Islam Condemns Terrorism

Some people who say they are acting in the name of religion may misunderstand their religion or practice it wrongly. For this reason, it is a mistake to form any idea of that religion from the activities of these people. The best way to understand Islam is through its holy source.

The holy source of Islam is the Qur'an; and the model of morality in the Qur'an is completely different from the image of it formed in the minds of some westerners. The Qur'an is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance and peace, and a Muslim who truly lives according to these moral precepts is highly refined, thoughtful, tolerant, trustworthy and accommodating. To those around him he gives love, respect, peace of mind and a sense of the joy of life.

Islam Is A Religion Of Peace And Well-Being

The word Islam has the same meaning as "peace" in Arabic. Islam is a religion that came down to offer humanity a life filled with the peace and well-being in which God's eternal mercy and compassion is manifested in the world. God invites all people to accept the moral teachings of the Qur'an as a model whereby mercy, compassion, tolerance and peace may be experienced in the world. In Surat al-Baqara verse 208, this command is given:

You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.

As we see in this verse, people will experience well-being and happiness by living according to the moral teaching of the Qur'an.

God Condemns Mischief

God has commanded humanity to avoid evil; he has forbidden immorality, rebellion, cruelty, aggressiveness, murder and bloodshed. Those who do not obey this command of God are walking in the steps of Satan, as it says in the verse above, and have adopted an attitude that God has clearly declared unlawful. Of the many verses that bear on this subject, here are only two:

But as for those who break God's contract after it has been agreed and sever what God has commanded to be joined, and cause corruption in the earth, the curse will be upon them. They will have the Evil Abode. (Surat ar-Ra'd: 25)

Seek the abode of the hereafter with what God has given you, without forgetting your portion of the world. And do good as God has been good to you. And do not seek to cause mischief on earth. God does not love mischief makers.' (Surat al-Qasas: 77)

As we can see, God has forbidden every kind of mischievous acts in the religion of Islam including terrorism and violence, and condemned those who commit such deeds. A Muslim lends beauty to the world and improves it.

Islam Defends Tolerance And Freedom Of Speech

Islam is a religion which fosters freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, calumny, suspicion and even having negative thoughts about another individual. Islam has not only forbidden terror and violence, but also even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being.

There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 256)

So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe. (Surat al-Ghashiyah:22)

To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it, is against the spirit and essence of Islam. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur'an, but they never use compulsion. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.

Let us imagine a completely opposite model of society. For example, a world in which people are forced by law to practice religion. Such a model of society is completely contrary to Islam because faith and worship have value only when they are directed toward God. If there were a system that forced people to believe and worship, people would be religious only out of fear of the system. What is acceptable from the point of view of religion is that religion be practiced in an environment where freedom of conscience is permitted, and that it be practiced only for the approval of God.

God Has Made The Killing Of Innocent People Unlawful

According to the Qur'an, one of the greatest sins is to kill a human being who has committed no fault: 

...If someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 32)

Those who do not call on any other deity together with God and do not kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not fornicate; anyone who does that will receive an evil punishment. (Surat al-Furqan: 68)

As we can see in the verses above, those who kill innocent human beings without a cause are threatened with evil punishment. God has revealed that killing one person is as great a sin as killing all mankind. Anyone who respected the prerogatives of God would not do harm to even one individual, let alone murdering thousands of innocent people. Those who think that they will escape justice and punishment in this world will never escape the account they must give in the Presence of God on the Last Day. So, those believers who know they will give an account to God after their death, will be very careful about respecting the limits God has established.

God Commands Believers To Be Compassionate And Merciful

In this verse, Muslim morality is explained:

...To be one of those who believe and urge each other to steadfastness and urge each other to compassion. Those are the Companions of the Right. (Surat al-Balad: 17-18)

As we see in this verse, one of the most important moral precepts that God has sent down to His servants so that they may receive salvation and mercy and attain Paradise, is to "urge each other to compassion".

