OPEN LETTER TO NII LANTE

I have been watching with keen interest the saga surrounding Jake’s house – the GaDangme propaganda, the political twist and the arrogance of foot soldiers – and I have been sad, very sad.

I am sad because, in civilized society, it is the law and the law alone that is our guide, so that weak men and finite mortals with hands and feet of clay do not take advantage of their fellowmen.

I am sad, too, because in our religious and traditional institutions, we are further guided by deep values and spiritual laws. In both of these instances, Nii Lante is committing a serious and dangerous mistake. One: in spitting upon the Supreme Court ruling, he may be serving the short-term interests of his political patrons; in the long run, however, he might find himself a scapegoat – another Ga scapegoat, just like Josiah Aryeh.

Nii Lante, no doubt, is a young and promising politician; but he has overshot himself. To begin with, in the constituency such as the one in which he is contesting, he does not need to split hairs to pick the MP slot. It used to be a UP seat that shocked Kwame Nkrumah and subsequent military adventurers – until recently. But times do change. As the Ga adage says: “Calamities do not come flying red flags.”

Strangely, GaDangme senior citizens and religious leaders and traditional rulers in the Ga State look on; the Muslim clerics and Zongo boys in Cow Lane look on and the GaDangme Caucus in the National Democratic Congress gloat with glee, not only over the infraction of a Supreme Court decision, but also a dangerous attempt to disinherit the son of a bonafide Ghanaian and Ga personality.

I defended Nii Lante when he was accused of not being an out-and-out Ga during the last parliamentary elections. Lamptey and Lante are one name from one clan; in mere spelling, one is indigenized and the other Anglicized. Jake therefore passes for Nii Lante’s uncle. In terms of spiritual and traditional values, Nii Lante may be burning his fingers in continually deciding not to leave his uncle’s residence, citing all kinds of excuses – with party patrons looking on. It is a totally different scenario, if Jake stole the property and he Nii Lante was playing the vigilante and patriot. For all you know, however, Jake could be the only Ga in that premises. 

Additionally, there are facts about our national and political independence which Nii Lante may not be aware about. Obetsebi Lamptey, Jake’s father and member of the Big Six, drafted the petition that Sgt. Adjetey and his lieutenants were to submit to the Governor during the February 28 shooting incident. Also as a member of the Big Six, he was the only one of the Six within meters of the incident and reported back to the rest, who rallied together to push the petition to the Governor, after the incident. Before then, he had immediately confronted Superintendent Imray from the top of his car where, he was perching, just to have a bird’s eye view of the drama.

“Imray, you fired the shots. Who authorized you?” Obetsebi  Lamptey exploded. “Captain Ballantyne,” the panicky Imray confessed, whereupon Obetsebi Lamptey picked his pocket diary and noted the confession. 

At almost 90, I am finalizing my will and testament. All I can say now, before I depart, is urge Nii Lante, as part of that testament, not to listen to traitors who, in the name of GaDangme solidarity, tend to want to spinelessly score unnecessary political points on just any issue.  He must show remorse and prove critics wrong. Tamakloes and Tsikatas in the NDC will not do what you have done to a fellow Ga and relative; and Owusus and Yeboahs in the same or other parties will not do that either…Ga boys in politics must learn serious lessons… 

Remember what happened to Josiah Aryeh…in the end, you might be another embarrassing GaDangme scapegoat. I rest my case...

*Published unedited

JOSHUA ATTOH QUARSHIE,

CHEMUNAA, ACCRA.

The Electoral Commission’s Address Speaks For Itself!

The electoral commission’s (EC) written address to the Supreme Court panel hearing the presidential election petition (WRIT No. J1/6/2013) reveals an unassailable fact: the EC prematurely declared a winner in the 2012 election and is using the judicial arena to defend the premature declaration rather than assist the Court to determine whether the declaration was valid.

Because the EC is a taxpayer-funded entity, which is expected to be non-partisan and disinterested in the outcome of an election, this partisan posture is unfortunate indeed.

In paragraph 14 of the address, the EC acknowledges what all Ghanaians have come to know – “that in completing the ballot accounting part of the pink sheet, many of the Presiding Officers made clerical errors and left blank spaces wrongly and made errors which were not logical.”

In paragraph 27, the EC justifies the incidence and frequency of these errors by reminding the Court that, “the EC hires over one hundred thousand temporary officials, who are trained for only a short time, to conduct the presidential and parliamentary elections in a day or two.” As a result, the EC invites the Court, and the nation, to accept that such administrative, clerical and logical errors are unavoidable.

