Former President Mahama understands alcohol percentages better than the Supreme Court (SC) ruling, the Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, Mr. Bernard Antwi-Boasiako, has fired.
According to him, Mr. Mahama, NDC executives and the party’s legal team were confusing the general public by giving a different interpretation to ruling that came from the SC in relation to the compilation of the new voters register.
“John Mahama doesn’t understand the ruling but just wanted to appear on the camera and been seen. He understands alcohol percentages better than the SC ruling. The SC ruling was something he doesn’t understand”, the NPP Chairman popularly known as Chairman Wontumi told Wontumionline.com.
He continued that if you have “a party that has legal team that doesn’t understand the SC ruling, how much more their flagbearer? John Mahama address to the NDC after the ruling showed he was confused. Asiedu Nketia was also giving his own interpretation to the ruling and it showed none of them understood what was going on”.
In a related development, Chairman Wontumi described the legal team of the NDC as one made up of propaganda lawyers.
“The NDC legal team is made up of propaganda lawyers. They are not good lawyers to represent any political party and you can see the rippling effect on their party”, Mr. Antwi-Boasiako told Wontumionline.com.
His comments were line with the decision by the Supreme Court to unanimously dismiss a case filed by the NDC to stop the EC from compiling a new voter’s register for the December 2020 polls.
Prior to the judgement, the NDC had filed a case at the Supreme Court to challenge the Electoral Commission’s constitutional mandate to hold a mass registration exercise and compile a new voter’s register.
The party also sought declaration on the constitutionality of the EC to exclude the voters ID card as part of the identification requirements for the exercise.
Along the line, the party dropped their case on whether or not the EC should conduct the exercise but their petition on the exclusion of the voters’ ID card remained before the law court.