Islam as described in the Qur'an is a modern, enlightened, progressive religion. A Muslim is above all a person of peace; he is tolerant with a democratic spirit, cultured, enlightened, honest, knowledgable about art and science and civilized.

A Muslim educated in the fine moral teaching of the Qur'an, approaches everyone with the love that Islam expects. He shows respect for every idea and he values art and aesthetics. He is conciliatory in the face of every event, diminishing tension and restoring amity. In societies composed of individuals such as this, there will be a higher civilization, a higher social morality, more joy, happiness, justice, security, abundance and blessings than in the most modern nations of the world today.

God Has Commanded Tolerance And Forgiveness

Surat al-A'raf, verse 199, which says "practice forgiveness", expresses the concept of forgiveness and tolerance which is one of the basic principles of the religion of Islam.

When we look at Islamic history, we can see clearly how Muslims established this important precept of the moral teaching of the Qur'an in their social life. At every point in their advance, Muslims destroyed unlawful practices and created a free and tolerant environment. In the areas of religion, language and culture, they made it possible for people totally opposite to each other to live under the same roof in freedom and peace, thereby giving to those subject to them the advantages of knowledge, wealth and position.

Likewise, one of the most important reasons that the large and widespread Ottoman Empire was able to sustain its existence for so many centuries was that its way of life was directed by the tolerance and understanding brought by Islam. For centuries Muslims have been characterized by their tolerance and compassion. In every period of time they have been the most just and merciful of people. All ethnic groups within this multi-national community freely practiced the religions they have followed for years and enjoyed every opportunity to live in their own cultures and worship in their own way.

Indeed, the particular tolerance of Muslims, when practiced as commanded in the Qur'an, can alone bring peace and well-being to the whole world. The Qur'an refers to this particular kind of tolerance:

A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Surat al-Fussilat: 34)

Conclusion

All this shows that the moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that will bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" is completely removed from the moral teachings of the Qur'an; it is the work of ignorant, bigoted people, criminals who have nothing to do with religion. The solution which will applied against these individuals and groups who are trying to commit their deeds of savagery under the guise of Islam, will be the instruction of people in the true moral teaching of Islam.

In other words, the religion of Islam and the moral teaching of the Qur'an are not the supporters of terrorism and the terrorists, but the remedy by which the world can be saved from the scourge of terrorism.

Credit: Harun Yahya    

Jesus Is Not A Christian

If Jesus had come today instead of 2,000 years ago, Christian pastors and bishops would also have killed him.

A man travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho was attacked by armed-robbers, stripped of his belongings and left lying on the road half-dead.  God’s providence ensured that first a priest, and then a Levite, passed by.  But instead of helping the dying man; both of them quickly moved to the other side and went away.  Finally, a Samaritan came along.  Unlike the priest and the Levite, he had compassion on the injured man, bound up his wounds, took him to the hospital and paid for his medical expenses.

The Good Samaritan

Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan is very deliberate.  It is incredible how, as Christians, we still fail to understand its full implications.  The first mistake we make is in the identity of the Good Samaritan.  When we situate the story in the contemporary setting (as we should with all scripture), we assume that the Good Samaritan is a Christian.  However, Jesus deliberately excludes that possibility by providing two characters clearly representative of the Christians of today.  The priest is easily identifiable as today’s pastor, while the Levite is easily today’s Christian layman.

Who then is the Good Samaritan?  Let me repeat this for emphasis: the Good Samaritan cannot be a Christian.  The Christian is already adequately represented.  The Good Samaritan is Jesus himself.  Jesus’ story eloquently sets forth the goodness and kindness of Christ our Saviour towards sinful, miserable and defenceless humanity.  The thief came to steal, kill and destroy, but Christ came to give life and to give it abundantly. (John 10:10).

But there is the rub.  If Jesus is the Good Samaritan then Jesus is not a Jew; for Samaritans were not accepted as Jews.  If Jesus is the Good Samaritan, then Jesus is a Samaritan.  If Jesus is not a Jew but a Samaritan, then Jesus cannot be a Christian, for it is the Jew who represents the Christian of today.

