|Ex-Attorney General, Nii Ayikoi Otoo (R) and Dr. Papap Kwesi Nduom (L)|
“I think it’s automatic and if I were advising the Electoral Commission, I would rather ask her [EC Chairperson Charlotte Osei] to just issue a statement and say that all those who were disqualified, in view of this decision, and in view of the fact that we don’t have sufficient time for the election, ‘just do the necessary correction and just come back’” Mr Ayikoi Otoo told Naa Dedei Tettey on 12Live on Class 91.3 FM moments after the ruling.
An Accra High Court ordered the EC to allow Dr Nduom to make the necessary corrections on his nomination forms for the December 7 presidential race.
Dr Nduom was part of 13 aspirants disqualified from contesting in the elections over alleged illegalities on their nomination forms.
Dr Nduom, according to the EC, was disqualified because “the number of subscribers to his forms did not meet the requirements of Regulation 7 (2) (b) of CI 94. The details are as follows:
– One subscriber Richard Aseda (‘Asida’ on the Voters’ Register), with Voter ID no 7812003957) endorsed the forms in two different districts (pages 21 and 39).
The subscriber was found to be on the Voter’s Register in one district thereby disqualifying his second subscription and reducing the total number of subscribers to below the minimum required by the Law.
The same subscriber (Richard Aseda (‘Asida’) endorsed the form with different signatures in both portions of the nomination form. This raises questions as to the legitimacy of one or both signatures.
We will refer the matter of the possible forgery of the signature(s) to the Ghana Police Service and the Attorney
General for investigation and prosecution in line with the following sections of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29):
Section 211: Perjury
Section 248: making false declaration etc. for office or voting;
Section 251: Deceiving a public officer
Section 256: Corruption, Intimidation and impersonation in respect of election.”
The PPP took the case to court seeking “an order directed against the 1st respondent in her capacity as returning officer for presidential elections to grant the applicant the opportunity to amend and alter the one anomaly found in his nomination papers as well as accept his nomination papers as amended or altered to enable him contest as a presidential candidate for the 7th December 2016 elections.”
The court said the EC did not give the PPP fair opportunity to amend mistakes on their nomination forms.