irregularitiesare essentially administrative lapses or infractions that did not affect
the conduct of the polls.
While answering questions under cross examination, Dr. Afari Gyan,the Electoral
Commissioner and principal respondent in this case said, there were several
irregularities that occurred during the elections, even more than the petitioners
have catalogued, but the test should always be whether the irregularities affected
the conduct of the polls.
The word irregularity is defined as activity or practice which is not according to
the usual rules or not normal. What in effect this means is that when a thing is done
not in the regular way it is irregular. For example, if election is expected to begin at
7.00am and it begins at 8.00am or later as happened in several places all over the
country during the 2012 December elections, there was an irregularity; if the
presiding officer is expected to sign as the constitution mandates, though it is a
535

constitutional violation, it is also an irregularity; when a person knowingly votes

twice against the law, though it is a malpractice, it is an irregularity. Etc.etc.
According to the petitioners when such irregularities occur in any polling station it
brings the results of such polling station into disrepute and the election in that
station becomes tainted or compromised. The results of such polling station should
be annulled and not added to the regularly taken results to taint it. An irregularity is
an irregularity and the results should be seen in the same light.
While conceding that there can be many irregularities,it is obvious that not every
irregularity necessarily affects the conduct of the polls and therefore should call for
an annulment of results. For example starting an election at 10am instead of 7am is
an irregularity, but unless it can be proved that the late start of the polls was
deliberately done to give one party or candidate an advantage over another, or even
deliberately done to deny some voters the right to vote to the gain or to the
detriment of a particular party, such an irregularity cannot, or ought not be used to
annul a regularly taken poll. So, as asserted by the 2nd respondent, the test should
be whether an irregularity affected the conduct of the polls. Incidentally the
petitioners seem to think otherwise.

ARICLE 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ANNULMENT OF VOTES
Article 42 of the 1992 constitution provides as follows
Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has
the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of
public elections and referenda
536

The petitioners claim that as a result of some irregularities, an aggregate number of

votes TOTALLING OVER 4 MILLION ARE TAINTED AND THEREFORE
SHOULD BE ANNULLED. Not only should the votes be annulled, the court
should go ahead and declare the winner of the general election based on the
UNTAINTED VOTES. This I daresay is a very bold request for which this
courtwill need a lot of convincing to grant!
To annul a vote is an act of disenfranchising a person and therefore a really big
legal issue and can only be resorted to if a voter engages in an election malpractice
For example PNDC law 284 as amended,provides as follows
Section 29 UNAUTHORISED VOTING
A person who knowingly votes
a. At an electionat which that person is not entitled to vote, or
b. More than once at an election,

Commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 500
penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or both the fine
and the imprisonment, and is disqualified for a period of five years from the date
of the expiration of the term of imprisonment, from being registered as a voter or
voting at an election

An annulment of votes or for that matter disenfranchisement must therefore be
traceable to an offence by the voter. If eligible Ghanaian citizens, ie qualified and
registered, go to queue for so many hours to exercise their constitutionally granted
right to vote, and, assuming their votes become tainted through no fault of theirs,
537

but through administrative lapses, then it is my strong and considered opinion that
they cannot be disenfranchised with the annulment of their votes. The least the
petitioners could ask for is CANCELLATION of the results. Where it is proved
that the identified administrative lapses affected the Conduct of the Polls, then
voters in such places must be given the second chance to exercise their franchise if
cancelling their votes, can seriously impact the outcome of the general election. By
so doing, governance will be carried out by persons elected by majority of the
people ready and willing to exercise their constitutional right to vote, and not by a
small minority of the people, as is being advocated for by the Petitioners.
Article 1(1) of the Constitution1992 provides as follows;
The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name
and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the
manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.

The only way of actualizing this provision is to guarantee universal adult suffrage.
The right to vote as guaranteed by the constitution is paramount and in Ghana this
right has been specifically protected. The cases of TehnAddyv Electoral
Commission

[1996 97

SCGLR 589and Ahumah Ocansey V Electoral

Commission; Centre for Human Rights & Civil Liberties(CHURCIL) v

Attorney General & Electoral Commission (consolidated) 2010 SCGLR 575
are landmark decisions in the protection of the right to vote.
TheAhumahOcanseycase emphasised that this right to vote is so fundamental that
even prisoners, or persons incarcerated for offending the society, unless
specifically debarred from voting are entitled to exercise their right to vote. In that
case the electoral commission was seeking to rely on a portion of C.I. 12 reg 1d
538

which, together with section 7(5) of the PNDC LAW284, had the potential of
disenfranchising prisoners by reason of residence. The Attorney General argued
that once the impugned law affected prisoners who had offended society, it was
alright. This Court refused to buy into this argument and ruled per Georgina Wood
CJ that;
the attorney generals counter argument that the impugned legislation
is reasonably required in the public interest, in that access to prisons must be
restricted, and further that violators of the law must be punished, kept away
from the public, under lock and key, disenfranchised and not to have any say in
who governs them. These, counsel contend, do serve as their just deserts for
causing pain and suffering to others. In short counsel contends the legislation
meets the opportunity test. THIS ARGUMENT, EXAMINEDIN THE BEST OF
LIGHTS I AM AFRAID, WOULD HAVE no place in participatory democracy,
with the guaranteed rights that are enshrined in the constitution
In the Tehn-Addy case, commenting on the paramountcy of the constitutional right
to vote, this is what Acquah JSC(as he then was) said

.In order to give meaning and content to the exercise of this

sovereign power by the people of Ghana, article 42 guarantees the right to

vote to every sane citizen of eighteen years and above. The exercise of this
right of voting, is therefore indispensable in the enhancement of the
democratic process, and cannot be denied in the absence of a
constitutional provision to that effect
Per curiam (i) A heavy responsibility is entrusted to the Electoral Commission
under article 45 of the Constitution, in ensuring the exercise of the constitutional
right to vote. For in the exercise of this right, the citizen is able not only to
influence the outcome of the elections and therefore the choice of a government
539

but also he is in a position to help influence the course of social, economic and
political affairs thereafter. He indeed becomes involved in the decision-making
process at all levels of governance.
The right of prisoners to vote was the subject for comment in the Canadian case of
Sauv v Attorney-General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and
the Solicitor-General of Canada [2002] SCR 519; 2002 SCC 68,
The right of every citizen to vote, guaranteed by s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, lies at the heart of Canadian democracy. The Law at
stake in this appeal denies the right to vote to a certain class of people those
serving sentences of two years or more in a correctional institution.

The

question is whether the government has established that this denial of the right
to vote is allowed under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society. I conclude that it is not. The right to
vote, which lies at the heart of Canadian democracy, can only be trammeled for
good reason. Here the reasons offered do not suffice.
In the course of the judgment in the Ahumah Ocansey case reference was made to
several cases both local and foreign to support the principle that once a right, like
the right to vote, is guaranteed in the constitution, then unless there is an absolute
need to do the contrary, any legislation that seems to take away this guaranteed
right must be viewed with circumspection and frowned upon.
Though the right to vote seems on the surface not to be what is in issue in this
petition, it actually is at the center. What the petitioners are seeking to do is to
annul the regularly cast votes of some citizens of Ghana. From the authorities and
analysis above, it is clear that not only must the courts ensure that voters
guaranteed right to vote be protected but that that right when regularly exercised
must be protected. Guaranteeing a persons right to vote without ensuring that the
540

right once exercised is protected is as bad as preventing him from exercising his
right to vote. On this basis a call for the annulment of votes must be actually
backed by credible evidence of legal infraction on the part of the voter and not on
administrative lapses
IN the case of OPITZ V WRZESNEWSKYI SCC 55,(2012 3 SCR cited by the
respondents the Supreme Court of Cananada said at paragraph 56
In our view adopting the strict doctrinaire approach creates a risk that an
application under Part 20 could be granted even where the results of the election
reflects the will of the electors who in fact had the right to vote. This approach
places a premiumon form over substance and relegates to the back burner the
Charter right to vote and the enfranchising objective of the Act.
Par 66
By contrast, if a vote cast by an entitled voter were to be rejected in a contested
election application because of an irregularity, the voter would be irreparably
disenfranchised. This is especially undesirable when the irregularity is outside of
the voters control, and is caused solely by the error of an election official.
It is my considered opinion that even if any or all the categories of irregularities as
identified by the petitioners are upheld the results ought not be annulled, since the
said infractions are not traceable to the millions of people who will be
disenfranchised. But rather the results may only be CANCELLED as having being
compromised or tainted by administrative lapses. In that case we should not cancel
the whole Election (including the uncompromised parts), nor should the election be
called based only on the remaining untainted votes, as being suggested by the
petitioners, but the voters and polling stations whose votes are cancelled as a result

541

of the administrative lapses must be given the second chance to exercise their
constitutionally guaranteed right to vote before the final results are declared.
The petitioners novel legal theory of annulling so called tainted votes that would
permit a segment of the population ie. some 4 million voters, to be disenfranchised
finds no place in a democracy built upon principles of inclusiveness, equality, and
citizen participation. The right to vote and thereby partake in governance and
decision making has been fought for by some democrats from of old. Some have
paid the ultimate price to ensure that no category or class of people are
disenfranchised. It is not too long ago that the blacks of South Africa were given
the right to vote. The same thing applies to USA. In some countries women were
given the right to vote not too long ago.We in Ghana have had the universal Adult
suffrage since independence.Even though some countries prohibit prisoners from
voting, in Ghana we dont. This is how far we have come in our quest for
democratic governance. We should do everything possible to protect this right. And
the least we could do is not to disenfranchise people through technical or
administrative lapses over which they have no control.
It is my opinion that the basis of the petitioners claim, i.e. the declaration of the
First petitioner as winner after annulment of some 4 million votes, is completely
flawed.
Now let us examine the various heads or categories of irregularities as isolated by
the petitioners.
ABSENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS SIGNATURE.
Article 49 sub clause 3 of the 1992 constitution reads;

542

The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and in the case of a
referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the polling agents if any,
shall then sign a declaration stating
a. The polling station; and
b. The number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or question.
And the presiding officer shall there and then announce the results of the voting at
that polling station before communicating them to the returning officer.
In the light of this constitutional provision it is the contention of the petitioners that
failure to sign by the presiding officer is an infraction that should lead to the
annulment of votes. This is because according to them once the signing is
mandatory the consequence is that the votes do not become valid without the
signature.
I do not think so. Though the article makes signing mandatory, it does not prescribe
any consequences for failure to sign. Looking at the said article critically, the word
shall as used go to show the sequence of events or series of things that have to be
done. And here the sequence is shall sign, shall there then announce the results
before forwarding same to the presiding officer.The article only uses the word shall
to denote a series of things to be done and the sequence in which it should be done.
Failing to do it the way suggested by the article makes it an irregular performance
of duty. It is an irregularity that does not go to the roots. Then the question that has
to be asked are (1) has anybody been specifically adversely affected by this
irregularity that should lead to an annulment or even cancellation of votes regularly
cast?
This courts attention has been drawn to the recent decisions of this court, cases of
where the court strictly interpreted shall in Aricle 181 of the constitution and
543

concluded that failure to secure parliamentary approval for a loan is fatal as

provided by the constitution.
See the recent cases of Faroe Atlantic. Martin Alamisi Amidu v Isofoton and
Martin Amidu v Woyome
But a critical look at the wording of articles 181 will show clearly that there are
differences in the wording. Article 181 (2) reads
An agreement entered into under clause(1) of this article shall be laid before
Parliament and shall not come into operation unless it is approved by a resolution
of parliament
The article carries in its belly its own sanctions. The agreement shall be laid in
parliament and unless carried by resolution of parliament shall not come into
effect. This is not the same asarticle 49 where no consequences are provided for
failure to sign.To strictly interpret the word shall to mean mandatory and therefore
its violation should lead to annulment of votes regularly cast, would lead to a
serious absurdity. I am here persuaded by the modern purposive approach to
interpretation where the intent rather than the bare words as used influence
interpretation. To this end the famous quote of Sowah CJ in the Case of is very
much apposite here. He said
A written Constitution such as ours is not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It
embodies the will of a people. It also mirrors their history. Account, therefore
ought to be taken of it as a landmark in a peoples search for progress. It contains
within it theiraspirations and hopes for a better and fuller life.
The constitution has its letter of the law. Equally the constitution has its spirit.
.Its language, therefore,must be considered as if it were a living organism
capable of growth and development. Indeedit is a living organism capable of
544

growth and development as the body politic of Ghana itself is capable of growth
and development. A broad and liberal spirit is required for its interpretation.it does
not admit of a narrow interpretation. A doctrinaire approach to interpretation
would not do. We must take account of its principles and bring that consideration
to bear, in bringing it into conformity with the needs of the time.
In theKuenyehiaV.Archer[1993-94 2 GLR525 AT 562 Francois JSC said,
It appears that the overwhelming imperatives are the spirit and objectives
of the Constitution itself, keeping an eye always on the aspirations of the future
and not overlook the receding footsteps of the past. It allows for a liberal and
generous interpretation rather than a narrow legalistic one. It gives room for a
broader attempt to achieve enlightened objectives and tears apart the stifling
straight jacket of legalistic constraints that grammar, punctuation and the like may
impose,

To strictly interpret this article the way the petitioners are seeking to do is to take
the importance away from the voter and giving same to the persons who run the
elections. If the absence of the single signature of the presiding officer can lead to
the annulment of the votes of hundreds of thousands of voters, then the election
ceases to be about the voters and shifts to the presiding officer. So that if a
presiding officer, either from pressure of work, oversight, or plain mischief fails to
sign, then fatally, hundreds of voters are disenfranchised. Again a corrupt politician
needs only to team up with a few hundred presiding officers in an opponents
stronghold, and bingo! fortunes are turned. This will be carrying strict
interpretation to absurd limits.
An affidavit filed by one of the petitioners witnesses read;
545

I, Abdulai Abdul Hamid of House No. A77, Gunfong, Pong-Tamale, in the

Northern Region of the Republic of Ghana, and teacher by profession, make
oath and say as follows:
1.

