- It is the case of Mr Mahama that, per the figures, the actual percentage for President Akufo-Addo minus Techiman South ought to be 50.098 per cent and not 51.595 per cent.
Former President John Dramani Mahama has filed a motion for the Supreme Court to give him the green light to correct an ‘error’ in his election petition challenging the validity of the declaration of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the winner of Election 2020.
The motion for amendment is seeking the permission of the apex court to correct a mistake in relief (f) of the election petition.
In the election petition filed on December 30, last year, the first respondent(1st) was the Electoral Commission (EC), with the second respondent (2nd) being President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
However, relief (f) wants the court to order the EC to conduct a second election between Mahama and the first respondent, which as stated in the petition turns out to be the EC.
Relief (f) is seeking “an order of mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to proceed to conduct a second election with petitioner and first respondent as the candidates as required under Articles 63(4) and (5) of the 1992 Constitution”.
It is this error that the former President wants to correct.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the motion for amendment on Thursday, January 14, this year.
The petition is also seeking an order of injunction restraining President Akufo-Addo from holding himself as the President-elect.
Former President Mahama is also asking the apex court to order the EC to conduct a second election with only him and President Akufo-Addo as the candidates.
Other reliefs sought by the former President include declaration that the Chairperson of the EC, Mrs Jean Mensa, breached the 1992 Constitution, specifically Article 63(3) with the declaration that she made on December 9, 2020.
Also, the former President is asking the highest court of the land to declare that based on the data contained in the declaration “no candidate satisfied” the more than 50 per cent threshold required to be declared a winner of the presidential poll.
He also wants a declaration from the court that the said declaration of President Akufo -Addo as the President -elect by the EC is “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect”.
In his petition, the former President argues that the results announced by Mrs Mensa on December 9, 2020 did not give any candidate the more than 50 per cent threshold.
According to him, the EC Chairperson announced the total valid votes cast as 13,434,574, minus the results of Techiman South , with President Akufo-Addo obtaining 6,730,413 of the votes representing 51.595 per cent of the votes while he (Mahama) got 6,214,889 representing 47.366 per cent of the votes.
It is the case of Mr Mahama that, per the figures, the actual percentage for President Akufo-Addo minus Techiman South ought to be 50.098 per cent and not 51.595 per cent.
Also he argued that his percentage minus Techiman South should be 46.26 per cent and not 47.366 per cent.
Techiman South angle
Engaging in more calculations, he argued that the Techiman South Constituency had a total voting population of 128,018 and if that was added to the total valid votes cast nationwide as declared by the EC, the result would be 13,434,574 plus 128,018 which would give 13,562,592.
Under the circumstances, the NDC presidential candidate is claiming that it was erroneous on the part of the EC to state that even when all the Techiman South votes were added to the total votes he got, there would still be no change to the results.
“Consequently, if all the votes of Techiman South Constituency were added to the Petitioner (Mahama)’s votes , the 2nd respondent’s (President Akufo-Addo) votes will remain the same at 6,730,413, now yielding 49.625 per cent , while the votes of the petitioner would increase to 6,342,907, now yielding 46.768 per cent.
“Therefore Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa’s claim in the purported declaration that adding all the 128,018 votes in the Techiman South Constituency of the votes standing in the name of the petitioner would not change the results, was clearly wrong,” Mr Mahama argued.