Jesus killers

By the time some Jews observed Jesus, they assumed he was not a Jew.  In the first place, he refused to be a disciple of Moses but claimed instead to have come to fulfil the law.  He did not obey the letter of Jewish laws but claimed to comply with its spirit.  He insisted pharisaic religious tradition was old wine which could not be put into the new bottles he provided for the new wine of the New Testament. (Matthew 9:17).  He prefaced a lot of his sermons with the statement: “You have heard that it was said to those of old… but I say.” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Therefore, some Jews insisted Jesus was not Jewish.  As a matter of fact, their position was that he was a closet Samaritan: “Then the Jews answered and said to him, “Do we not say rightly that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”  Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honour my Father, and you dishonour me.” (John 8:48-49).  Note that Jesus did not contest the charge that he was a Samaritan.  But he took great exception to the allegation that he had a demon.

But if Jesus identified with the Samaritans and not with the Jews, then it becomes clear he would not identify with most of the Christians of today.  In fact, let me be so bold as to say that if Jesus were in the flesh today he would not be a Christian.  If Jesus had come today instead of 2,000 years ago, Christian pastors and bishops would also have killed him.  Like he did our forefathers, Jesus would also have exposed our ungodliness to public ridicule.

Religious irrelevancies

So if Jesus would not have been a Christian, what would he have been?  He would have simply been Jesus without any specific religious affiliation.  Today, Jesus has been replaced by theology, but the real Jesus was not religious.  Jesus established no religious institution when he was on earth.

Indeed, if Jesus were to show up physically on earth today, most Christians would not recognise him even as the Jews did not.  If he came as a woman, we would not recognise him.  If he smoked cigarettes, we would not recognise him.  If he drank whisky, we would not recognise him.  If he wore earrings and a nose ring, we would not recognise him.  If he spoke Pidgin English, we would not recognise him.  Since he did not wear trousers, we would be contemptuous of him.  We would disqualify him by religious irrelevancies instead of identifying him by his fruits.

When Jesus asked the lawyer to identify the neighbour of the man who fell among thieves, the man wisely did not say it was the Samaritan.  If he had said that, he would have been wrong.  Instead, he correctly defined him by his fruit.  He said: “He who showed mercy on him.”  He who showed mercy on him could be anybody, Christian or non-Christian, as long as he believed in Jesus and produced the fruits of his righteousness.

Merciless Christians

What then does the story of the Good Samaritan mean if, indeed, the priest and the Levite represent today’s Christians?  It means that, prophetically, it is the Christians of today who have no mercy.  We despise unbelievers, certain they are going to hell.  We speak disparagingly of them.  We condemn sinners on grounds they are ungodly.  We stone them because they are caught in adultery.  We fail to appreciate that they are hapless travellers on the road of life who have been attacked by spiritual armed-robbers and left for dead.  We conveniently forget that we used to be in the same position until we were rescued by the grace of God.

Therefore, “God is not a Christian,” declared Reverend Desmond Tutu.  “We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember.  We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer.”

One thing is certain.  Both the offending priest and the Levite must have had “compelling” reasons for not attending to the man dying on the roadside.  They probably could not stop because they were in a hurry to attend a bible study.   The priest decided that the best thing to do was to pray for the man when he got to church.  The Levite was hurrying to get to a meeting of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria and could not afford to be late.

Jesus’ parable “kills” the self-righteous believer who thinks he is justified by calling himself a Christian and by going regularly to church.  He alerts us to the danger of assuming we are heaven-bound because of our observance of certain religious rites.  True Christianity is not legalistic.  The love of our neighbour is the emblem of our being Christ’s disciples.

“Dear friends, let us practice loving each other, for love comes from God and those who are loving and kind show that they are the children of God.” (1 John 4:7).

Source: Femi

Femi

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