The 2020 Ghanaian general elections, held on December 7th, were marred by significant chaos and delays, particularly at the constituency collation centers. While the Electoral Commission (EC) often bears the brunt of criticism for electoral shortcomings, investigative journalist Manasseh Azure Awuni lays the blame squarely on the National Democratic Congress (NDC) for the disruptions witnessed during the collation process. He argues that the NDC’s directive, issued by its National Communications Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, urging supporters to converge at collation centers, despite the presence of accredited party agents, was a needless and irresponsible act that directly instigated the chaos.
Manasseh’s core argument revolves around the redundancy of the supporters’ presence. With accredited representatives already stationed at the collation centers, the massing of supporters served no legitimate purpose other than to create an environment ripe for disruption. This, he contends, led to unnecessary tension, delaying the collation process significantly. Live television footage, he points out, captured scenes of supporters obstructing access to collation centers, even forcing election officials to resort to drastic measures like throwing ballot boxes over fences to secure them. This chaotic atmosphere, instigated by the NDC’s mobilization of supporters, provided a convenient smokescreen for any procedural lapses or delays on the part of the EC.
The consequences of the NDC’s actions, according to Manasseh, extended beyond mere delays. He cites instances of escalated violence, including the burning of the EC’s office in Damongo, Savannah Region, and the tragic death of an EC official by a stray bullet. Furthermore, he alleges that electoral officers were subjected to coercion and duress, forced into declaring results under pressure from the unruly crowds. These incidents paint a grim picture of the volatile situation created by the presence of the mobilized supporters, transforming collation centers into potential flashpoints for violence and intimidation.
Manasseh posits a crucial question: What justification would the EC have offered for delays or the need for re-collation had the collation centers not been besieged by party supporters? He argues that the NDC’s actions effectively provided the EC with a ready-made excuse for any shortcomings in the collation process. The chaos created by the amassed supporters masked any potential issues stemming from the EC’s own procedures, deflecting scrutiny away from the commission’s performance.
The journalist’s critique extends beyond the immediate impact of the disruptions. He warns that the NDC’s actions set a dangerous precedent for future elections, potentially normalizing the use of mob tactics to influence electoral outcomes. This, he fears, could lead to widespread chaos and undermine the integrity of Ghana’s democratic processes. He envisions a future where political parties, emboldened by the success of disruptive tactics, might routinely disrupt collation processes and coerce declarations in their favor, knowing that lengthy court challenges could delay the rectification of any fraudulent outcomes.
Manasseh acknowledges the declining credibility of the EC in recent years. However, he insists that the political parties, especially the NDC in this instance, must share the blame for election-related chaos. He argues that allowing such behavior to go unchecked will embolden political parties to further manipulate the electoral system, potentially leading to a future where election results are determined not by the ballot box, but by the ability of a party to mobilize its supporters and exert undue pressure on electoral officials. This, he concludes, poses a grave threat to Ghana’s democratic future.
