Edudzie Tamekloe, the Head of Legal Affairs for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has publicly criticized the Electoral Commission’s (EC) decision to disqualify Joana Gyan Cudjoe, the party’s parliamentary candidate for the Amenfi Central constituency. Tamekloe labeled the EC’s actions as “mischievous and disingenuous,” asserting that the basis of the disqualification is entirely baffling. The crux of the matter lies in the EC’s reliance on an interlocutory injunction from a High Court in Sekondi regarding Cudjoe’s election following the NDC’s May 12 primaries. Tamekloe emphasized that the EC was a party to this legal suit, having consistently sent representatives during court proceedings. He argued that the Commission’s involvement in the judicial process renders their subsequent disqualification claim both contradictory and illogical.
In a letter dated October 10 and signed by Samuel Tettey, the Deputy Chairman of the EC in charge of Operations, Joana Gyan Cudjoe was formally informed of her disqualification due to the court order, which supposedly had neither been stayed nor vacated. This action has drawn significant scrutiny from the NDC’s legal team. Tamekloe contended that the EC had previously acknowledged Cudjoe’s candidacy by allowing her nomination to be filed without any challenge at that time. The apparent reversal raises questions about the motives behind the Commission’s decision, which many perceive as politically biased rather than legally sound.
Moreover, Tamekloe articulated concerns that the EC’s conduct reflects an inclination toward partiality, suggesting that the Commission has taken sides in this electoral dispute. He recounted how the NDC, after having Gyan Cudjoe nominate as their candidate, received indications from the EC regarding the forthcoming printing of the notice of poll. The NDC believed that the issue stemming from the injunction was resolved until the unexpected disqualification letter was issued by Tettey on October 10. The abrupt change in stance suggests a lack of communication within the EC or an ulterior motive behind their decision-making process.
The NDC’s assertions reflect broader concerns about the integrity of the electoral process in Ghana. By disqualifying a candidate who had previously been considered acceptable, the EC risks casting doubt on its impartiality and ability to oversee free and fair elections. Tamekloe’s statements underscore the need for transparency and consistency from the EC, particularly in light of their supervisory role during Cudjoe’s election in the primaries. The fallout from this decision could have severe implications, not only for the candidates directly involved but also for public perception of the electoral framework as a whole.
Further complicating the matter is the context in which this disqualification occurs, as political tensions in Ghana continue to run high leading up to the elections. The NDC’s confidence in their candidate, Gyan Cudjoe, is juxtaposed with the EC’s unexpected actions, leading to a perception that the Commission’s decisions may reflect broader political maneuvering rather than strict adherence to legal standards. Tamekloe’s comments suggest that the repercussions of the EC’s decision could potentially disenfranchise voters who support Cudjoe and disrupt the electoral balance in Amenfi Central.
In conclusion, Edudzie Tamekloe’s vehement defense of Joana Gyan Cudjoe underscores a significant challenge facing the EC and the broader electoral landscape in Ghana. The NDC’s allegations of disingenuous behavior and bias raise serious questions surrounding the EC’s role and the legal framework governing candidate eligibility. As the situation develops, the need for greater accountability and clearer communication from the Commission becomes ever more crucial in restoring trust among political parties and the electorate, ensuring that the upcoming elections are conducted fairly and transparently.