To be sure, it cannot be gainsaid that election officials are fallible (to err is human, as they say). But the notion that election officials can err is not a license to ignore detected errors, an injunction against correcting known errors or a covenant to accept outcomes that are pregnant with errors.

As such, the discovery of election errors, regardless of what they are called, raises four issues: (i) when did the EC become aware of these so-called administrative, clerical and logical errors? (ii) What was the nature and effect of these errors? (iii) were these errors known before the declaration of the results and if so were the errors corrected prior to the declaration? (iv) if these errors were found after the declaration, what steps have the EC taken to remediate them?

Alas, the EC does not address these pertinent issues but simply invites the Court to accept its bald assertion that the administrative, clerical and logical questions did not affect the outcome of the elections. Bald, because, nowhere in the address does the EC attempt to explain the nature and effect of these so-called errors.

It is apparent that the EC seems unwilling or unable to appreciate the implications and seriousness of these so-called administrative, clerical and logical errors. It is almost as if the EC believes that errors become self-correcting merely by qualifying them with certain adjectives.

The EC’s invitation for the nation to accept election results contaminated with known and uncorrected administrative, clerical and logical errors must be declined, precisely because such errors undermine the integrity and credibility of our elections.

In paragraph 15 of the address, the EC invites the Court to reconstruct the pink sheets so as to render them logical. The invitation is cloaked in high-sounding legal parlance –“the pink sheets must be read as a whole with the eye of a person desirous of conducting careful analysis of its contents.” The EC’s reconstruction logic proceeds as follows: If the number in A1 is illogical, ignore it and use the number in A2. If both are illogical, ignore them and use the sum of C1+C2+C3+C4. If you cannot make sense out of all the numbers, just grab the statistics of ballots issued to each region, constituency and polling station and it will help careful eyes to comprehend the errors on the face of the pink sheet.

According to the EC, this innovative, even mysterious, way of reading a pink sheet is permissible because “the pink sheets are intrinsically or extrinsically verifiable.” There is just one little problem with this argument: the EC does not give an iota of evidence that it engaged in this so called intrinsic and extrinsic verification of the pink sheets before declaring the EC acknowledged error-ridden results of December 9, 2012. The theory is what it is: an ex post intrinsic and extrinsic verification theory to rationalize a rush to announce tainted election results.

Next, the EC addresses each of the categories of irregularities, malpractices, omission and statutory violations (IMOV) for which petitioner led evidence and are the basis of the reliefs so sought.

*OVER VOTING:

The petitioners’ case is that over voting occurs where (a) the ballots cast exceed the number of registered voters or (b) the ballots cast exceed the number of ballot papers issued to the polling station. Further, over voting should lead to an annulment of the votes because it violates Article 42 of the Constitution and Regulation 24(1) of C.I. 75. Article 42 relates to the right of a citizen to vote and her entitlement to be registered as a voter and Regulation 24(1) states that a voter cannot cast more than one vote when a poll is taken.

The EC’s argument against this case is that the petitioner failed to show that any person voted or attempted to vote more than once. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that over voting violates Article 42 of the Constitution and Regulation 24(1) of C.I. 75 must fail.

In my opinion, the EC has utterly misconstrued Article 42 and Regulation 24(1) of C.I. 75. Together, the laws suggest that every registered voter is entitled to cast a single ballot and that ballot is entitled to be counted once. It follows that those who are not registered to vote are not entitled to vote and, logically, their votes are not entitled to be counted.

Thus, failing to show that any person voted or attempted to vote more than once is not the only way of showing that the laws have been violated. The law is also violated when a valid ballot is counted more than once, even if nobody votes more than once. It is likewise violated when someone who is not entitled to vote casts a ballot, even though this person does not attempt to vote more than once.

Of course, because casting a ballot is done secretly, it is unreasonable to expect petitioners to show that a voter cast more than one ballot. Where a secret ballot is used, the presence of over voting, as defined in (a) and (b) above, is conclusive evidence that a ballot has been counted more than once or that a voter has cast more than one ballot.

Over voting violates Article 42 and Regulation 24(1) of C.I. 75 on a “res ipsa loquitur” theory! Without additional proof, ballots cast that exceed the number of registered voters or the number of ballot papers issued to a polling station conclusively establishes a violation of the “one man one vote” principle in Article 42 and Regulation 24(1).

Further, over voting raises questions about the credibility and integrity of the elections in the affected polling station. It is for this reason that the EC annulled the presidential election in Upper West Akim-Arabic Primary School A in the Asuokaw polling station. Thus, the EC’s defense fails!

