The Supreme Court on Thursday took a “unanimous decision” against John Dramani Mahama , the petitioner in the 2020 election petition.
The Supreme Court has by a unanimous decision affirmed the victory of President Akufo-Addo in the 2020 presidential election.
“The petitioner has not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption created by the publication of CI 135 for which his action has failed. We have therefore no reason to order for a rerun…we accordingly dismiss the petition as having no merit,” Chief Justice Anin Yeboah has ruled.
John Mahama, the petitioner had claimed that none of the candidates who contested the polls obtained more than 50% of the votes cast.
Mahama alleged that the second respondent, President Akufo-Addo won the election through vote padding.
Mahama wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the presidential election result as declared by the EC chairperson, Jean Mensa, breached the constitution.
He was further asking the court to annul the results of the polls and order the EC to organize a run-off between himself and President Akufo-Addo.
The Supreme Court before trial commenced set the following issues for determination
- Whether or not the petition discloses any reasonable cause of action
- Whether or not based on the data contained in the declaration of the 1st Respondent (EC), no candidate obtained more than 50% of the valid votes cast as required by article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution
- Whether or not the 2nd Respondent still met the article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution threshold by the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South constituency Presidential Election Results of 2020
- Whether or not the declaration by the 1st Respondent dated the 9th of December was in violation of article 63 (3) of the 1992 constitution.
- Whether or not the alleged vote padding and other errors complained of by the petitioner affected the outcome of the Presidential Election results of 2020.
But reading the ruling of the Supreme Court today (4 March 2021), Chief Justice Anin Yeboah said the petitioner did not satisfy all the five issues outlined by the court to determine the case.