That I am a witness of the Petitioners herein and the deponent hereto.

2.

That I swear to this affidavit on the basis of information personally known

to me.

3.

That on the 7th and 8th of December 2012, the Electoral Commission of
Ghana conducted Parliamentary and Presidential Elections in Ghana.

4.

That at all material times I was the presiding officer at Temporary Booth
Chiefs Palace polling station at Pong-Tamale, in the Savelugu
Constituency of the Northern Region of Ghana during the December 2012
Parliamentary and Presidential Elections.

5.

That I declared the results thereafter

6.

That subsequently on the 16th day of February 2013, I received a callon

my cellular phone with number 0246933648 from one Salamatu Osman,
an employee at the district electoral office of the electoral commission, via
telephone number 0372091677.

7.

That the said Salamatu Osman informed me that I had not signed the
Statement of Poll and Declaration of results for the office of
president(pink sheets), and that she had been instructed by Mr. Ben, the
District Electoral Officer, to invite me to attend the office in order to sign
same.

8.

That she further stated that the signature was necessary for the office to
process the documents relating to the payment of my entitlements as a
546

presiding officer in the December 2012 presidential and parliamentary

elections.
9.

That I proceeded on that basis innocently to sign the pink sheet for the
2012 presidential election.

Wherefore I swear to this affidavit in support

This affidavit put in by the witness of the petitioners is self-explanatory. The
witness did not sign the pink sheet at the polling station as required and he was
later tricked by the representative of the 2nd respondent to sign.Ostensibly, this
affidavit was put in to show that some pink sheets were not signed at the polling
stations and that long after the results had been declared the 2nd respondent was
clandestinely seeking to sign pink sheets. There were two other affidavits
confirming the contents of this affidavit.
But the questions that these affidavits fail to answer are why didnt Mustapha, the
petitioners own witness, sign the document at the polling station? Was it oversight,
pressure of work or plain mischief because he had not been paid? And is he saying
that the whole polling station results should be annulled because he forgot to sign
as a result pressure of work or as away of protesting his not being paid?
It is my considered view and I hold that non-signing by the presiding officer is a
mere irregularity that does not go to the root of the matter. It did not affect the
conduct of the polls and therefore should not lead to the annulment or even
cancellation of votes.
The petitioners claim on this ground is dismissed.

547

DUPLICATE PINK SHEETS

It is the case of the Petitioners that the Pink Sheets were imported into the country
with numbers embossed on each pink sheet to differentiate it from any other pink
sheets. In that case each pink sheet should bear a different serial number in all
26002 polling stations in the country. However this was not done. They detected
that out of the over 11,000 pink sheets reviewed, over 10000 had their counterparts
or duplicates used instead of their original pink sheets. This was done because
the second respondents had intentionally imported more pink sheets with the view
to manipulating the results of the polls. The total number votes being sought to be
annulled under this so called irregularity is over 2.5 million.
The response of the second respondent to this claim is that the petitioners claim has
no basis and not well founded. Yes it is true that each pink sheet has a different
number, but they are not in series and therefore not serial numbers properly so
called. The numbers are not security numbers that can be used to track the polling
stations in which they are actually used. So any pink sheet with any number can be
sent to any region, constituency or polling station. Pink sheets are packed at
random and their distribution does not follow any pattern in terms of the numbers
embossed on them.
In their address the second respondent said this category can properly be described
as the weakest link in an already weak chain. I couldnt agree more. Throughout
the proceedings the petitioners failed to show how this so called irregularity
affected the conduct of the polls. Yes it would have been better if only one set of
27000, or 28000 pink sheets were printed by one printing house and the pink sheets
numbered from one to 28,000. Instead of 2 sets totalling 54,000 printed by 2
separate printers each numbered from 1 to 27,000. So what? Apart from the
financial loss occasioned by the printing of the excess pink sheets, in what way did
548

this affect the election? The petitioners failed to convince me about the veracity of
their claim as far as this irregularity is concerned and I reject same.
OVER VOTING
The petitioners claim that there were indications that in quite a number of polling
stations there was over voting. And this is evident on the face of the pink sheet.
The petitioners give three main definitions of over voting
1 Where the ballots found in the ballot box exceed the number of ballot papers
issued to the polling station;
2 Where the ballot papers found in the ballot box exceed the number of persons
REGISTERED to vote in the polling station; or
3. Where the ballots found in the box exceed the persons actually verified to vote,
i.e.those registered and actually appearing at the polling station, verified and given
ballot papers to vote and actually voting.
According to the petitioners all these figures are verifiable from the face of the
pink sheets. The votes in all such polling stations should be annulled and same
deducted from the overall votes garnered by the parties.
The respondents disputed this three tier definition and said the classical definition
of over voting is where the ballot papers actually exceed the number of persons
actually registered at the polling station. Even then when it comes to over voting
the pink sheet may not be the primary or only source of information. And that if
figures on the pink sheet indicates that the ballot papers found in the box actually
exceed the figure written for the number of registered voters, one will have to cross
check from the actual register of the polling station. It might well be that the
presiding officer might have made a mistake when writing the figure of number of
549

registered voters.MrAsieduNketiah for the 1st and 3rd respondent denied the
possibility of over voting and said this could be due to the presence of foreign
object in the ballot box which is weeded out at the sorting out stage. In their
estimation therefore there was no over voting and so this category should also be
rejected.
I do not think the petitioners are describing overvote as objects found in the ballot
box. I cannot see how a foreign object as described by the witness be counted as
overvote. If an aggrieved votes tears off an A4 sheet and writes on it THEY ARE
ALL GREEDY BASTARDS, and places same in the ballot box, it is a foreign
object. This is not the type of paper that will feature in the petitioners overvote
column. My understanding of the petitioners over votes is that it relates to the votes
declared for candidates and those rejected for cause. That will be A+B in the last
column on the pink sheet against any of the columns already mentioned.
Seen this way I must say that that I agree with the petitioners definitions of over
voting. But this expanded description of over voting is what runs the petitioners
into problems and that led to the two often touted mantras; you and I were not
there and on the face of the pink sheet.For example on one pink sheet the total
ballots declared for the various candidates, and the rejected ballots were in the
region of 800. But when it came to question A1 on the question paper which was
What is the number of ballots issued to the polling station?, the answer was 10.
This pink sheet was selected as one with over votes because of the enormous
difference between the votes found in the box and the papers sent to the polling
station. But if one looks at the very next question, which is What are the serial
numbers of the ballot papers sent to the polling station?, the answer there clearly
indicates that there were 10 booklets of 100 leafs each, making 1000. So though
the first answer seems to suggest over voting, there really was no over voting if
550

one looks at the document properly. And there were several pink sheets with this
kind of problem. That is why Dr. Afari Gyan suggested that the pink sheet should
be read as a document in full and not question by question as the petitioners
seemed to be doing. But Dr. Bawumia preferred, on the face of the pink sheet.
Again because of the definition ascribed to the Over voting, any time the answer to
questions AI, B1, and C1 showed a blank, it was set apart as over voting. The
questions are,
A1 What is the number of Ballots issued to the polling station?
B1 What is the number of voters on the polling station register?
C1 What is the number of ballots issued to voters on the polling station register?
The reason for this was that once any of these figures was blank one could not
compare it properly with the total number of ballots in the ballot box. According to
the petitioners this was deliberately done to hide over voting. There were hundreds
of such pink sheets in the over voting category. The respondents on the other hand
suggested that if any of these questions posted a blank answer, there were other
sources where one could then to correct this. For example if B1 shows blank, the
polling station has a register which can be referred to easily to ascertain the correct
figure, so there was no need to rush to declare over votes on that account. Dr.
Bawumia countered with his mantra, the pink sheet is the primary source of
information at the polling station, and that on the face of the pink sheet blank
means zero.
I have no doubt at all that the pink sheet is the primary source of information at the
polling station, after all it is the information on the pink sheet that is collated and
form the basis of any or final declaration. But I definitely do not agree that other
sources may not be referred to for information if any doubt arises. Each polling
551

station has the official register, and each polling agent has the polling station
register. So if the question B1 has a blank, answer the correct figure is
ascertainable from other sources. There should not be the rush to declare over votes
just because on the face of the pink sheets the column shows blank.
I have noticed that the petitioners have identified some 180 pink sheets where
C1=blank or C1=0. The votes tally on that list alone is over 93,000 votes.
There were also several pink sheets in this category which clearly on second look
did not reflect over voting. While in the box, Dr Bawumia admittedto several such
pink sheets which they had originally selected to contain over voting, actually did
not reflect over voting upon second look. There were some pink sheets on which
errors had apparently occurred as a result of carbonation, For example there were
some pink sheets on which in the figures column two candidates were said to have
received 11, but in the words column it was one. It could be seen from the
additions that one was used in both the words and figures columns, and that if
eleven was used the total in both the figures and words columns would be wrong.
The only plausible explanation for this 11 and one is that if the person filling the
pink sheet wanted to deepen the figure 1 and the carbon shifted it would appear as
a second 1 or 11 on the copy. So while the original copy would show a deepened 1
it would appear as 11 on the carbon copies.
However, aside of these many errors which may be described as clerical, there
were also very many pink sheets which recorded cases of actual overvoting.ie
where rejected ballots and valid votes put together were

more than persons

actually verified to vote. However sifting the ones actually affected by over voting
from the many affected by the many clerical errors, one is left with very few pink
sheets whose results will not impact positively on the outcome of the overall
results. I will therefore dismiss the claim on account of this ground.
552

VOTING WITHOUT PRIOR BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION.