*NO SIGNATURE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER:

According to Article 49 (3) of the Constitution and Regulation 36 (2) of C. I.75, the EC-appointed presiding officer shall sign the statement of declaration of the polling results (i.e., the pink sheets). It is the petitioners’ case that 995 pink sheets were not signed and should not therefore have gone into the collation of the results.

The EC does not deny this in its address. Rather, the EC argues that the petitioners’ polling agents signed 99% of these pink sheets. According to Afari Gyan, he considers the polling agents’ signature acceptable for the purposes of the declaration of the Presidential results.

Put more vividly but accurately, Afari Gyan has suo moto amended Article 49 (3) of the Constitution. The mischief that this Article was intended to cure is so grave that it happens to be one of the few entrenched provisions of the Constitution. It is not up to the EC, Afari-Gyan or anyone to decide which of the provisions of the Constitution they are going to enforce or not enforce.

It is abundantly clear that the presiding officers’ signature is necessary to validate a pink sheet. It is for good and obvious reasons that the Constitution requires a signature of a non-partisan EC-appointed official. Accepting pink sheets signed by only partisan agents is an invitation to fraud and chaos in our elections.

Absent the signature of the presiding officer, the pink sheets MUST NOT enter the collation of the Presidential results. It is a willful violation of an entrenched provision of the Constitution for the EC to have included these inchoate and invalid pink sheets in its collation. Regrettably, that several months after the violation, the EC does not seem to realize the harm that this reckless conduct had caused.

Incidentally, the EC does not offer any explanation for why 995 Presiding Officers failed to sign the pink sheets. In fact, the EC offers no evidence of any internal investigation to understand and remedy the problem.

Ironically, one of the reasons cited for the EC to disqualify the NDP Presidential candidate from contesting the 2012 elections was the absence of signatures for those who endorsed her. Either our constitutional provisions matter or they do not matter.

But we cannot have it both ways.

*NO BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION:

According to its written address, the EC insists that everyone who voted was biometrically verified. I found this to be rather amusing because I happened to be in the Courtroom when the EC testified that an “Omanhene” does not have to go through biometric verification in order to vote. That is, what I heard him say was that the election officials had discretion in deciding whether or not to use biometric verification. In this vein, Afari Gyan’s oral testimony is in conflict with the EC’s written address.

The biometric verification tools were procured at high cost to enhance the integrity of the elections and to cure the mischief of impersonation, multiple voting, etc. The enactment of C. I. 75, Regulation 30(2), which provides that, “the voter shall go through a biometric verification process before being allowed to vote,” and the “NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE” mantra put the country on notice that polling stations, which recorded ballots cast in excess of biometrically verified voters, will have their results annulled.

The EC now invites the Court to set aside the algorithm for detecting the biometric infraction above. Rather, the EC claims no biometric verification occurred because the petitioners did not produce a person who saw anyone voting without having been biometrically verified.

This is palpably misleading because, as discussed previously, the secret nature of voting is such that most infractions can only be circumstantially proven. And such circumstantial evidence formed the basis of the EC cancelling the results of 4 polling stations for biometric infractions.

The EC must apply its rules consistently!

*DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBER ON PINK SHEETS:

As before the EC blames others. Here, the blame is not on the ill-trained workers but the printers who inserted the numbers. The EC does not address the real possibility that it was this duplication that enabled the over voting, non-biometric voting and the missing signatures. The EC makes similarly unpersuasive arguments about the same polling codes with different results and the unknown polling stations.

Finally, in its conclusion, the EC refers the Court to the Canadian case of Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj SCC 55, ([2012] 3 S.C.R). While the EC correctly points out that the case has a persuasive effect on the Court, it was less than diligent in properly situating the case for the Court and provided out of context quotes from paragraphs 46, 56 and 66 that could mislead the Court. In reality, the Opitz case was about disputed elections in an electoral district, not a presidential election, and the issue was whether votes should be annulled because of votes cast by individuals who were not entitled to vote under the Canada elections Act.

The case has nothing to say about constitutional violations in the form of over voting, absence of presiding officers’ signatures. Nor does it shed any light on voting without biometric violation or duplicate pink sheets.

The quote in paragraph 46 is misleading in that it gives the impression that imperfections in the conduct of elections are inevitable as a result of inexperienced workers performing under unfamiliar condition. This gives the impression that anything goes.

