A former Deputy General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Koku Anyidoho has asked Ghanaians to dissociate the NDC from the defeat suffered by the Presidential Candidate of the party in last year’s elections, John Dramani Mahama in court after the election petition was dismissed.
Mr Anyidoho who has been suspended by the NDC said it was Mr John Dramani Mahama who went to court to challenge the results of the elections and not the party.
In a series of tweets after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on Thursday, March 4, Mr Anyidoho said “People should please remember that it is not the NDC which is in court ooo: it is an individual who is in court!”
“John Manama is NOT the President of the Republic of Ghana. His Excellency President Akufo-Addo is the President of the Republic of Ghana.”
“Let John Mahama fight his own battles and leave the NDC alone to exist.”
The supreme court by a unanimous decision dismissed the election petition brought before it by Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2020 elections, John Dramani Mahama.
The seven-member panel led by the Chief Justice Kwesi Anin-Yeboah dismissed the petition on Thursday, March 4.
“The petitioner has not produced any evidence to rebut the presumptions created by the publication of CI 135. We are therefore of no reason to order a rerun. We accordingly dismiss the petition,” the Chief Justice said in the judgment.
The justices of the apex court further told witnesses of the petitioner, Mr Rojo Mettle-Nunoo and Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte to blame themselves for abandoning their duties in the strong room during the final collation of the election results if their claims are to be believed.
During proceedings, the two witnesses told the court that they were sent by the Chair of the Electoral Commission (EC) to Mr Mahama at the time of the collation of the final results in the strong room. In their absence, the results were then announced.
Delivering the judgment on Thursday, March 4 the court said “…Notwithstanding all these allegations of misunderstandings with the chair of the 1st respondent in the strong room and the fact that they were absent during the declaration, they did not give any indication as to how these happenings in their absence affected the final results announced by the 1st Respondent.
“Having signed or certified these forms, the witnesses, particularly PW 3 cannot turn round to talk about irregularities in the forms.
“The testimonies would have carried some little weight if the purpose of the petition was to change entries made on the collation forms or summary sheets but that is not the case.
“Their testimonies were therefore of no relevance to the said issues set out for determination and so we find them unworthy for consideration whatsoever.”