For the first time in the history of elections in this country, the

2012 general

elections was supposed to be conducted with identification of potential voters by

biometric verification. The nation spent a lot of time and energy registering eligible
voters biometrically. Biometric registration involved taking the finger prints of
eligible voters in addition to facial recognition. In the round up to the elections a
lot of inter party discussions took place and it was finally decided that voters who
could not be biometrically verified on the election day would not be allowed to
vote even if they had their names in the register. There appeared in the political
landscape the popular slogan NO VERIFICATION, NO VOTING. C.I.75 reg.
30(2) this slogan. It reads
Red 30(2) The voter shall go through a biometric verification process.
The constitutionality of this CI is being challenged in court, so I will stay off
discussion on this for now.
Be that as it may, constitutionality or otherwise, all the parties went into the general
election with the understanding that no verification, no voting. The whole concept
of biometric registration and verification before voting had been introduced as a
way of reducing to the barest minimum if not eradicate completely, the incidence
of claims of double voting and impersonation that crop up after every election. It
was supposed to increase transparency and enhance peoples acceptability of the
election results. Indeed at one of the numerous press conferences the electoral
commissioner made it clear that at the end of the polls,

where the votes cast

exceed the number of persons verified to vote by even one vote, the results of the
said polling station will be cancelled. Based on this understanding, some voters
were turned away from some polling stations and were not allowed to vote because
they could not be verified.
553

So prevalent was this phenomenon of turning away voters who could not be
verified that the 1st respondent is on record to have made a plea in the electronic
media for the 2nd respondent to review this policy to enable eligible voters be
identified by other means other than by finger print. The basis of this plea,
according to the release, was to avoid a situation where otherwise qualified citizens
are disenfranchised just because a mere machine could not identify them. This
plea, we are told, was not heeded to by the 2nd respondent and people were turned
away by the machines.
It is the case of the petitioners however that the 2nd respondent while insisting on
biometric identification in some places, at some polling stations people were
allowed to vote without verification and in some cases everybody voted without
biometric verification. According to the petitioners the evidence for this accusation
can be found on the face of the pink sheet.
In the ballot accounting column (column c) of the pink sheet is a question
C3 What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of
Form1C(but not by the use of BVD).
The petitioners have tendered quite a number of pink sheets on which this question
had been answered with figures and even sometimes figures reflecting the total
number of voters who cast their ballots in that polling station, indicating that every
person voted without being verified by the biometric devise. To the extent that C.I
75 reg 30(2) says everybody must be verified by the BVD before casting their vote,
and to the extent that some people were turned away either because the BVD had
broken down, or the BVD could not detect their finger print, it was discriminatory
to have allowed some other persons to vote without BVD. Therefore for purposes
of equity, polling stations that had persons voting without BVD should have their

554

votes annulled. These annulled votes should again be deducted from the votes
declared for the various contestants.
The respondents agreed that the slogan NVNV was actually coined for this election
and was indeed used. And that nobody voted without being verified by the BVD.
The third respondents representative Mr. Johnson AsieduNketiah actually opined
that if anybody allowed any voter to vote without the BVD, then that person should
be at Nsawam(prisons) by now. The 2nd respondent confirmed this by saying that
the agreement on the NVNV had been reached at an IPAC meeting and was
enforced to the letter. To this end, polling stations which had their BVDs breaking
down, actually had replacements. Again in about 400 polling stations where BVDs
could not be immediately replaced, the elections were postponed to the next day.
As to how come that the question C3 appeared on the pink sheet despite the
agreement reached at the IPAC to strictly adhere to the NVNV slogan The 2nd
respondent gave a lengthy explanation and concluded that the presiding officers
were not required to fill in that column since everybody was supposed to use the
BVD. All counsel for the respondents that the BVDs were used throughout and so
the figures in C3 did not reflect what actually took place at the polling stations.
They went to the extent of saying in some cases the figures in C3 had actually been
lifted from somewhere and placed there. A lot of theories were propounded for the
figures in C3. They concluded that apart from the face of the pink sheet, the
petitioners had not given any other evidence of voting without BVD, and that their
agents had signed without complaining. The petitioners had therefore failed to
prove that voting took place without biometric verification.
I do not think that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden placed on them. As
was said in the beginning like any civil action the petitioner bears the burden of
proof. The onus was therefore on the petitioners to prove that some voters voted
555

without going through the BVD. As said earlier the primary source of this election
is the pink sheet. But it does not mean that other sources may not be referred to
disprove writings on the document.The petitioners have pointed to the pink sheet
as their informant that some people voted without prior biometric verification. The
long explanation by the 2nd respondent flies in the face of the recordings on the
pink sheets. They presiding officers were not expected to fill them because nobody
was expected to vote without biometric verification. But they have filled them.
Where did they get the figures from? If the figures reflecting that all voters at a
polling station voted without going through BVD was lifted, how about those pink
sheets which show figures unrelated to any other figures on the pink sheet?
We are told that the BVDs still have embedded in their memories data reflecting
the number of voters that were actually verified by each machine. These devices
are still in the custody of the 2nd respondent. One would have thought that the
memories of the BVDs could have settled this problem. But they never felt it
necessary to tender them in evidence.
In the absence of any credible explanation it is my opinion that the petitioners have
discharged the burden of proof placed on them. Inspite of the agreement on the
NVNV, and despite reg 30(2) of CI 75, some people were allowed to vote without
verification. Viewed against the backdrop that some people were actually
prevented from voting because they could not be verified, to have allowed voting
in some polling stations was discriminatory and should lead to cancellation of their
votes.
I will therefore uphold the petitioners claim on this ground only to the extent that
those voters that have their votes cancelled should have the chance to recast their
votes lest they be disenfranchised.
To conclude I hold as follows
556

1. I dismiss the petitioners claim to annul votes on account of claim of

duplicate serial numbers as frivolous
2. I dismiss the petitioners claim that votes should be declared invalid on
account of the non-signing by the presiding officer. To disenfranchise
hundreds of thousands of voters (through no fault of theirs) because a
presiding fails to sign will not have a place in modern democratic
governance.
3. I uphold the principle that once overvoting is detected in a polling station the
elections there are compromised and should be cancelled but the voters there
should be given a second chance to cast their votes. However I find that in
view of the admissions made by the 2nd petitionerwith regard to some pink
sheets and the many clerical errors, I find that the number of pink sheets
affected in this category has so reduced that they votes affected are not too
significant to make any impact even if they are cancelled. I dismiss the claim
on this ground too.
4. I hold that the petitioners have discharged the burden of proof on them that
voting took place in some polling stations without prior biometric
verification. This was discriminatory since other persons had been turned
away for their inability to be verified. All those stations affected by this
phenomenon should have their votes cancelled and the voters given a second
chance to vote again.

(SGD)

P. BAFFOE BONNIE
557

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

GBADEGBE J.S.C :
On 7 December 2012, Ghanaians went to the polls in the exercise of their
constitutional right to vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Although the elections were scheduled for one day only, as a result of the
breakdown at some polling stations of biometric verification equipments
that were being used for the first time in our election history, the elections
continued at some polling centres the following day, 8 December 2012.The
postponement of the elections and or its continuation the following day
was not unexpected as indeed, regulation 34(1) b of Public Elections
Regulations, 2012 ( CI 75) made provision to cater for such an occurrence
in the following words:
Where the proceedings at a polling station are interrupted by the
breakdown of the equipment the presiding officer shall in consultation with
the returning officer and subject to the approval of the Commission, adjourn
the proceedings to the following day.
It is thus not surprising that in the matter herein, no issue has been raised
over the adjournment of the polls as the law had actually contemplated the
likely occurrence of such an event and quite rightly in my thinking made
ample legislative provision for it.
At the end of the elections, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (the
2nd Respondent herein) in compliance with the law by means of an
instrument under his hand dated 9 December 2012 declared the 1st
Respondent herein as having been duly elected as President of the
Republic of Ghana. From the results declared, it was plain that this was
558

quite a keenly contested election. The said declaration was met with
disquiet by the NPP whose candidate, the first Petitioner together with two
others, the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners herein, or about 29 December 2012
initiated the petition herein by which the results declared in the presidential
election is being challenged and in particular, a declaration sought that the
1st Petitioner herein was validly elected as president.
The matter herein has gone through a full scale trial as provided for in the
Supreme Court Rules, CI 16 as amended by CI 74. It repays to mention
that the parties have made full compliance with the direction given by us at
the hearing of the application for directions by filing the necessary
processes that enabled the court to give directions for trial in the matter
herein. The parties have also tendered their evidence after which they
submitted written and oral speeches to the court. The delivery herein is an
evaluation of the respective cases of the parties in aid of the courts
determination of the controversy herein. I need mention that although the
petition as issued by the petitioners named only the first and second
respondents, following an application at the instance of the NDC, it was
joined to the matter herein as a 3rd Respondent. The petition herein thus
became a contest between the three petitioners on the one hand and the
three Respondents on the other side of the aisle, so to say. I pause at this
stage to commend counsel in the matter for the industry that they have
exhibited in their effort to assist the court in the determination of this
landmark case. I think that when the history of the evolution of our
democracy comes to be written they would occupy a place in the hearts of
many.
Before proceeding further, I think it important to observe that this petition,
which is unprecedented in the life of the Fourth Republic presented the
court and the parties with a unique opportunity to contribute to the
development not only of substantive law but also the practice and
procedure of the Supreme Court in so far as the exercise of its exclusive
jurisdiction to determine questions raised concerning the validity of
presidential elections are concerned. This is a huge task that is conferred
559

on the court by article 64 of the 1992 Constitution that came into being after
several years of military rule that spanned the last day of December 1981
to January 1993. The return to constitutional rule that was ushered in by
the1992 Constitution brought to Ghanaians the opportunity that was
wrestled from her people more than a decade previously to exercise the
right to elect representatives and a president once in every four years.
Before the 2012 elections, elections were held in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004,
and 2008. These elections have been in the main applauded by the
international community as free and fair and Ghana had on account of
these earned a place of pride as the forerunner of democracy in Africa.
The petition herein, in my thinking, seeks to call in question compliance by
the Electoral Commission, the 2nd Respondent herein with the rules
contained in the various laws-the 1992 Constitution, the Representation of
the People Law, PNDC L 285 and its subsequent amendment by PNDCL
296, the Biometric Registration of Voters Regulations 2012, CI 72, and the
Public Elections Regulations 2012, CI 75. In my view, contrary to the
perception of some section of our society about the resort by the petitioners
to court, it is healthy for our democracy as it seeks to ensure that the
electoral rules were implemented at every stage of the electoral process
thereby giving sanctity to the process. As elections are creatures of statute,
the statutes that authorise their holding at stated intervals also provide for
the procedures to be employed on Election Day as well as all matters
reasonably connected therewith including the count of the ballots and the
declaration of results at polling stations, constituencies and on the national
plane. An election in this country therefore must be seen as the working of
the various rules by which effect is given to the invaluable right provided for
in article 42 of the 1992 Constitution in the words that follow shortly:
Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age and above and of sound
mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the
purposes of public elections and referenda.

560

It appears that for the purpose of the presidential elections the entire
country constituted one constituency with the Chairman of the Electoral
Commission, the body charged with the responsibility and conduct of all
elections being the returning officer. At every polling station and
constituency, however, there were election officials- presiding officers and
agents of political parties and or candidates who together ensured that the
rules of the game, so to speak, were implemented at every stage of the
election process. The role of presiding officers and the polling or counting
agents is provided for by law and serves the purpose of ensuring
transparency in the elections and renders the results that are subsequently
declared acceptable to the citizenry. While the general principles regarding
elections are contained in the 1992 Constitution,
the details of the
processes involved are contained in PNDC L 284 (as amended by PNDCL
296), CI 72 and CI 75.
As elections derive legitimacy from the various laws that provide for their
exercise, allegations that seek to challenge its regularity must to be good
grounds derive legitimacy from the enabling laws. In my thinking, the 1992
Constitution in terms of the electoral process is clear on its face, its
rationale is plain and the means employed through it and other statutes to
secure its purpose is reasonable. In this connection, it is observed that the
fact that other methods could have been provided for the purpose of
achieving the constitutional objective is not a proper consideration for this
court in so far as the issues that arise for our decision in this case are
concerned. In this delivery therefore, I shall measure the various
allegations that make up the claim of the petitioners against the applicable
laws, and where such an examination reveals a departure from the said
laws in a manner that undermines the basic principle on which our
constitutional democracy is founded then its breach calls for remedies that
are provided at law in order to give integrity and sanctity to the electoral
process. In my opinion, although the claims made by the petitioners are of
great import in our evolving constitutional democracy and is in keeping with
the requirements of the rule of law, as a bye-product of law, however, the
561

demands contained therein must have their source and resolution within
the law. I think these considerations informed the settling of the two issues
for trial in the petition on 2 April 2013 as follows:
(A) Whether or not there were violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities in the conduct of the presidential election held on the 7th and
8th of December, 2012.
(B)Whether or not the said violations, omissions, malpractices and
irregularities, if any affected the results of the election.
In presenting their case, the petitioners categorised the irregularities on
which they relied under broad heads in respect of which pink sheets
(official declaration of results) were exhibited to depositions a that have the
effect of evidence in these proceedings.Additionally, the 2nd petitioner
offered oral testimony and was cross-examined by the respondents.
Originally, the number of polling stations relied upon to sustain the petition
were said to be 11,1915 but in answer to a question in court on the last
adjourned date, learned counsel for the petitioners said the total number of
polling stations that formed the basis of their claim to have the presidential
elections avoided are 10, 119. That answer is a clear indication that the
number of pink sheets to be considered by the court in this matter is 10,
119.The designated categories are voting without biometric verification,
over-voting, failure and or absence of signatures by presiding officers on
pink sheets, duplicate serial numbers and voting at locations that were notdesignated as polling stations.
The petitioners contended that the votes involved in these irregularities
that were described to be widespread in nature amounted to over four
million (4,670,504.) Regarding these votes it was also contended that
having been obtained by means of violations, omissions, irregularities and
malpractices, they ought to be annulled and that following such annulment,
the first petitioner herein, Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo -Addo by a simple
arithmetical computation of the valid votes cast satisfies the requirements
of the law to be declared as the President of the Republic of Ghana. Should
562