However, a fuller version of the quote is in paragraph 2, which ends as follows: “Only irregularities that affect the result of the election and thereby undermine the integrity of the electoral process are grounds for overturning an election.” Clearly, the irregularities, malpractices, omissions and statutory violations at issue in WRIT No. J1/6/2013 undermines the integrity of the electoral process.

In quoting paragraph 56 of the Opitz case, which talks about the risk in adopting the strict procedural approach, the EC should have been more forthcoming in revealing to the Court that the position taken by the Opitz Court obliterates the distinction between qualification and entitlement to vote. As the Chief Justice of the Opitz Court stated in his dissent (this case was a 4-3 decision), “my colleagues take the position that everyone who is qualified to vote and ordinarily resident in the electoral district is entitled to vote. Thus, a voter who is not on the electoral list and has not filed a registration certificate can be later held to have been “entitled” to vote if he was qualified to vote and ordinarily resident in the electoral district. I cannot accept this view.”

Although the issue is not before our Court, I believe most Ghanaians will be wary of any system that entitles a qualified voter to vote on voting day without having gone through prior registration.

Similarly, the reference to paragraph 66 is misleading without context. Paragraph 67 provides an example, which could have put paragraph 66 in context and highlight the real issue before the Opitz Court:

“For example, compare the situation of two voters who arrive at the polling station with inadequate identification. The deputy returning officer (DRO) personally knows one of the voters, and vouches for him, enabling him to cast a ballot. The DRO does not live in the polling division, so he has vouched in a manner not permitted by the Act. However, the voter leaves the polling station believing that he has cast a valid vote. If a court later rejects the voter’s vote, he is irreparably disenfranchised, through no fault of his own. In the case of the second voter, the DRO properly refuses to let her vote without proper identification. This voter can return to the polling station later in the day, accompanied by a voucher who lives in the polling division, and cast her ballot. She has not been disenfranchised.”

Again inadequate identification is not the IMOV that our Court is dealing with. Thus, Opitz is of little relevance and use to the Court.

To sum up, we invest a lot of resources in the EC to manage our electoral process, to declare the results and, where necessary to provide unbiased and relevant information for our Court to determine whether declared results are valid. It is my assessment and opinion that the EC has woefully failed to carry out this burden. If the EC cannot defend its processes and outcomes, it is hard for me to see how anyone can! 

Source: Prof. S. Kwaku Asare

TWUM-BOAFO GOOFED

The Chief Executive Officer of the Freezones Board Kojo Twum-Boafo goofed last weekend when he claimed that DAYBREAK is owned by Ken Kuranchie, Editor of The Searchlight, now languishing in an unknown prison, after he fell foul of the law of contempt and had the Supreme Court of Ghana gavel fall on his head. 

Phone calls to DAYBREAK after the claim was made by the CEO on Alhaji and Alhaji, a popular current affairs programme on Radio Gold, compelled the owners of the paper to come out to deny the story.

Whilst the Editor of DAYBREAK may have worked with Ken Kuranchie before, the two fell out and separated purely on matters of principle. 

DAYBREAK is published by Prah Investment and was registered with the National Media Commission (NMC) on September 30, 2010. It is registered a sole proprietor business under the Registration of Businesses Act, 1962, (No.151)

Twum-Boafo therefore goofed. Any other person holding an opinion similar to Twum-Boafo may also have goofed, but this is intended to set the records straight. 

Even when the host attempted correcting him by trying to elicit from him whether he had checked the fact, he persisted. He may have said it without malice, but the harm may also have been done. Someone in a capacity that requires of him to be neutral and independent certainly decided on that score to be political and mischievous – which is not good for Democracy and impartiality from sources like Freezones Board CEO.

We are also told he said DAYBREAK is financed by a certain Colonel Damoah. That is also a strange conjecture. Nobody on this paper has ever met Damoah or his agent. DAYBREAK strives to come out only once a week and that is evident of a business struggling to survive – without bending the knee to any political entity or individual whim.

If the FZB CEO has cash to support DAYBREAK for a month only, we welcome it in the name of Democracy and not influence. And for the harm he caused us on Radio Gold, it will be nice if he retracts. We all get it wrong, sometimes.

Source: DAYBREAK

Papa Jerry and June 4

Former President Jerry John Rawlings and the June 4 revolution are synonymous. June 4 was the vehicle through which he made history in the country’s political discourse.

One cannot discuss former President Rawlings without the June 4 Uprising as it was the event which facilitated his entry into the uncharted terrain of the country’s politics and enabled him to consolidate his place in Ghana’s history as the longest serving head of state.

