The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to allow all 12 disqualified presidential aspirants to correct errors on their nomination forms, errors that formed the basis for their disqualification.
In a unanimous 6-0 decision read by presiding judge Justice Sophia Adinyira, the apex court ordered the EC to extend the nomination period for another 24 hours to allow all the disqualified aspirants to correct errors on their nomination forms.
Starting from Monday and ending Tuesday, the EC is to invite the aggrieved aspirants and afford them the chance to make necessary corrections.
The SC judgement has stopped other suits by five presidential aspirants, who were disqualified after the EC said it found anomalies on the presidential nomination forms.
The propriety of the anomalies is at the heart several court suits challenging the decision by the Commission. The main anomaly was that some voters, who endorsed the nomination forms, were either not qualified voters or that they endorsed more than one presidential candidate contrary to Public Regulations on Elections (C.I 94).
But, the aspirants argued there was no way they could have known a voter was not qualified nor were they aware that any of the prescribed 432 endorsers had signed up for the other candidate.
While the EC described the anomalies as statutory offence punishable by disqualification, some of the 12 disqualified presidential aspirants had called it clerical errors that could be easily corrected.
Progressive People’s Party presidential aspirant Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, was the first to secure victory at the High Court, which ordered that the EC should allow Dr. Nduom to correct his mistakes and reinstate him into the race. Dissatisfied, the EC proceeded to the SC for clarity on the legal value of an error found on a presidential aspirant ‘s nomination forms.
The SC judges, Justice Sophia Adinyira (presiding), Justice Anin Yeboah, Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo, Justice Yaw Appau, Justice Ampah Benin and Justice Gabriel Pwamang ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering an independent body like the EC to allow the aspirants to correct the errors. The SC nonetheless gave similar orders in allowing the aspirants to make corrections, arguing that CI 94 binds the EC to give the candidate opportunity to make corrections.
George Agyemang