these allegations be proved, they are weighty enough to have the

consequence that the petitioners attribute to them. Not unnaturally, the first
respondent, the alleged beneficiary of the widespread irregularities resisted
those claims and contended that he was regularly elected as President of
the Republic of Ghana. The 2nd Respondent who was responsible for the
conduct of the elections made no admission of the issues rose in the
petition and urged the court to uphold the declaration of 9 December 2012
made by its Chairman. The 3rd Respondent, NDC, on whose ticket the first
respondent contested the disputed presidential elections, also prayed the
court substantially to the same effect as the other respondents.
At the close of evidence in the matter herein, the questions for our
determination turning on the issues that were set down for trial on 2 April
2013 require us to patiently inquire into the allegations submitted by the
petitioners and the answers thereto by the respondents, and if proved,
determine their effect on the results declared at the various polling stations
to which they relate. As the case herein was fought on the evidence placed
before us, our task in keeping with a long and settled line of authorities is to
reach our decision on all the evidence on a balance of probabilities. See:
Sections, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 of
1975.This being a civil case, the petitioners bear the burden of leading
evidence on a balance of probabilities. At this point, I venture to say that
the effect of the acts on which the petitioners rely to sustain their action is
one that must turn on a careful consideration of the applicable statutory
provisions and so stated it would appear that our decision turns not solely
on facts but a mixed question of facts and law. Our courts have over the
years determined several cases in which decisions are based on a
consideration of mixed questions of fact and law and as such this case
does not present to us a challenge that is historical in terms of the
evaluation of evidence. While the cause of action in the matter herein as
previously indicated in the course of this delivery is historic, the approach to
decision making is no different from what we have been doing all the time.
The burden of proof in an election petition was recently considered in the
563

Nigerian case of Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) CLR 7K, in which the Supreme
Court said:
The burden is on petitioners to prove that non-compliance has not only
taken place but also has substantially affected the resultThere must
be clear evidence of non-compliance, then that the non-compliance has
substantially affected the election.
Continuing, the Nigerian Supreme Court further said:
He who asserts must prove such fact by adducing credible evidence. If the
party fails to do so its case will fail. On the other hand if the party succeeds
in adducing evidence to prove the pleaded fact it is said to have discharged
the burden of proof that rests on it. The burden is then said to have shifted
to the partys adversary to prove that the fact established by the evidence
could not on the preponderance of evidence result in the court giving
judgment in favour of the party
The recent Canadian case of Optiz v Wrzesnewskyj (2012) SCC
55-2012-10-256 similarly observed of the burden of proof as follows:
An applicant who seeks to annul an election bears the legal burden of
proof throughout.
The case of Buhari V INEC [2008] 4 NWR 546 at 565 also affirms the
above pronouncements on the burden of proof as follows:
Where a petitioner makes non-compliance with the Electoral Act the
foundation of his complaint, he is fixed with the heavy burden to prove
before the court, by cogent and compelling evidence that the noncompliance is of such a nature as to affect the result of the election. He
must show and satisfy the court that the non-compliance substantially
affected the result of the election to his disadvantage.
Courts in these jurisdictions were not alone in expressing the burden of
proof in an election petition in the above terms. In the recent presidential
election dispute in Kenya
numbered as Petition No 5 of 2013 and
564

entitledRAILA ODINGA v The INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND

BOUNDARIES COMMISSION AND 3 Others AS CONSOLIDATED WITH
PETITIONS NUMBER 3,Entitled: MOSES KIARIE KURIA and 2 Others v
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION and Petition no 4
Entitled: GLADWELL WATHONI OTIENO and Another vAHMED ISSACK
HASSAN and 3 Others , the Supreme Court in an unreported judgment
dated 30 March 2013 ( the full reasons therefor being delivered on 16 April
2013) expressed itself substantially in the same words as follows:
There is apparently, a common thread in the foregoing comparative
jurisprudence on burden of proof in election cases. Its essence is that an
electoral cause is established much in the same way as a civil cause: the
legal burden rests on the petitioner, but depending on the effectiveness
with which he or she discharges this, the evidential burden keeps shifting.
Ultimately, of course, it falls to the court to determine whether a firm and
unanswered case has been made.
We find merit in such a judicial approach, as is well exemplified in the
several cases from Nigeria. Where a party alleges non-conformity with the
electoral law, the petitioner must not only prove that there has been noncompliance with the law, but that such failure of compliance did affect the
validity of the elections. It is on that basis that the respondent bears the
burden of proving the contrary. This emerges from the long-standing
common law approach in respect of alleged irregularity in the acts of public
bodies. Omnia praesumntur rite et solemniter esse acta: all acts are
presumed to have been done rightly and regularly. So, the petitioner must
set out by raising firm and credible evidence of public authoritys departures
from the prescriptions of the law.
Although the above decisions are of persuasive effect only, I think that the
exposition of the applicable burden of proof is in no way different from that
required of petitioners in an election case having regard to the provisions of
the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 particularly sections 10- 14 and I propose in
this delivery to be guided thereby. Having stated the task of the court in
565

terms of the claim before us, I now pass to consider the various categories
of irregularities on which the petitioners claim to relief is based.
In opening the consideration, I shall commence with that category which
in my thinking and indeed, on the petitioners case raises issues regarding
the largest number of votes that aggregate to a little below three million
votes. The basis of this head of claim is that the 2nd Respondent in issuing
out pink sheets on which the collated results at the various polling stations
were declared did so in duplicates and in some cases in triplicates thereby
affecting the integrity of the elections. According to the petitioners, the said
pink sheets should have been unique to the polling stations and numbered
serially so that no number was repeated at any of the over 26, 000 polling
stations at which the presidential elections of 7th and 8th December 2012
was held. In the course of his evidence, the 2nd petitioner, who was
designated by the first respondent as his Vice Presidential Candidate on
the ticket of the NPP admitted under cross examination that the complaint
relating to the serial numbers was not derived from any constitutional or
statutory infraction but as the numbers were huge they were serious and
inferentially must have affected the outcome of the elections.
It is observed straightaway in respect of this head of complaint that
although with hindsight one might be tempted to appreciate the reasoning
inherent in it, as elections are created by statute and contested on rules
and regulations that are widely acknowledged by all, it is not competent for
anyone to raise as a ground of complaint a matter which is not known to
the laws by which the elections were regulated. The contention regarding
serial numbers though apparently attractive, appear to me on closer
examination to be untenable. Interesting as the complaint relating thereto
tends to be particularly in view of the numbers to which they are said to
relate, the constitution and the subsidiary laws passed thereunder have
provided very clear rules by which our elections are to be guided and it is
only the non-observance of any of those clearly established rules that can
properly come within the designation of an irregularity whether in the nature
of an omission, violation or a malpractice. I think that the word irregularity is
566

synonymous within the context of this case with the other words commonly
associated with it in the claim before us. For a better understanding of the
point being made in relation to the word irregularity(ies) and those
associated therewith, reference is made to the use to which it is employed
in ordinary language by a reference to the meaning as provided in Oxford
Advanced earners Dictionary ( International Students Edition) at page 790
thus:
an activity or practice which is not according to the usual rules, or not
normal; alleged irregularities in the election campaign
Similarly, the word violate as defined at page 1642 of the same Dictionary
means to refuse to obey a law, an agreement etc. And a malpractice
means a wrong or illegal practice. In view of the fact that the associated
words all mean that which is contrary to rules or laws, I propose in this
delivery to use the word irregularity to refer to any such word. In doing so, I
do not think that I do injustice to any of the parties as an irregularity is one
whether called by the description a malpractice, violation and or an
omission, the later which denotes failing to do that which should be done or
lawful.
Further to the above, the evidence of the petitioners unfortunately did not
place before the court in what manner the mere repetition of the slight
number of duplicated pink sheets that was proved in evidence affected the
declared results. There was no challenge to the fact that the results
declared were in respect of elections held at designated polling stations.
Also not in dispute is that there occurred no infraction or violation of any of
the electoral laws. Added to these, none of the results declared at any of
the polling stations is under challenge. It is observed that the only features
that the law insists on in relation to the ballots and elections are the serial
numbering of ballot papers and the allocation of polling stations to each
person on the electoral register such that no registered voter is enabled to
exercise his franchise more than once in order to give real meaning to the
right to vote that is provided for in article 42 of the 1992 Constitution. In my
567

view, a fair reading of the constitutional provisions on the electoral

processes reveals that it is premised on the right to vote according to ones
choice. This necessarily implies that it is only when that right has been
infringed by the arrangements put in place at any public elections that the
results can be annulled. The category of irregularity under consideration
does not come within the scope of the Constitution and indeed any other
law in force in Ghana to which reference could be made. I think this should
be enough to dispose of the grounds turning on serial numbers.
In my view if the actors in the political scene consider the issues arising
from the serial numbers that have just been considered
of some
importance to the integrity of the electoral process then they should
consider for the purpose of future elections the adoption either by way of an
amendment to the existing regime of laws on elections, or by a clear
understanding and or agreement between all the stakeholders in our
electoral system that serial numbers of pink sheets be better protected in
the same manner as is the case regarding ballot papers and polling
stations. Until then, the complaint regarding serial numbers in the form that
they have been revealed in the petition herein is a constraint that is
unknown to the law and as such lacks the nature of an irregularity and
accordingly, I am unable to yield to it as a legitimate ground.
I next turn my attention to the category which concerns over-voting. In the
case presented to us in support thereof, the petitioners based their claim on
two interpretations. The first one is when the number of ballot papers at the
end of the elections exceeds the number of registered voters at the polling
station. The second instance, it was contended arises when there is excess
of ballot papers over the number of ballots issued at the polling station. To
prove their claim of over voting, the petitioners relied on entries on the pink
sheets at the end of the elections at the various polling stations. No
reference was made to the register of voters at any of the polling stations to
sustain this ground of complaint. On the contrary, great reliance was placed
on portions of the pink sheets which were required to be filled by the
presiding officers in answer to questions numbered as A1, C1, C3 and C6.
568

The questions that presiding officers were required to answer are as

follows.
C1: What is the total number of ballots issued to voters on the polling
station register?
C3: What is the number of ballots issued to voters verified by the use of
Form 1C (but not by the use of BVD)?
C6 asks a question that provides a formula that adds C1, C2, C3 and C4 to
get an aggregate that must be equal to A1, the total number of ballots
issued to the polling station. From the two interpretations placed before us,
it is clear that they each seek to protect the integrity of the electoral
process. It is also plain that as the total number ballot papers issued at any
polling station is based primarily on the registered list of voters both
interpretations seek to ensure that no person is enabled to vote who is not
on the register of voters. Although the word over vote and or over voting do
not come within any of the specifications in the electoral laws, it does
appear to me that as a matter of common sense, votes that come within
any of the two interpretations are evidence of over votes. In support of
their case, it looks to me that as the petitioners did not rely on the list of
registered voters at the various polling stations, they relied mainly on the
answer to C3- the total number of ballots issued to a particular polling
station. I think that the exhibits in the MB-C series were offered to prove
this. And in the evidence to sustain this head of irregularity, the petitioners
case appears simply to be that whenever the ballots cast as found in the
ballot box exceed the ballots issued then there is an over vote for which
reason the results must be annulled. In this regard, great reliance was
placed on the information contained in the pink sheets and in particular the
space provided for ballot accounting.
In question C6 in the ballot accounting section of the pink sheets is a
formula that aggregates C1, C2, C3 and C4 to reach a total that must be
equal to the total number of ballots issued to a station, A1.But from the
available evidence, there are matters of great weight, which render it
569

