It is said that revenge is better served cold. Payback is a bitch. We can always judge a man by what he has done
before. In all likelihood, that is what he will do in the future, if at all possible.
In 2012, Ghana held a general election which was widely believed to have been won by the Nana Addo Dankwa
Akufo-Addo, the current President of Ghana. But the victory was taken away from him with strong-arm tactics by
the man who was President at the time, John Mahama.
Twelve years later, ironically, Akufo-Addo is President, and John Mahama is the opposition leader, oddly in the
very same position that Akufo-Addo found himself twelve years ago.
I have no doubt at all in my mind, that John Mahama manipulated the Electoral Commission (EC) twelve years ago
to have himself elected as President. Then, as now, there were accusations that Mr. Mahama had infested the EC
with elements loyal to him and the NDC. Today, the widespread belief is that Nana Akufo-Addo has infested the EC
with elements loyal to him and the NPP.
The question that remains to be answered is this; will history repeat itself? Will Nana Addo intentionally change
the electoral results to favour his chosen one, DR. Mahamadu Bawumia? Can the EC be trusted to resist any
attempts to manipulate the results of the general election?
That we cannot trust the EC, whether at the local level or at the national level, is no doubt a fact. From personal
experience, EC officials are notoriously not trustworthy. The EC and its officials are wont to claim that they do not
play a role in elections that lead to outcomes. The fact, however, is that they do. Often, they meet with candidates
and/or their representatives, to decide the outcome or to effect the final outcome, before the actual voting begins.
This is an effective ploy, and also virtually unbeatable. For instance, what happened in the balloting for positions
on the presidential ballot paper, should lead to great concern. Who took the decision that the first individual to
submit their nomination papers at the Electoral Commission, would be the first to pick the ballot in the first round?
That is what gave the NPP the chance to go first, in the first round. And in that round, the NPP’s representative
looked into the bowl, felt round it, and selected a specific ball. And that ball was Number 1. I am not a
mathematician and I have no experience with the subject of Probabilities, which a mathematician would use to
calculate the possibility of the first person chosen to select a random ballot out of a group, picking the Number 1.
Ironically, the NDC representatives later expressed concern that one particular ballot had distinct markings.
But it gets even odder. In the second round of balloting, the NPP picked the first position again, again after the
representative carefully looked into the bag before picking, even though it had been decided among all that there
would be no looking into the deep.
In effect, somebody at the EC took the decision that NPP would go first. The question is; why? Then somehow, the
NPP representative knew what to look for among all the balls, and unerringly picked the same choice two times
running. What is the probability, or chance, of that?
Some would say that that is amazing luck. Or a planned outcome. And I tend to go with the latter option.
Then, there was the decision to turn some Presidential Aspirants into mere onlookers at the balloting because they
were not candidates of political parties.
Again, the question that should be asked is who at the EC made that decision? And was it constitutional?
On the day, the fact of the matter, and the law, is quite clear that the balloting was for presidential candidates, and
not for political parties. The initial two rounds of balloting, however, had only political party representatives taking
part, instead of all the presidential candidates, as required by the 1992 Constitution.
Article 63. (1) of the 1992 Constitution states;
“A person shall not be a candidate in a presidential election unless he is nominated for election as President by a
document which-
“(a) is signed by him; and
“(b) is signed by not less than two persons who are registered voters resident in the area of authority of each
district assembly;
“(c) is delivered to the Electoral Commission on or before the day appointed as nomination day in relation to the
election;
“(d) designates a person to serve as Vice-President.”
Based on Article 63. (1), it is my case that those the EC had cleared to be in that room to be part of the balloting
process, were presidential candidates, and presidential candidates only, and not political parties. The introduction
of ‘political party representatives’ was a wart introduced by the EC itself, unlawfully, in my opinion, which gave
some of the candidates unfair advantage over others, who had met all the necessary criteria to be part of the
ballot and to take part in all the processes thereof.
In failing to allow the so-called independent candidates to partake in the initial balloting, the EC treated them in an
unequal and discriminatory fashion and therefore abused their rights to the advantage of candidates representing
political parties.
Article 17. (1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution states;
“(1) All persons shall be treated equally.
“(2) A person shall not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion,
creed or social or economic status.”
The million Ghana Cedi question is; who engineered the decision at the EC to so blatantly abuse the rights of the
independent candidates?
From the above, we can clearly discern that administrative decisions taken by the EC has clear effect on the
outcomes of the processes of the EC.
With the balloting over, for all intents and purposes, the next big thing, is the elections. My worry is simple; if the
EC can make administrative decisions (with the intonation ‘the EC has decided…’) that fundamentally affects the
positioning of presidential candidates on the ballot paper, can we rest assured that the same EC will not make
decisions that affects the final outcome?
Surely, such a hope in the EC would be misplaced, if past experience, such as the 2012 general election and the
recent balloting, can be counted on as ‘past behaviour’?
The NDC and other political parties have been shouting up a storm about the need for vigilance. But one can be
vigilant only to an extent, and no more. With the balloting, for instance, it is all too clear that the independent
candidates who protested were right, but the EC refused to listen. The candidates had no option but to partake in
the flawed exercise.
Currently, there is a raging debate about the voters’ register. The NDC, which is on record to have protested that
the register is bloated, itself stands accused of engaging in exercises that undermine the credibility of the register.
However, calls for a forensic audit has fallen on deaf ears. The EC has ruled that it would continue to do what it
intends to do. Is it the case that it is emboldened by powerful presence behind it, or it is just being plain stubborn
and obstreperous?
One thing that people who know can tell for a fact is that the man in charge of Ghana today is not a very forgiving
person. He tends to bite those who cross him. In 2012, he took a bitter bite from John Mahama, which bite he took
on quietly.
Twelve years later, he has the opportunity to pay Mr. Mahama back in his own coin. If you ask me, the odds are on
that this is something we can take to the bank.
(This article was published under the column Periscope Depth in the Daily Searchlight on Monday, 30 th September,
2024).
