The High Court of Ghana is poised to deliver a significant ruling on January 4, 2025, regarding the contested parliamentary election results in four constituencies: Tema Central, Okaikwei Central, Techiman South, and Ablekuma North. The case centers on a mandamus application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP), demanding that the Electoral Commission (EC) be compelled to finalize the collation of results in these constituencies. The NPP’s legal team argues that the EC’s delay in completing the collation process, which commenced on December 8, 2024, and remained unfinished by January 1, 2025, is unreasonable and infringes upon the constituents’ right to know the legitimate outcome of the elections. This legal battle has intensified the post-election tension and underscores the importance of transparent and efficient electoral processes.
The core of the NPP’s argument rests on the assertion that the EC has a statutory duty to complete the collation and officially declare the results. The NPP’s lead counsel, Gary Nimako, emphasized that the alleged declarations made by the NDC lack supporting evidence and are therefore invalid. He challenged the video evidence presented by the NDC, particularly concerning the Tema Central constituency, arguing that the declaration was made by an unauthorized individual, not the designated returning officer, thus violating electoral law. Nimako underscored the legal requirement, as stipulated in Regulation 43 of C.I. 127, for documenting results on specific EC forms (Forms 1C and 1D), forms which are conspicuously absent in the presented evidence. The NPP contends that this absence further substantiates their claim that proper declarations were never made, and the EC’s own acknowledgment of incomplete collation reinforces their position.
Surprisingly, the EC, represented by Justin Amenuvor, concurs with the NPP’s application, urging the court to mandate the completion of the collation process. Amenuvor’s admission that the collation remains incomplete in the disputed constituencies carries significant weight. He further cautioned that failing to issue the mandamus order could establish a dangerous precedent, potentially paving the way for unlawful interference in future elections. The EC’s alignment with the NPP’s position adds a layer of complexity to the case and raises questions about the initial handling of the election results in these constituencies.
Conversely, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), whose candidates are implicated in the dispute, vehemently opposes the NPP’s application. Godwin Tameklo, representing the NDC, argues that a fundamental prerequisite for granting a mandamus is a demonstrably refused demand. He asserts that the NPP failed to make such a demand to the EC before resorting to legal action, thereby invalidating their application. Furthermore, Tameklo points to the video evidence, maintaining that it confirms a declaration was indeed made in the Tema Central constituency. He insists that any challenge to the legitimacy of this declaration should be pursued through an election petition, the appropriate legal channel for contesting election outcomes, rather than a mandamus application, which is designed to compel the performance of a statutory duty.
The High Court’s decision is highly anticipated and carries significant implications for the resolution of electoral disputes and the future conduct of elections in Ghana. The ruling will define the EC’s legal obligations regarding the collation and declaration of results and clarify the appropriate legal avenues for challenging disputed outcomes. It will determine whether the EC must complete the collation process in the four constituencies, as requested by both the NPP and the EC itself, or whether the NDC’s argument that the matter should be addressed through an election petition will prevail. The court’s interpretation of the law and the evidence presented will have a lasting impact on Ghana’s electoral landscape.
The crux of the matter lies in the differing interpretations of electoral law and procedure. The NPP and the EC argue that the incomplete collation warrants a mandamus order compelling the EC to fulfill its statutory duty. The NDC, on the other hand, contends that the existence of purported declarations, regardless of their validity, necessitates an election petition to challenge the results. The court is tasked with determining the appropriate legal remedy in this situation, considering the specific circumstances of each constituency and the overall integrity of the electoral process. The outcome will likely influence future electoral practices and the resolution of similar disputes, setting a precedent for how such challenges are handled. Ultimately, the court’s decision must balance the competing interests of ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process while respecting the legal framework governing elections. This case highlights the complexities of electoral law and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding democratic principles.