unreliable to rely on the second interpretation of over voting on which the

claim of the petitioners is planked. When one carefully peruses the ballot
accounting section of the pink sheets in evidence before us, the question
numbered C6 has a formula provided by which the aggregate of C1, C2,
C3, and C4 is to be equal to A1, the total number of ballot papers issued to
the polling station. A careful reading of the sheet reveals that C5, unused
ballots has been left out of the constituent elements of C6 that is to be
equal in number to A1. In the face of this obvious error that was admitted
by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission in the course of his oral
testimony, it is interesting if not surprising that notwithstanding the absence
of C5 which had the effect of making it impossible going by the formula
provided to have C6 being equal to A1, most of the pink sheets were filled
for the purpose of having C1 + C2+ C3+ C4 making up C6 that should be
equal to A1.
As the formula provided in C6 is incorrect it stands to reason that when the
question to which it relates is answered it cannot be right. I am of the
opinion that this is in an area of arithmetic, this is a classic instance of the
convergence of an answer in arithmetic converging with the oft quoted
statement that you cannot put something on nothing as it cannot hold.
Therefore, the objective sought to be attained by way of ballot accounting
cannot be achieved. This, in my view renders the interpretation of over
voting that leaves out unused ballots, C5 out of the equation not worthy of
the great reliance that is sought to be placed on it. Clearly, in the midst of
this many presiding officers must have transferred the missing information
elsewhere in order to get a healthy balance sheet regarding the ballots at
the end of the polls. In this regard, I am of the opinion that utilising the
portion on the pink sheets for the purpose of ballot accounting is quite
unreliable. One needs to be more than a human being to be able to
achieve a balance on the sheet but many attempted to do this without
taking account of C5. In the circumstances the question that arises is: Can
the Court rely on the answers therein to determine over votes without a
process of careful tally of the ballots cast? I think that in view of the
570

incorrect formula and the consequences flowing from it one needs

evidence beyond the pink sheets to prove the allegation of irregularity to
which they relate. The question of an over vote in the circumstances not
being a matter that is plain from the face of the pink sheets is a matter
which could be established only by evidence through a careful inquiry
under the law through the process of ballot accounting to enable such
ballots to be rejected.
Again from the question in C6, C1 and C3 are part of the elements to be
added but as can be seen from C3 since no voter was to use form 1C at
the polls, the answers filled therein must relate to persons already on the
polling station register-C1. This means that at the end of the poll when they
are added as the formula has provided, there would be double counting
which might tend to create the impression of over votes although in fact the
error is traceable to the questions posed on the pink sheets. In my view the
pink sheets must if they are to be used in the 2016 election undergo a
careful weeding out of the obvious errors to make it serve the purpose for
which they were intended. The effect of these is that the claim to over votes
cannot be made without going through the process of ballot accounting to
eliminate the obvious errors that are intrinsic in the questions that are
asked on the pink sheets and the answers thereto. It is in this regard that
the role of the polling agents comes up for consideration.
In my opinion as agents for the petitioners who signed all the pink sheets in
evidence without exception, although by Regulation 35 (4) they can
withhold their signature and provide reasons therefore, their conduct in
signing the declarations means that in their view that the entire process of
voting was regular.
These signatures bring into being the evidential
attribute provided for in section 26 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 of 1975
which provides as follows:
Except as otherwise provided by law, including a rule of equity, when a
party has, by his own statement, act or omission, intentionally and
deliberately caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be
571

true and act upon such belief, the truth of that thing shall be conclusively
presumed against that party or his successors in interest in any
proceedings between that party or his successors in interest and such
relying person or his successors in interest.
I think that having signed the declared results that were forwarded to the
presiding officer of the disputed elections, the Chairman of the Electoral
Commission that was acted upon in computing the results, the said conduct
creates a conclusive presumption that by the clear provisions contained in
section 24(1) has the following attribute.
Where the basic facts that give rise to a conclusive presumption are found
or otherwise established in the action, no evidence to the contrary to the
conclusively presumed fact may be considered by the tribunal of fact.
By the rules of evidence, we are precluded from considering any other fact
to the contrary. I also venture to say that issues relating to elections are
intended to be quickly resolved and that the procedure laid down in
Regulations 35-37 of CI 75 serves the purpose of ensuring that the votes
counted satisfy the various rules laid down for the conduct of elections. It
is observed that the estoppel in this case relates to a fact the occurrence
on which the question of law turns and as such this pronouncement does
not seek to lay down that when a question purely of a matter of law arises
there can be no estoppel raised to relieve one from the consequences of
for example illegality. In my view, when there is a statutory right in persons
to withhold their signature from the validity of an act by objecting thereto,
their unequivocal act in signing would operate to create an estoppel in the
nature of unattackable validity as was said in the United States decision in
the case of Holmberg v Jones, 7 Idaho 752, 758-759, 65 Pac 563, 564.
See also: (1) Armstrong v King, 281 Pa. 207, 126 Atl. 263.
Further, I have no doubt that, if indeed, there were over votes in the
disputed elections as the petitioners allege by resort to the elaborate
procedure under the Regulations they would have been discovered and
572

rejected in the course of ballot accounting subject to the right of appeal that
is conferred on an aggrieved party under Regulation 38 of CI 75. I do not
think that it is proper for us to ignore the laid down procedures provided by
the electoral laws in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. I
think it is important that we give effect to the legitimate expectations of the
law in this matter.
Closely linked with the above is the category placed before us in the nature
of voting without biometric verification. According to the petitioners this was
deductible from the answers to question C3. But, the unchallenged
evidence of the Electoral Commissioner was to the opposite effect and
destroys any value that one might wish to place on entries in C3 as Form
1C was by agreement with the political parties not to be used for voting.
The evidence which is not controverted was to the effect that Form 1C was
originally intended to be used by registered voters who though issued with
ID cards had their biometric data lost due to no fault of theirs. I accept the
explanation offered by the Chairman of the Electoral Commission as a
genuine attempt to prevent the disenfranchisement of registered voters. It
is therefore plain that those portions of the pink sheets were filled in error
and cannot be the basis of any legitimate attack on the regularity of the
polls as conducted.
Again, in the course of the trial it became clear that the process of
biometric verification that was provided for in regulation 30 was captured by
the verification equipment and as such the primary evidence on whether or
not a voter was verified before voting was recorded therein. In such a
case, I am surprised that the information regarding the important process of
verification is sought to be proved by reference to C3 only. I am unable to
accept that piece of evidence as the primary evidence as it is in its nature
secondary. In order to be able to rely on the pink sheets as evidence of
what they purport to be, the petitioners ought to have shown that the better
or best evidence to which they relate are not available. See: Lucas V
Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113 at 116 Primary evidence, in my thinking
relates to a fact from which legitimate inferences as opposed to conjecture
573

might be made. For this purpose, even the originals of the pink sheets
belong to the category of secondary evidence as the information they seek
to prove is obtainable in the best form in the register of voters at polling
stations and the biometric verification equipment. The record of list of
voters verified by the biometric verification equipment is the primary
evidence and it is the one from which the information contained in the pink
sheets was made. Proof of that information to be of evidential value must
satisfy section 163 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 of 1975. I quote
hereunder the said section in its entirety.
(1) An original of a writing is the writing itself or any copy intended to have
the same effect by the persons executing or issuing it.
(2) An original of a writing which is a photograph includes the photographic
film 9 including a positive, negative or photographic plate) or any print
made therefrom.
(3)If information contained in writing is stored in a manner not readable by
sight, as in a
computer or a magnetic tape, any transcription readable
by sight and proved to the satisfaction of the court to accurately reflect the
stored information is an original of that writing.
The purpose of the above rules is to enable the court as the trier of fact and
in keeping with the prime duty placed on it under section 2 of the Evidence
Act to decide all questions of fact. By not placing the best or primary
evidence before the court, the petitioners have sought their inferences from
the information that is available elsewhere to be the basis of our decision.
But that is not sanctioned by law. The rule of evidence to which reference is
made here is that inferences about irregularities can be drawn from facts,
but not from inferences. As the said record of the voters verified at every
polling station is available and capable of proof in the manner acceptable, I
am unable to fall upon information from pink sheets that are based on
some other primary source as evidence of irregularity.

574

There is yet another reason that renders the evidence of voting without
biometric verification unproven. It is this. Pursuant to the courts direction
as to the mode of tendering evidence in the matter herein, the 3rd
Respondents had filed on its behalf several affidavits by persons who voted
at various polling stations in the country. The content of those depositions
that were on oath and constitute evidence in this matter was that before
they went through the process of voting they had been verified in
accordance with the requirements of regulation 30 of CI 75. The petitioners,
who bore the initial burden of proof on the allegation of absence of
biometric verification, unfortunately did not file any process that has the
effect of challenging those depositions. The effect of this is that in the face
of the depositions by persons who actually voted at some of those polling
stations and testified from their own knowledge to what actually they saw
and participated in, the evidence of the 2nd Petitioner who was not at any
of those polling stations cannot be preferred. I think it is a basic rule of
evidence that in considering the credibility of a witness one of the factors to
be taken into account is the capacity of the witness to perceive, recollect
or relate any matter about which he testifies. See: Section 80(2) d of the
Evidence Act, NRCD 323 of 1975.
One question that the failure by the petitioners to make available a single
affidavit from a person who was present at any of the polling stations
continually brings up is why were they not called? Since the petitioners had
polling agents at all the polling stations as appear from the pink sheets
exhibited before us, the reasonable inference therefrom is that the said
agents are available. It being so, the failures to have them testify to
affidavits in support of the allegation of absence of biometric verification
has a decisive evidential attribute. The circumstances of this case in as far
as the positive allegation of absence of biometric verification is concerned
is that those agents have a duty to speak in the face of the depositions
made by witnesses for the Respondents and as such their silence has the
effect of rendering the version testified to by their adversaries unchallenged

575

and also deemed to be an admission. See: BESSELA v STERN (1877) 2 C

P D 265.
Then there is the evidence that the disputed elections were postponed to a
second day, 8 December 2012 at polling stations where the verification
machines had broken down. A legitimate inference to be made from this
unchallenged fact is that voting at all polling stations took place after
biometric verification of those entitled to vote. In so holding, I do not
disregard the fact that the elections that are disputed arose out of the
exercise of official acts and are presumed by section 37 of the Evidence
Act, NRCD 323 of 1975 to have been regularly conducted thus requiring
any person who alleges to the contrary to lead credible evidence to sustain
the allegation to the contrary.
The next category that I turn my attention to arises out of the failure or
absence of presiding officers to sign the results declaration forms after the
holding of the polls in dispute. In support of this head of claim, the
petitioners relied on article 49(1), (2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution of the
Constitution as follows:
(1) At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret ballot.
(2) immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall, in the
presence of such candidates or their representatives and their polling
agents as are present, proceed to count, at the polling station, the ballot
papers of that station and record the votes cast in favour of each candidate
or question.
( 3) The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and, in the
case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and the polling
agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating-
(a) the polling station; and
(b) the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or question; and
the presiding officer shall, there and then, announce the results of the
576

voting at that polling station before communicating them to the returning

officer.
A careful reading of the above provisions reveals quite clearly that the duty
that it creates is not exclusive to only the presiding officer and involves not
only the execution of the declaration of results but beyond that openly
announcing the results and communicating them to the returning officer
who is the Chairman of the Electoral Commission. In my view, the duty is
collective and when an allegation turning on the absence of the signature
of the presiding officer is raised in any proceedings subsequent to the
declaration of the results as we are witnessing in the petition, the court
must consider the nature of the irregularity in question in relation to the
entire constitutional provision as well as other
provisions of the
Constitution on electoral laws in order to give a meaning that advances the
purpose for which those provisions were made. It is not proper for the court
to look at the act in isolation as the petitioners have invited us to do in
these proceedings. In fact, in presenting their addresses in the matter
herein reference was made only to the requirement regarding the signature
of the presiding officer without any mention of the duty that is similarly
placed on the polling agents and or representatives of the candidates.
Perhaps, this was due to inadvertence and I have no doubt that if learned
counsel for the petitioners had considered the provision in question in its
entirety, he would probably have come to the view that the meaning of the
words that he pressed on us in this matter is not the true meaning. We are
in this case confronted with the holding of presidential elections and it is of
the utmost importance that nothing be done by this court that has the effect
of disenfranchising the several voters who took part in the elections on
grounds that are purely technical and administrative. The procedural
approach that is urged on us by the petitioners does not commend itself to
me and I prefer to adopt the substantive approach in a matter that touches
and concerns no mean a right as the right to vote. Perhaps, because our
electoral history has not had the experience of other jurisdictions where for
several years a certain section of the population was not entitled to vote,
577

we tend to take its conferment on us as a people lightly. The substantive

approach has been adopted by many jurisdictions and indeed the majority
in their judgment in the recent Canadian case of OPTIZ v WRZENEWSKYJ
[2012} SCC 55-10-256 said it well and properly as follows:
Lower courts have taken two approaches to determining whether votes
should be invalidated on account of irregularities. Under the strict
procedural approach, a vote is invalid if an election official fails to follow
any of the procedures aimed at establishing entitlement. Under the
substantive approach, an election officials failure to follow a procedural
safeguard is not determinative. Only votes cast by persons not entitled to
vote are invalid. The substantive approach should be adopted, as it
effectuates the underlying Charter right to vote, not merely the procedures
used to facilitate that right.
The approach adopted in the above case has also met with the approbation
of courts in the United States of America where courts have held that
although election statutes are mandatory and compliance is expected not
all compliance failures automatically void an election, especially if the
failure is not challenged until after the election. Accordingly, courts construe
acts that are not challenged until after elections as directory, which allows
the court to overlook harmless compliance failures unless one of the
following conditions applies:

(a) explicit statutory language states that the provisions are
mandatory,

(b)explicit statutory language specifies the election is voided because
of the failure,

(c)the violation affected an essential electoral component, or

(d) the violation changed the elections outcome or rendered it
uncertain.

