After
subjecting my 14 inches old television to torture to enable me watch the
post-verdict interviews and reactions after the landmark supreme court verdict
but to no avail, I left my hostel and headed to the Graduate hostel JCR. My “chelewate” chick-clanked behind me,
raising dust as I increased my pace. On the way I saw a course mate who had
“chalked” in front of a Kiosk with many
other people glued to a television set. I joined them and as usual the verdict
given just minutes ago, was subjected to the court of public opinion. I stood
akimbo behind a middle aged man who was dressed in a slightly faded and torn
batik.
TV3 threw their cameras into the Nima residence of Nana Akuffo Addo. Nana Akuffo Addo was flanked by some party stalwarts. He declared his intention not to seek review of the case which had been dismissed by the nine member jury.
He congratulated the president and intimated that as much as he does not agree with the verdict, he would respect the verdict of the court and does not intend to seek review.
This was received with mixed reaction, all of a sudden the man in front of me looked with a grimaced face and blurted in a crisp language, “you have wasted our time Kwa”. I turned to look at him but kept my cool because as very particular of Ghanaian s everything is often politicized and reduced to “for” and “against” diatribe.
As I was returning to my hostel, introspectively, I came to a stand that a proper appraisal must be weighted, whether or not it was necessary for the NPP led by Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo Addo, his party chairman, Jake Otanka Obetsebi Lamptey and his running mate Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia to take the matter to court.
The Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) which telecast the entire proceeding live on their medium estimated a revenue loss of about GH¢3.2 million. The GBC claims it suspended all advertisement that fetched them money because the live broadcast.
It is also conspicuously clear that the live telecast and even the entire proceedings affected productivity in Ghana. Armchair experts and pocket lawyers used precious time in watching the entire proceeding and argued freely when they ought to be working.
Many other people also withdrew their monies and transferred to foreign banks because they feared their accounts would be forfeited in the event of war.
There was feet-dragging in investment by potential business investors both locals and foreigners because of the experiences they had seen in other African countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe where election petitions often resulted in unrest and pockets of conflict.
But
proper diagnoses would point out that the whole decision to take the matter to
court was not entirely “bad” as some people have put it.
Even though it is indisputable fact that Ghana has always improved on it elections, election after election and the clarion call for a biometric system of registration and voting was conceived as result of the Electoral commission’s effort to improve upon the transparency and fairness in our elections.
But I believe this court case would help the EC to call for an overhaul of the whole system to streamline efforts for an improved electoral system in future elections. As quoted by one of the judges who adjudicated the elections petition case, “After this case, elections in Ghana will not be the same”. There are likely to be electoral reforms that would spell out clear how elections should be run taking into cognizance how EC officials including presiding officers should be recruited and trained as well as their constitutional mandates. Security features on pink sheets such as serial numbers and pink sheet codes would be taken into consideration to avoid compromising authenticity of results.
Political parties would also go back to the drawing board and streamline measures to ensure vigilance during elections. They would take key notice of the training of polling agents and their duties at polling stations, whether they are just passionate observers or they have duties to ensure that proper layout of elections are not compromised.
On the lighter side, the court case has also thrown attention to the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court as an important component arm of government. T he legal profession has being projected and only God knows how many Ghanaian children now crave to become legal professional. The media spotlight have always centered on parliament and the flagstaff house, but this court case is going to live a long lasting impression in the memories of most Ghanaian s to recognize the powers of the judiciary as enshrined in our constitution. The court case has also served as a recipe that has enriched the legal vocabulary of many Ghanaian s. As the president pointed out in his address, “It is not uncommon now to hear teachers, professors, and senior citizens referred to as “my lord, my lord”; for taxi drivers, contractors and seamstresses to discuss “pink sheet”; for farmers, doctors, and market women to make mention of ‘further and better particulars’. Even children are now familiar with the term ‘amicus curie”’. The court case has really spiced the flavor of our vocabulary.
Besides these broader spectrums, Nana Akuffo Addo may also have some ulterior motive for sending this matter to court. Although the real motive may be masked, he must have contemplated it would be a disgrace to him to give up easily, owing to the unwavering support he received from all the rank and file of the party and also having lost the previous election to late Prof. John Atta Mills. He probably wanted to send a signal to his supporters that “after all we were rigged”
.
He
must have also thought that his biological time is fast ticking and therefore
his fate as being endorsed for a third time to led the party in 2016 general
elections hung in the balance. If so, sending the matter to court would
register his name in the history of the party and by extension Ghana, as the
first person to send an electoral dispute to the Supreme Court. This would live
his memories indelibly registered in Ghana’s history.
Probably, also, he felt this was the opportune time for him to “market” his lieutenant, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumai, who may be considered as a probable ticket to lead the party in 2016 general elections. The alleged seemingly rivalry in the party may have dawned him it would be imperative to fill his vacuum with a member from his own “camp”. And therefore Dr. Bawumia having represented the party in court coupled with his sterling performance (even though debatable) would inform the party hierarchy to consider him as ticket for the party in 2016.
Writer:
Abdul-Karim Mohammed A.
University of Cape Coast
Email: Abudkarimmohammeda@yahoo.com
Blog: Abdulkarimmohammedawaf.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment