The presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2020 election, Former President John Dramani Mahama, has filed two legal processes at the Supreme Court for certain answers from the Electoral Commission (EC) with regard to his presidential election petition.
In his first process – motion for leave to serve interrogatories, Mr Mahama is seeking permission from the Supreme Court to allow him to elicit answers that borders on how the Chairperson of the EC, Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential poll, reports Graphic Online’s Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson.
With the second process – request to admit facts, the petitioner wants the EC to either admit or deny certain “facts” with regard to what ensued on December 9, 2020, the day Mrs Mensa, who is the returning officer for the presidential poll, declared President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the President-elect.
In a latest document, Mr Mahama through his attorney Tony Lithur, is pressing the EC to admit: “That when the percentages of the valid votes cast and standing to the names of each of the Presidential Candidates as announced by Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa, the Chairperson of 1st Respondent on December 9, 2020, are summed up, they would yield a total of 100.3%.”
The amended petition, according to Ghanaweb asked the EC to admit further: “That Mrs. Jean Mensa, Chairperson of 1st Respondent, in her purported declaration on December 9, 2020, stated that the results from Techiman South Constituency were not yet available.
The amended petition further asked the EC to admit: “That Mrs. Jean Mensa, Chairperson of 1st Respondent, in her purported declaration on December 9, 2020, stated that even if the 128,018 votes of Techiman South Constituency were added to the votes standing to the name of [the] petitioner, that would not change the results.”
In that expected amendment submitted on Thursday 14 January, former President Mahama was expected to only amend the typographical error of labelling the “1st Respondent”, namely the Electoral Commission (EC) as “2nd Respondent”, being Nana Akufo-Addo and vice versa, a reason the justices withdrew into chambers and returned with a ruling granting the motion to amend, despite opposition from Akoto Ampaw, counsel for Akufo-Addo.
In the initial response by the first respondent, namely the EC, there was an admission that “computational and mathematical errors” were made but that those errors did not “materially affect” the results.