578

See (1) Henderson v Maley, 806 P. 2d 626, 630 (Okla. 1991); (2) Don v Mc
Cuen, 797 S. W. 2d 455, 456 (Ark. 1990); (3) DAmico v Mullen, 351 2 Ad
101, 104 (R. I. 1976).
Similarly, in the area of legislation regarding requirements of the
Constitution that utilise the word shall, Courts in the United States of
America have tended to hold that the mandatory requirement means
substantial and not complete and literal compliance. See: (1) Louiseville
Trust Co v Morgan, 180 Ky. 609, 203 S. W. 555; (2) Commonwealth v
Griest, 196 Pa. 396, 416; (3) Armstrong v King, 281 Pa. 207, 126 Atl. 263.
In my view, if such an interpretation could be given regarding the exercise
by the legislature of a power conferred on it under the constitution to make
laws on behalf of the sovereign people of the United States of America then
by parity of reasoning as regards merely administrative acts such as the
failure to sign pink sheets that do not raise any issue that calls in question
the totality of votes declared at a polling station such a failure cannot
operate to deprive the declared results of validity. I think to accede to this
urging would be subversive of the right to vote and treating its exercise as
not being as important as the breach to which the absence of signatures
relate. The right to vote according to ones choice is in my opinion the
fundamental pillar of our constitutional democracy and should not be
trivialised.
The suggested approach has been given statutory endorsement in section
20 (2) (b) of Representation of People Law, 1992 PNDC law 284 as follows:
Despite sub-section 1, where at the hearing of an election petition the High
Court finds that there has been a failure to comply with a provision of this
Act or of the Regulations, and the High Court finds
(1) that the election was conducted in accordance with this Act and
Regulations, and
(2) that the failure did not affect the result of the election, the election of
the successful candidate shall not, because of the failure be void and the
579

successful candidate shall not be subject to an incapacity under this Act or

the Regulations.
Although the court to which reference is made above is the High Court,
the amendment to the law that is contained in PNDC Law 296 makes the
application of section 50 of the law to cover all public elections. The said
amendment, which was just to substitute and or insert new provisions in the
original law, PNDC law 284 in section 2 (c) provide thus:
by the substitution for the meaning of election in section 50 of the
following-
election means any public elections
From the amendment, it is plain that the previous meaning in section 50 of
PNDC law 284 that meant an election to elect members of Parliament
was at an end and that word thereafter refers to all public elections
including presidential elections. It being so the substantive and or
purposive approach in PNDCL 284 that I have earlier on referred to in this
delivery has to guide us in our decision. I think that the law maker must
have been inspired by the substantive approach in jurisdictions outside
Ghana, which though not binding on us but of persuasive effect only were
delivered in countries with a long and established history of of constitutional
democracy .In my view the approach that considers the nature of the
irregularity and its likely effect on the election is quite frankly preferable to
the procedural approach that looks only at the breach of a provision without
more. In fact, even in the rules of court of the High Court there has been
since the coming into being of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules),
2005, CI 47 a legislative shift from the purely technical approach to the
substantive approach that is embodied in Order 81 of the Rules. This
approach is purposive as it attempts to unravel the objective that the law
was intended to achieve and to effectuate same. In the case of Ex parte
Yalley [2007-2008] SCGLR 512 at 519, Georgina Wood JSC ( as she then
was) observed as follows:

580

It is well established, that as a general rule, the correct approach to

construing statutes is to move away from the literalist, dictionary,
mechanical or grammatical to the purposive mode. Admittedly, there may
be instances where the ordinary or dictionary or grammatical meaning of
the words or phrases yield just results and there remains little one can do
about that. Even so, it can be said that the purposive rule is embedded in
the grammatical rule. In other words, the ordinary meaning projects the
purpose of the statutory provision and so readily provides the correct
purpose-oriented solution. Indeed, the purposive rule of construction is
meant to assist unearth or discover the real meaning of the statutory
provision, where an application of the ordinary grammatical meaning,
produces or yields some ambiguous, absurd, irrational unworkable or
unjust result or the like.
Several decisions of our courts have over the years adopted the purposive
and or substantive approach to construction of statutes in our jurisdiction.
Reference is made to a few such instances. (1) Tuffuor v Attorney-General
[1980] GLR 367; (2) Asare v Attorney- General [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 823;
(3) Ampiah- Ampofo v Commission on Human Rights and Administrative
Justice [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 227; (4) Republic v Fast Track High Court;
Ex parte Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice
[2007-2008] SCGLR 213 .
These developments are not accidental but intended to emphasise the
substantive approach in our jurisdiction. Therefore, in my thinking a mere
breach of a constitutional provision does not by itself result in invalidating
an election but it must be proved of the said non-compliance that it has
materially affected the declared result at the election. The failure to sign the
results sheets in question not having been proved in the slightest manner
to have tainted the election or the results declared should be held to be
directory and not mandatory. I do not think that we can adopt an approach
to the interpretation of election laws that is not informed by the experience
of jurisdictions that have a considerable jurisprudence that has facilitated
the growth of strong and enduring democracies that we aspire to achieve.
581

Democracy is an evolving phenomenon and elections cannot be perfect

so when we are faced with the consideration of irregularities that are
alleged to have occurred in an election, we should exercise a reluctance in
striking down every single vote just by reference to a provision of the law.
On the contrary, the irregularity must have affected the integrity of the
elections. The substantive approach serves the same purpose as the
purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes that our courts have
come to embrace in several decisions in this country. See: Fitch v
Stephenson [2008] EWHC 501, Para 40
The interpretation of article 49 of the constitution that has been urged on
us in these proceedings does not commend itself to me. That interpretation
seeks to constitute presiding officers into a special class of actors in the
electoral process. I am unable to understand that although they actually
presided over the elections and the counting of the ballots and caused
polling agents to sign the declaration of the results, which they thereafter
openly announced to the public and had a copy thereof posted at the
polling station by merely not signing the results sheets, the entire process
that but for this singular act omission complied with the law should be
invalidated. I think that such an approach is not rooted in shared common
sense and undermines the entire process of elections by having innocent
voters disenfranchised on purely technical grounds. It is observed that
election statutes are to be construed liberally in order to give effect to the
expressed wish of the electorate. It being so, rules that are provided to
effectuate constitutional rights should not be applied purely technically as
though they were mathematical formula. I am of the opinion that the
evidence placed before us clearly points in the direction of a substantive
approach unblinded by strict adherence to technicalities. After all, the
presiding officers are known and available within the jurisdiction so if one
may ask the question why they were not called to testify? Within the
context of the entire role to be played by the presiding officers, the
requirement to sign the results is directory and not mandatory; to hold
otherwise would enable a purely administrative act that does not detract
582

from the basic principles of an election to supersede the substantive

exercise of the right to vote in the manner circumscribed by law.
Then there is the claim, which concerns voting at undesignated polling
stations. The uncontroverted evidence before us is that the petitioners
assigned poling agents to those polling stations. It being the case, I think
that the elections held at those locations not having been proved to have
suffered in the slightest degree from any breach of the rules and
regulations by which the presidential elections were held, there appears to
be no substance in this ground. In my thinking, this ground like that turning
on duplicate polling station code numbers raise no point of relevance for
our consideration in these proceedings.

For these reasons, I am unable to yield to the reliefs set out in the
petitioners demands before us and proceed to dismiss same. In the result,
the declaration under the hand and signature of the Chairman of the
Electoral Commission dated 9 December 2012 and numbered as CI 80 is
hereby declared valid.

(SGD)

N. S. GBADEGBE

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

COURT

583







V. AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC:
On the 9th of December 2012,Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan, the Returning Officer
for the December 2012 Presidential Elections, and who represents the 2nd
respondent in these proceedings, returned the 1st Respondent herein John
Dramani Mahama, as having been validly elected President of the Republic
of Ghana.
Thereafter, on the 11th of December 2012, the Declaration of Presidentelect Instrument 2012, C.I. 80 was published under the hand of the said
Returning Officer.
Being naturally aggrieved, the Petitioners herein, Nana Addo Dankwa
Akuffo, Addo Dr Mahamudu Bawumia and Mr. Jake Obetsebi- Lamptey; the
Presidential Candidate, his running mate and the Chairman respectively, of
the New Patriotic Party filed the instant petition praying, inter alia, that the
election be declared invalid and for a further order declaring the 1st
Petitioner the validly elected President of Ghana.

According to the petitioners, there were a number of constitutional
and statutory violations, malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the
elections which affected the outcome.
The alleged violations were categorized under these heads:
1. Over voting.
584

2.
3.
4.
5.

Voting without biometric verification.

Absence of signatures of Presiding Officers.
Duplicate serial numbers on Pink Sheets.
Widespread instances of polling stations where different results were
strangely recorded on different pink sheets bearing the same polling
station codes.
6. Instances where voting took place in certain locations which could not
be identified as part of the official list of 26,002 polling stations
created by the Electoral Commission.
On the 2nd of April 2013, these issues were set down for
determination;
1.

2.

Whether or not there were violations, omissions,

malpractices and irregularities in the conduct of the
presidential elections held on the 7th and 8th of
December, 2012.
Whether or not the said violations, omissions,
malpractices and irregularities, if any, affected the
results of the elections.

Blacks Law Dictionary the 8th edition, defines the term irregularity as an act
or practice that varies from the normal conduct of an action. In the
Canadian Supreme Court case of Ted Opitz v Borys Wrzesnewskyj 2012
SCC 55, a contested election application, it was stated, the term
irregularities should be interpreted to mean failures to comply with the
requirements of the Act, unless the deficiency is merely technical or trivial.
For irregularities to have affected the result of the election, they must
be of a type that could affect the result of the election and impact a
sufficient number of votes to have done so. Votes cast by persons not
entitled to vote are irregularities that can affect the result of the election,
because they are votes that should not have been cast. If the number of
such votes equals or exceeds the winners plurality, then the result of the
election is affected and the election should be annulled.
A malpractice, on the other hand, connotes a wrong or illegal practice per
the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary.
585

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a violation is an infraction or breach of

the law; the act of breaking or dishonouring the law; the contravention of a
right or duty.
Before proceeding to consider the issues, I must commend Counsel for the
industry, the tremendous amount of documentary evidence placed before
us; the professional manner they were dealt with and the high standard of
advocacy evidenced by the extensive oral and written submissions.

I am acutely aware of the national importance of this petition and the far
reaching consequences this decision could have for this country.
Government, in a democratic system of governance, derives its life from
the people and that sacred nexus is made manifest in the electoral system.
Among the fundamental precepts in a democracy is the ability to hold
periodic free and fair elections together with an effective judicial oversight,
bearing in view however, that, as a basic principle, it should not be for the
court to determine who occupies the highest office of the land, the
presidency; it the preserve of the citizens,
Elections therefore offer the citizenry the opportunity to express their
satisfaction or otherwise with an incumbent leader or a political party, it is
no wonder that this challenge, arising out of the exercise of those rights,
has caught the imagination of all Ghanaians.
THE BURDEN
The petitioners must lead evidence on the balance of the probabilities. In
other words, they bear the burden of producing sufficient evidence from
which a reasonable mind could conclude that the irregularities and
violations did occur. It is only then that they could be said to have adduced
evidence to the requisite degree, or that they had discharged the evidential
burden borne by them. Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Evidence Act
1975, NRCD 323.
586

In Opitz v. Wrzesrewskys, supra, the Supreme Court held that an applicant

who seeks to annul an election bears the legal burden of proof throughout.
In Buhari V Obasanjo 2005 CLR 7K, a Nigerian case, the Supreme Court
stated: The burden is on petitioners to prove that non-compliance has not
only taken place but also has substantially affected the results..There
must be clear evidence of non-compliance , then that the non-compliance
has substantially affected the election.
The Nigerian Supreme Court further said:
He who asserts must prove such fact by adducing credible evidence. If the
party fails to do so, its case will fail. On the other hand, if the party
succeeds in adducing evidence to prove the pleaded fact it is said to have
discharged the burden of proof that rests on it. The burden is then said to
have shifted to the partys adversary to prove that the fact established by
the evidence could not on the preponderance of evidence result in the court
giving judgment in favour of the party.
Those principles were affirmed in these cases:
1. Abubakar v. Yar Adua 2009 All FWLR (pt-451 1 SC.
2. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v. Museveni Yoweri Kagutai & Electoral
Commission, Election Petition N0. 1 of 200
It must be stated that
these authorities are of persuasive effect only.

Generally, it is presumed that election results are valid; therefore the

parties contesting the election have the burden of showing an irregularity or
illegality sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
Supreme Court of Georgia in Banker v. Cole 278 G.A 532
In Macraine v. Mullis 276 G.A 416, another decision of the Supreme Court
of Georgia, it was held that in order to set aside an election the Court
required evidence to show that a sufficient number of persons voted
illegally, or, were illegally recorded in the contest being challenged to
change or cast doubt on the election.
587

Having regard to the fact that an election petition is essentially a civil

matter, the commencement of which is by the filing of a petition, the
normal
civil rules of procedure, with the necessary legislative
modifications, do apply. The system of pleadings, therefore, forms an
integral part of any civil litigation.
Pleadings are written statements of the parties in the action. They are
served by each party on the other, setting out the material facts on which
each party relies.

Pleadings therefore do not only operate to define and delimit with clarity
and precision the real issues in controversy between the parties upon
which they can prepare and present their respective cases; and, upon
which the court will be called to adjudicate between them, but serve the
purpose of informing each party what is the case of the opposite party
which he will have to prepare to meet before and at the trial.
In Esso
Petroleum Co. Ltd. V. Southport Corporation, (1956) A. C. 218 at 238, Lord
Normand said The function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case
which has to be met so that the opposing party may direct his evidence to
the issue disclosed by them
In Hammond v Odoi V.C.R.A.C. Crabbe JSC pronounced on the
function of pleading thus:
Pleadings are the nucleus around which the case- the whole caseresolves. Their very nature and character thus demonstrate their
importance in actions, as for the benefit of the court as well as for the
parties. A trial judge can only consider the evidence of the parties in the
light of their pleadings. The pleadings form the basis of parties and place
fetters on the evidence that they would lead. Amendment is the course to
free them from such fetters. The pleadings thus manifest the true and
substantive merits of the case. And the reply is very much a part of the
pleadings.
588

Thus, in situations where there are deletions and reclassifications of the

facts in dispute, in the course of the hearing, without the leave of the Court
to amend; the party could be said to have breached some cardinal rule of
pleadings.

I now proceed to consider the grounds raised.
OVER-VOTING
In the amended petition filed on 8-2-13, paragraph 20 Ground 2(a); the
petitioner stated thus:
The results declared and recorded by the 2nd Respondent contained
widespread instances of over-voting in flagrant breach of the fundamental
constitutional principles of adult suffrage, to wit one man one vote.

On the Table provided under Ground 3, the figure of 128, 262, was set
down as the number of ballots affected and therefore to be annulled.
In Paragraph 37 of the affidavit of Dr. Bawumia filed pursuant to the
directions of the Court, appear the following:
That while over-voting occurred in 2,065 polling stations representing 85%,
over-voting took place along with NBV, DS, NS, and DP. It is only in 320
polling stations that the sole irregularity was over-voting.
In Paragraph 44 of the same affidavit however, 130,136 votes were said to
have been vitiated by the over-voting phenomenon.
The KPMG Report, however, put the total of pink sheets counted in that
category at 318.
Clearly in circumstances that the total number of polling stations under the
category had been reduced by at least 2 by virtue of the KPMG Report;
neither the 128,262 nor the 130,136 could have remained unchanged.

589

In Court Dr. Bawumia testified that there had been a number of deletions.
He tendered various lists of deleted polling stations. Under Exhibit C-C1C11, he listed 44 polling stations under this category as having been
deleted.
These deletions would certainly have affected the number of votes to be
annulled. Subsequent thereto another list of 704 polling stations was
tendered as Exhibit D.
Included in that list were 48 more polling stations under the over-voting
category.
Clearly the number of polling stations to be affected, and more importantly,
the numbers of votes to be affected would see a reduction. One has to bear
in mind that numbers are of the essence since they must be used to
measure the effect of the irregularity, if any. In this instance however, one
cannot determine with precision the number of votes in issue.

It bears stating that whereas the 2nd respondent denied that there was
over-voting; the 3rd Respondent did not only deny but went further to assert
that there were patent, clerical and sometimes arithmetical errors in the
recording which had no material effect on the actual votes publicly cast,
sorted counted and recorded (Paragraph 15(iii) of the affidavit of Johnson
Asiedu filed on 15th April 2013).
WHAT IS OVER-VOTING?
The petitioners gave 2 definitions:
1. Where the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the face of the
pink sheets exceeds the voters register at the polling station as
recorded on the pink sheet.

2. Where the total votes in the ballot box as recorded on the pink sheets
exceeds the total ballots issued to voters as recorded on C 1and 2.
590

3.
For the Respondents however, the phenomenon occurs where the ballot
cast exceeded the number of persons eligible to vote at the polling station
or numbers of persons on the polling station register.
Even though, in the main, both definitions placed emphasis on the Register
and ballot paper; the Petitioners limit themselves exclusively to what
appears on the face of the pink sheet, i.e. the Declaration Form,
Although it is not disputed that the pink sheet was the basic document for
the elections it cannot, however, be said to be conclusive. It is important to
note that an election is not an event, but a process and that the pink sheet
derived its source from the Biometric Voters Register. It should therefore be
the reference point for a discussion of any issue under this category.

I am fortified in this view by the fact that all the political parties were
given copies of the voters register which the various polling agents of the
major political parties carried t to the polling stations on the days the
elections were held. These pieces of evidence were not challenged.
Indeed it is common knowledge that the polling agents who were at the
polling stations checked the names of persons who were verified and
issued with the ballots. Having regard to their role as watchdogs to check
impersonation, multiple voting and certification of the results (they had the
right to protest by refusing to sign the pink sheet) as provided for under C.
I. 75 Regulation 19 (3) coupled with the voting procedures, publicly sorting
and counting etc; it would not be safe to rely solely on the entries on the
face of the pink to establish the incidence of over-voting. Should any
dispute arise as to whether persons who cast the ballot did exceed the
number on the voters register, disregarding the register, the genesis of the
pink itself will result in an error.
Indeed there was ample evidence that several errors were made by the
presiding officers in making the entries. Many of the entries were made in
error.
591

In some cases, columns were wrongly filled, others were left blank; while
yet in others, the figures and words hardly matched. It was evident that
some of the errors could simply be corrected by entering the figures in the
right columns. Others were sheer were errors in the arithmetic.
Dr. Bawumia left the Court in no doubt that the petitioners were relying
solely on the pink sheet to establish cases of over-voting, for, he averred
that there were neither protests nor complaints lodged, in terms of the
complaints procedures laid out in the governing statute at the polling
stations.
In the proceedings of 7th May 2013, to the question by learned counsel for
the 3rd Respondent
QUESTION: Was there any evidence of misconduct provided to you by any
of the polling agents at the polling stations?
The 2nd Respondent delivered of himself thus:

ANSWER: The only evidence we have brought to Court is the over-voting
on the face of the pink sheet.
He significantly admitted that they had no record of any person voting or
attempting to vote twice.
Having regard to the fact that credible evidence was led to show that
statistics of ballots issued by the 2nd Respondent to each Region,
Constituency and Polling Station were provided to all the political parties
whose agents were at the polling station and ticked the names of those
verified (in these elections) I am of the view that over-reliance on the pink
sheet in the face of errors detected clearly led to a dead end , for one
cannot use wrong assumptions or data to arrive at the right conclusions.
Certainly such multiple inaccuracies cannot be the basis for a finding that
there was over-voting. Owing to the mistakes, the pink was manifestly
unreliable as a basis for establishing the phenomenon of over voting.
592

The petition and the affidavit of Dr Bawumia carried 2 different sets of

numbers. Deletions were made in the course of the hearing; the KPMG
Report had a different figure.
Again, in Court Dr. Bawumia admitted that some errors were made in the
computation. All these factors would have an effect on the numbers which,
as already mentioned, are vital.
None of the polling agents made a report of any irregularity; no evidence
was led on ballot box stuffing. And more importantly the ballots were cast
and their polling agents attested to the results.

While the presiding officers obviously did make some mistakes and
clerical errors, no mischief or advantage can be attributed thereto.
Substantially the voting, counting and tallying of votes were carried to a
high degree of accuracy.
Which polling stations were affected?
How many results have to be annulled?
These are questions that the petitioners failed to answer under this
category. I would therefore decline the invitation to annul any votes under
this category.
ABSENCE OF SIGNATURES
In paragraph 20 Ground 1(f) of the petition, the petitioners averred that
there were widespread instances of the absence of the signatures of
presiding officers or their assistants on the Declaration form.
The figure of 117, 670 were put down as the number of votes to be
annulled as a result of this irregularity.
In the affidavit of Dr. Bawumia filed in pursuance of the directions of the
Court, he averred in paragraph 39 that it was only in 310 polling stations
that the sole irregularity was the absence of the requisite signatures. In
paragraph 76 he testified that if this were the only irregularity, the 1st
593

petitioner would have obtained 49.03% of the valid votes whereas the 1st
respondent would have obtained 49%.
Essentially the respondents did not deny that in some cases the Presiding
Officers failed to sign the pink sheets. Indeed the 2nd respondent tendered
Exhibit SA4, a National Summary by Region Results of sheets not signed
by the Presiding Officers. According to the said Exhibit, 905 of the pink
sheets were indeed not signed by the Presiding Officers. Of the2009 of the
pink sheets the petitioners claimed were not signed by the presiding
officers, 1, 989 were signed by the agents of the candidates.
Having admitted that there were at least, 905 polling stations in which
presiding officers failed to append their signatures, the petitioners were
relieved of the duty to call further evidence on the issue.
Article 49 of the Constitution 1992 provides:
1. At any public election or referendum, voting shall be by secret ballot.
2. Immediately after the close of the poll, the presiding officer shall, in
the presence of such of the candidates or their representatives and
their polling agents as are present, proceed to count, at the polling
station, the ballot papers of that station and record the votes cast in
favour of each candidate or question.
3. The presiding officer, the candidates or their representatives and, in
the case of a referendum, the parties contesting or their agents and
the polling agents if any, shall then sign a declaration stating
a. the polling station; and
b. the number of votes cast in favour of each candidate or
question;
and the presiding officer shall, there and then, announce the results
of the voting at the polling station before communicating them to the
returning officer.
Article 49 is couched in mandatory terms. Undoubtedly it is an entrenched
provision, which can properly be amended in accordance with the
procedure set out under Article 290 of the Constitution. Article 49 sets out in
detail the duties of the presiding officers and the polling agents immediately
594

after the close of the poll in any public election or referenda. Under Article
45(c)of the Constitution, the Electoral Commission is vested with the power
to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda.
Article 51 stipulates that the 2nd respondent shall make regulations for the
effective performance of its functions; particularly for the conduct of public
elections among others.
It is evident that even though Article 51 vests the power in the E.C to make
regulations for the conduct of the elections; it is only under Article 49 that
the steps to be followed by the presiding officers and the polling agents,
after the close of the polls, are set out in detail.
Since the provision is couched in mandatory terms, clearly where the
signature of the presiding officer fails to appear, it does not admit of any
argument, on a literal interpretation, of the said article, that there has been
a breach and therefore the results ought to be nullified.
However, it has been held in a long line of decisions that a strict, narrow,
technical and legalistic approach to interpretation of the Constitution, the
embodiment of our hopes and aspirations, must be avoided In DansoAcheampong v. AG and Abodakpi 2009 SCGLR 353, at 358 this Court,
speaking through Prof. Date-Bah, stated:
These days, a literal approach to statutory and constitutional
interpretation is not recommended. Whilst a literal interpretation of a
particular provision may, in its context, be the right one, a literal
approach is always a flawed one, since even common sense
suggests that a plain meaning interpretation of an enactment needs
to be checked against the purpose of the enactment, if such can be
ascertained. A literal approach is one that ignores the purpose of the
provision and relies exclusively on the alleged plain meanings of the
enacted in question.
In Tuffour V Attorney Gen. (1980) GLR 63 it was held that a national
constitution must be given a benevolent broad, liberal and purposive
595

construction so as to promote the apparent policy of its framers. See Asare

V Attorney General 2003-2004 SCGLR
823 and Apaloo V Electoral
Commission of Ghana 2001- 2002 SCGLR 1.
The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution in Article 42 thereof.
Universal Adult suffrage is, without a doubt, one of the pillars of our
democracy. Significantly, article 42 is equally an entrenched provision.
Article 290 (1) e
Was it the intention of the framers of the Constitution that persons who
have exercised their rights under art. 42 by going through the electoral
procedures, registered as voters,
had their names on the register,
participated in the election by casting their votes which have been publicly
counted, recorded and announced, should have such votes not counted
on account of the sins of one public officer?
We have freely chosen the democratic form of governance in which
sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. Under that system each
citizen must be afforded a genuine opportunity, through the conduct of free
and fair elections, to determine who his leaders or representatives should
be.
An election being a process as opposed to it being an event, where all the
stages have been gone through and therefore the elections could be said
to have been substantially held in accordance with the regulations, to nullify
the results on this ground per se, would amount to putting in the power of
some unscrupulous presiding officer in some polling station to nullify the
solemn act of the whole constituency by his single act of omission.
The right to vote is at the heart of our democracy; Tehn-Addy V A G
and Ors, 1997-98 1GLR 47 and Ahumah-Ocansey
V Electoral
Commission and Ors 2010 SCGLR575.
One would ask what the purpose is for Article 49(3) in the Constitution.

596

Article 51 of the Constitution vests the power in the Electoral Commission

to enact regulations for the conduct of the elections. Pursuant to the said
power, C.I. 75 came into force. Regulation 19 thereof defines the role of a
polling agent in these terms:
an appointment under sub-regulations (1) and (2) for the purpose of
detecting impersonation and multiple voting and certifying that the
poll was conducted in accordance with the laws and regulations
governing the conduct of elections

That the polling agent plays a vital role in the process is not in doubt.
In this regard the certification that the poll was conducted in
accordance with the laid down procedures is crucial for the integrity of
the process. As a representative of a candidate or a party, by
appending his signature to the Declaration; he serves notice to his
principal and the generality of the citizenry that the presiding officer
has complied with the rules; there has been the casting of the ballot,
counting, recording and the declaration of the results. Since the
Constitution requires that both the Presiding Officers and polling
agents sign, looking at their duties;and obviously the reason for
signatures in terms of the credibility of the process i. e. the polling
agent vis a vis the presiding officer, in the event of the presiding
officers failure to sign , a purposive interpretation would not defeat
the objectives of Article 49(3) in that even though the Presiding
Officer had failed to sign, the polling agents signature, to my mind, is
a bold declaration for the integrity of the whole electoral process.
Where he therefore certifies the results, which is essentially about
the ballot; the absence of the presiding officers signature should not
result in an annulment. Of the two, the polling agent was obliged to
protest should he take the view that there was a violation of some
statute, he could refuse to sign and give reasons; however the
presiding officer had no such option.
597


Furthermore there was no evidence that the persons who voted in the
election ought not to have voted, neither is there any evidence that
some people voted more than once. Indeed there was no evidence
that any of the voters or the respondents engaged in any fraudulent
acts. In other words, there was a real election by ballot.
Undoubtedly the competing provisions guaranteeing the right to vote
under Article 42 and Article 49(3) which imposes a duty on the
presiding officer to sign the Declaration Form should be resolved by
purposively interpreting them so as to ensure that those who have
exercised their right to vote shall have their votes counted.

In my view, visiting the sins of some public official on innocent
citizens who have expressed their choice freely would run counter to
the principle of universal adult suffrage, one of the pillars of our
democracy, and perpetuate an injustice.

The omissions of a presiding officer should not disenfranchise the
voter.

I would therefore decline the invitation to invalidate the votes cast on
account of the absence of the signature of the presiding officers.

A general comment

The notion that polling agents are ornamental pieces adorning the
polling stations must be discarded. Their roles are clearly defined by
the Constitution and other statutes governing the elections. A vigilant
598

polling agent would detect some of the wrongful acts at the polling
station. He could then set in motion the complaint mechanism in the
governing statute, designed at addressing the complaints, at the
polling stations or collation centers with minimum delay. This costly
exercise of combing through a mountain of election materials, with a
view of unearthing irregularities, well after the declaration of the
results, would be greatly reduced. Sadly, many a time, the crucial
duties of polling agents are left in the hands of persons who hardly
appreciated the reasons for their presence at such fora.The need to
recruit a group of committed and dedicated persons with a certain
level of education cannot be overemphasized.

DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBERS

It is the petitioners case that there were widespread instances
where there were same serial numbers on pink sheets with different
poll results when the proper and due procedure established by 2nd
Respondent required that each polling station have a unique serial
number in order to secure the integrity of the polls and the will of the
lawfully registered voters.

Under this head the petitioners request that 3,508,491 votes be
invalidated. In answer the respondents asserted that the serial
numbers had nothing to do with the Declaration Form; that its unique
features were the name of the polling station and its unique code.

I must say that the pieces of evidence offered by both Mr.Johnson
Asiedu Nketiah and Dr. Afari Gyan shredded into pieces the
petitioners case under this head. It became evident that Dr. Bawumia
599

was not too familiar with the processes and procedures leading to the
conduct of the presidential elections.

The exact nature of the malpractice under this head was not clear
from his testimony, how the serial numbers affected the recording of
the results, but more importantly how the alleged opportunity offered
by the duplicate series got exploited so as to result in any irregularity
was never established.

It is trite learning that an election cannot be overturned on the basis
of mere speculation, for it is not about what could have happened; but
what did take place. I do not therefore feel able to grant the prayer of
the petitioners under this category.

VOTING WITHOUT BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION

As per paragraph 20 Grounds (1) and (d) of the amended Petition,
the petitioners alleged:

a. That 2nd respondent permitted voting to take place in many

polling stations across the country without prior biometric
verification by the presiding officers of 2nd respondent or their
assistants, contrary to Regulation 30(2) of C.I. 75.

According to the 2nd Petitioner as per paragraph 52 of his affidavit;

137,112of the votes should be annulled.
In his evidence before the Court, Dr. Bawumia in answer to a
question as to how the petitioners arrived at the conclusion that
persons voted without biometric verification
600

ANSWER: My Lords, evidence is on the face of the pink sheet.

Section C3 of the pink sheet asks the question how many voters
voted with the use of form 1 C were verified to vote by the use of form
1C and not by biometric verification device that is filled in Sec C3,
and so, my Lords, what we did was to aggregate for each polling
station where voting without biometric verification took place. We
aggregated all the numbers in Sec C3 and my Lords if I may refer to
my tables we have a total of 535, 723 people who voted without
biometric verification in the polling stations under contention

It is obvious that the petitioners simply went through the pink sheets
and totaled all the figures in Form C3. The issue is whether that sole
exercise discharges the burden placed on the petitioners, in terms of
Sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Act, 1973.
Dr. Afari Gyan in his testimony stated that the column C3 was not
required to be filled by the presiding officers.
According to him that column was created to take care of those
voters who had been registered during the biometric registration
exercise that preceded the voting, but whose biometric data had been
lost.
He stated however that upon discussions with the political parties
some of them vehemently opposed the idea and insisted that the only
means of verification should be through the machines. It was
therefore agreed that the form 1. C. was not to be used. This,
according to him, was at a time the forms had already been printed
and that since C3 column could not be taken off, the presiding
officers were asked to leave that column blank. He tendered in
evidence E. C. 5 the Form 1. C. and added that the said Form C1
was therefore not taken to the polling stations.
Regulation 30(1) of C.I. 75 provides:
601

1. A presiding officer may, before delivering a ballot paper to a

person who is to vote at the election, require the person to
produce
a. a voter identification card or
b. any other evidence determined by the Commission in order to
establish by fingerprint or facial recognition that the person is
the registered voter whose name and voter identification
number and particulars appear in the register.

2. The voter shall go through a biometric verification process.

The procedure to be followed under Regulation 30 presupposes that
there must be a ballot paper; a voters identification card and
biometric verification equipment. The latter has been defined in
Regulation 47 as a device provided at the polling station for the
purpose of establishing by fingerprint the identity of the voter.
Therefore where a dispute arises as to whether a voter had been
verified, the best evidence should be the verification machine. Even if
the pink sheet were the primary document, it is not conclusive; for it is
my respectful view that prints out from the verification device would
have put to rest any arguments as to whether those persons went
through the verification process or not.
It is to be noted that when the petitioners made the allegation which
was denied by the 2nd respondent, it was not enough for the 2nd
petitioner to have mounted the witness the box and repeated the
averments since those facts are capable of proof by some other
means i.e. producing the prints out of the machine as a form of proof.
Majolagbe V. Larbi(1959)1 GLR190.
It could be argued that since the evidence led was documentary,
parole evidence was inadmissible to vary or contradict same.
602

That there are exceptions to the rule is beyond doubt. Dr. Afari Gyan
tendered the form 1.C. With the introduction of the said document the
question in C3 became meaningful. It became obvious, that one
could not answer the question in that column without any reference to
E. C. 5 which were not taken to the polling stations, in other words, E,
C. 5 was consistent with the contents in C.3, Again the 2nd was
emphatic that no person voted without being verified and, that, while
admitting that there challenges with the equipment, voting in those
areas were adjourned to the next day in those areas.
It is a notorious fact that the poll was adjourned in some areas and
therefore there were two days of voting. If persons were allowed to
vote without verification would there have been any need for the
adjournment? I think not. In the absence of any credible evidence to
the contrary (some polling agent or voter testifying) I would prefer the
pieces of evidence of the respondents on this issue to the bare
assertions of the petitioners based on the face of the pink sheets,It
became obvious that the attack mounted under that category was
premised on a misconception and therefore impossible to stand.
I would accordingly decline the petitioners invitation to annul the
votes under that category.
UNKNOWN POLLING STATIONS
In paragraph 20 Ground 2(a) the petitioners complained that there
were 28 locations where elections took place which were not part of
the twenty-six thousand and two (26002) polling stations created by
the 2nd respondent.
In Court however, on the issue, Dr. Bawumia testified thus we could
not match the names and the polling stations. Again as with the
duplicate numbers category, this category is insignificant;
The petitioners had a duty to establish that those polling stations did
not exist.
603

Exhibit EC 3 showed that the petitioners knew about the existence of

those polling stations and had indeed appointed agents to thereto.
If they did not know of the existence of those polling stations, they
obviously could not have sent their agents there.
I must say that no evidence was led on when those polling stations
were created.
I would in the circumstances, find that the petitioners have failed to
lead evidence sufficient for a finding in their favour on this ground.

I accordingly decline to annul the votes stated there under.
SAME POLLING STATION CODES ON DIFFERENT PINK SHEETS
Under this category even though the petitioners took the view that
votes under that category were insignificant, I would only find the
explanation by the 2nd respondent credible; that some were polling
stations were so large as to be divided into sections A and B; while
the others, constituted polling stations where special voting took
place, I would so find and dismiss the petitioners case under this
ground as well.

For the foregoing reasons I would dismiss the petition in its
entirety.I must say that on paper, we seem to have a transparent
electoral system which has evolved over the years. The political
parties have been active participants. Even though the IPAC is not
backed by law, it has played a pivotal role at every stage of the
process. The registration of voters, printing of ballot papers, training
of polling agents, the sorting and counting done publicly, the
transparent ballot boxes and the photo identification cards raise the
level of transparency to a very high degree. It became evident
however that the myriad of errors and blunders were committed by
the election officials. Such errors did no credit to the system. It is
604

therefore recommended the caliber of persons recruited for the

exercise.

(SGD)

V. AKOTO-BAMFO(MRS)

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

COURT

COUNSEL
PHILIP ADDISON (WITH STEPHEN DAPAAH, MS. GLORIA AKUFFO,
FRANK DAVIS, ALEX QUAYNOR, AKOTO AMPAW, NANA ASANTE
BEDIATUO, KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO, KWAKU ASIRIFI, GODFRED
YEBOAH DAME, EGBERT FAIBILLE,JNR. AND PROF. KEN.
ATTAFUAH) FOR THE PETITIONERS.
TONY LITHUR (WITH HIM DR. ABDUL AZIZ BAASIT BAMBA) FOR
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
JAMES QUASHIE IDUN (WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI, STANLEY
AMARTEIFIO, STEPHANY AMARTEIFIO AND FREDA BRUCEAPPIAH ) FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
TSATSU TSIKATA (WITH HIM SAMUEL CODJOE) FOR THE
RESPONDENT.

3RD

605