Although there are events like the May15 Uprising and the December 31 Revolution which metamorphosed into the establishment of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and the formation of the National Democratic Congress (NDC)—that are dear to former President Rawlings, June 4 remains uppermost in the scheme of activities to him.

The question is: Why did former President Rawlings become more popular with the June 4 than other political events that he was associated with between 1979 and 2000?

Another question is why June 4 evokes considerable passions, emotions and sentiments in former President Jerry Rawlings who can be described as a political enigma.

He is a political enigma in the sense that he pursues a cause to the point of unbending fanaticism and would also harass, condemn and castigate a personality he disagrees with in no uncertain terms.

One would recollect the celebrations of the June 4 event at the Swedru Sports Stadium on June 6, 1998 during which former President Rawlings endorsed the late President John Evans Atta Mills as the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2000 election.

Although his endorsement of former President Mills created a furore in the circles of the party, leading to the creation of the National Reform Party (NRP) led by Mr. Goosie Tandoh, former President Rawlings stuck to his guns.

 

In another period during the presidency of his protégé, former President Mills, the same former President Rawlings did not give him breathing space after his election victory in 2008, descending heavily on him for reasons beyond one’s imagination.

He shifted his allegiance from former President Mills and threw his full weight behind his wife in the NDC congress which retained former President Mills as the candidate for the party for the 2012 poll but which death prevented him from doing so.

Not even attempts by certain party members to strip him of his position of founding father of the party as well as the raining of unprintable words on his personal being stopped him from supporting his wife’s ambition to the high heavens.

Former President Rawlings considers June 4 as a watershed in the country’s political processes since it was the only period during which a group of revolutionary minded officers of the Ghana Armed Forces took over the reins of government and undertook far reaching measures to cleanse the army of what he termed incorrigible elements.

He described the event as a House Cleaning Exercise since it was the primary responsibility of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) to check the corruptible excesses by the officers who had transformed themselves into politicians and were draining the country of its finances.

The Supreme Military Council (SMC) II under the late General F.W.K. Akuffo replaced General Ignatius Kutu Acheampong who overthrew the Progress Party (PP) on January 13, 1972 and established the National Redemption Council (NRC), which late became the Supreme Military Council 1.

Former President Rawlings, then a Flight Lieutenant of the Ghana Air Force, had strongly criticized General Acheampong and other officers of the junta for engaging in the same corrupt practices for which they overthrew the Busia Regime.

Hear General Acheampong: “The Busia Regime took away from us the facilities and amenities which we in the Army and the Police even enjoyed under the Nkrumah regime.”

He added: “And the Busia regime was engaged in economic mismanagement, nepotism, cronyism and public embezzlement of funds to the detriment of the country’s development.”

However, a few years into their management of the economy, the military junta who described themselves as redeemers of the country engaged in the most despicable corrupt acts which incensed the masses of the people who embarked on endless strikes which nearly paralyzed the country.

The country’s roads were indescribable since it took vehicles more than six hours to travel from Agona Swedru to Cape Coast while one had to connect from London before he could get in touch with his or her relations residing in Abidjan via telephone.

Basic necessities like milk, sugar and soap were labeled as essential commodities and it was hell for the people to procure a few of these items since they had to obtain chits from authorities of the defunct Ghana National Trading Corporation (GNTC) for that purpose.

A lot of projects were sited across the country for the sake of political expediency while the cream of the military establishment was dishing out vehicles, particularly Golf, to young women in exchange for sexual favors.

The country’s Balance of Payment was in the red and her trading partners were not ready to grant fresh loans to enable the country purchase spare parts for the rehabilitation of its ailing industries.

These were some of the objective conditions which precipitated the June 4 Uprising and the rise of former President Rawlings to the commanding heights of the country’s politics.

Former President is endowed with charm and charisma and these features enabled him to completely win over the majority of the people when he burst onto the political scene.

On platforms during that period he could make people cry or laugh through gesticulations with his head, hands and feet. 

Former President Rawlings could pace the dais, looking to the heavens or the dais, wiping his face with his fingers and talking on issues which touched on the emotions of the people for hours on end.

His success with words was overpowering. He could cry to evoke the same feelings in the crowd who would be wearing long faces or crack jokes to elicit cacophonous outburst of laughter from the same crowd.

Former President Rawlings would always want to celebrate June 4 to remember the gallant soldiers who put their lives on the line to stop the rot in the economy between 1972 and 1979.

But did corruption stop under the subsequent regimes and how does former President Rawlings feel about the canker of unbridled corruption in the various facets of Ghanaian life today?

Credit: Kweku Tsen