Tag: EC

Posted in General News

EC releases list of 15 regional reps to the Council of State

Posted on by Kofi Tutu

The Electoral Commission (EC) has released the list of elected regional representatives to the Council of State.

This comes after a successful conduct of elections on Friday, February 12, 2021.

The establishment of a Council of State in Ghana is a constitutional requirement brought into being by articles 89 to 92 of the 1992 Constitution, which says: “There shall be a Council of State to counsel the President in the performance of his functions”.

Membership

Membership of the council includes prominent citizens who are elected to represent each region, as well as those nominated by the President to advise him on national issues.

Each region elects a representative, while the President also appoints 11 members.

The ex-officio members are a former Chief Justice of Ghana, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Inspector General of Police and the President of the National House of Chiefs.

The already appointed individuals include former Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, Lt. Gen. J.B. Danquah, a former Chief of Defence Staff of the Armed Forces, and Nana Owusu Nsiah, a former Inspector General of Police, to the Council.

The President of the National House of Chiefs, Ogyeahohoo Yaw Gyebi II, is an ex-officio member of the Council, in furtherance of Article 89(2)(b).

Former Kumbungu lawmaker Ras Mubarak has lost his run to represent the Northern  region on the Council of State.

The outspoken politician garnered no vote in the Friday election.

The winner, Chief Zung Mahamud Tahiru, obtained 23 votes with his closest contender Chief Pishegu Alhassan Andani securing 8 votes. The 4th contender had 1 vote.

Meanwhile, former Ningo Prampram lawmaker ET Mensah has won the election to represent the Greater Accra region.

The veteran politician garnered all the 58 votes cast in the polls held in Accra. His Other two competitors had no votes.

Meanwhile, there was no election in the Bono East as a result of an injunction placed on the exercise.

More than 100 candidates from the 16 regions of the country filed to contest the election.

Results of the election of the Members of Council of State

Source: Kasapafmonline

Posted in General News, Politics

[Video] I don’t understand why you seem to be confusing me with the petitioner – Aseidu Nketia to EC Lawyer

Posted on by Kofi Tutu

First witness for the petitioner in the 2020 Presidential Election Petition, John Asiedu Nketiah, Friday raised a concern in the Supreme Court that counsel for the 1st Respondent Electoral Commission of Ghana (EC) addressed him as though he were the petitioner.

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) General Secretary took his turn in the witness box at the Supreme Court as the first witness of the petitioner to be crossed examined.

While counsel for the EC was “putting it to” masked Mr. Nketiah in the witness box who provided answers where required, it got to a point where he got seemingly alarmed by the line of questioning.

The counsel for the EC, Lawyer Justin Amenuvor had made reference to some analysis the petitioner did on the Techiman South results and arrived at a conclusion that  the EC Chair was wrong with her figures when she declared Akufo-Addo President on December 9, 2020.

The lawyer pointed out to Mr. Aseidu that the analysis was not accurate.  

“I’m putting it to you that using all the total valid votes in the Techiman South constituency, that’s the total registered voters (sic) in the Techiman South Constituency to do your analysis is incorrect and I’m putting that to you”, he said.

Aseidu Nketia disagreed, explaining that their analysis on that issue was informed by what the 1st Respondent Electoral Commission chairperson, Jean Mensa had said on December 9, 2020 when she declared the Presidential Election Results in favor of the 2nd Respondent Akufo-Addo

“So the analysis we did there was to show that based on the figures she herself declared, that statement could not be correct”, he explained.

Counsel insisted the witness knew that the Chairperson of the EC was right in her analysis as at the time she was declaring the said results and that it was stated in the petition and same confirmed by the 1st Respondent.

Mr. Nketiah wanted to clarify if the EC lawyer was referring to him as the one who he knew the EC chair was right. The lawyer answered in the affirmative, adding “so the petitioner stated that in the petition that that ought to be the correct number and the 1st Respondent agreed too”.

“I’m putting it to you that you knew”, Lawyer Justin stood his grounds demanding an answer to that query.

Mr. Nketia was hesistant with the answer at this point. He felt the lawyer had mistaken him for the petitioner.  

 “My lord, I don’t understand why you seem to be confusing me with the petitioner, my Lord, I don’t understand”, he said, while laughing.

The court was thrown into laughter.

That however did not stop the lawyer from demanding his answers.

Watch full video here.

Source:3news.com

Posted in General News, Politics

Supreme Court refuses John Dramani Mahama request for EC to answer 12 questions.

Posted on by Kofi Tutu

The Supreme Court noted that the Petitioners had filed an application for leave to serve interrogatories the night before. By their Application, the Petitioners were seeking to have the 1st Respondent answer twelve(12) questions relating to collation and transmission of results, the involvement of NCA in transmission and errors in declaration and when they were detected.

Counsel for Petitioner submitted upon being asked by Amegatcher JSC under what rules the application was being made, that even though there were no express rules in the Supreme Court rules allowing the filing of interrogatories, they were relying on Order 22 of CI 47 and the inherent power of the Court as well as the precedent in the 2012 election petition. He then read a portion of the Judgment by Gbadegbe JSC in support of his submission.

Counsel further submitted that the interrogatories were based on the answers of the 1st Respondent to their Petition.

The Court admonished Counsel for Petitioner to avoid personalising the matter before the court by continuously mentioning the name of the Chairperson of the 2nd Respondent rather than her office.

Counsel for 1st Respondent filed an opposition to the application and in his answer to the application submitted that the answers Petitioner was seeking were already contained in the petition and the answers of the Respondents hence the application was needless. He further submitted that the Petitioners were attempting to smuggle through the back door matters which they had failed to include in their Petition and the court should dismiss same.

Counsel for 2nd Respondent made a prayer to assist the Court on the legal issues being argued and the Court granted the prayer. Counsel for 2nd Respondent submitted that, the grant of interrogatories is a discretionary power of the court and the matters in respect of which it is granted should relate to the issues in dispute. Counsel further submitted that, the interrogatories which Petitioner intended to serve did not relate to matters in dispute before the court and could be asked in cross-examination. He concluded by submitting the interrogatories amounted to fishing and the court should dismiss it. In support of his case, Counsel for petitioner also read a portion of the Gbadegbe’s decision which Counsel for the petitioner has failed to draw the Court’s attention.

DECISION OF THE COURT

After a long recess, the Court speaking through the Chief Justice dismissed the Application on the basis that interrogatories are granted having regard to all the circumstances of a case. The Court said the petitioner has failed to establish the relevancy of the interrogatories they want to serve in relation to the case they had filed. The court also noted that following the 2012 election petition, new laws have been passed to regulate how election petitions are to be conducted hence reliance of the high court rules was improper . The application was therefore dismissed.

PRE-TRIAL/CASE MANAGEMENT

The court solicited issues from Counsel for the parties but Counsel for the Petitioners prayed for the matter to be adjourned to Thursday since their issues were not ready and they wanted to peruse the ruling of the Court to advise themselves.

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted to the Court that the business of the day was Pre-trial and Counsel for the Petitioner ought to have been ready for the business.

The Court however adjourned to 20th January, 2021 for the parties to file their issues and for case management to proceed.