You needed pink sheets for your case, not spread sheets - SC Judge to Mahama

A Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has justified the unanimous ruling of the Apex Court in the 2020 presidential election petition.

She said the petitioner, former President John Dramani Mahama and his legal team should have brought pink sheets to support their claims.

She noted that the petitioner needed the pink sheets and not spreadsheets.

“There was a spreadsheet alleging vote padding of 4,693 votes in 26 constituencies and we said we would have expected that the pink sheet for those polling stations would have been exhibited to prove the allegation instead of a spreadsheet."

“The conclusion was that even if one took out these 4,693 votes, it would not impact on the 6million plus votes that the candidate were dealing with.”

She said this at a review workshop organized by the Coalition for Domestic Elections Observers (CODEO).

She further noted that the corrections made by the EC in their declaration were lawful.

She told the forum, the law in article 297, Section 22 of the interpretations Act 2009, Act 792, allows a public officer to correct a mistake committed.

Background

The seven-member panel that heard the 2020 election petition has dismissed the petition filed by former President John Dramani Mahama.

It was the ruling of the court that the 2nd respondent garnered more than 50% of the valid votes cast as required by the law.

The court also ruled that the error committed by the EC in the declaration was not strong enough to overturn the results announced.

Also, the court added that the EC Chairperson had the right to correct the error and was not mandated by law or any statutes to engage the parties before correcting the errors.

It further added the declaration did not violate Article 63(3) of the 1992 Constitution.

It was also ruled that the petitioner John Dramani Mahama failed to provide credible evidence to warrant a second round of the election between himself and President Akufo-Addo.

The court further ruled that the testimonies by Rojo Mettle Nunoo and Kpessa Whyte were fanciful.