The presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in
the 2020 election, Former President John Dramani Mahama, has filed two
legal processes at the Supreme Court for certain answers from the
Electoral Commission (EC) with regard to his presidential election petition.
In his first process – motion for leave to serve interrogatories, Mr Mahama
is seeking permission from the Supreme Court to allow him to elicit
answers that borders on how the Chairperson of the EC, Mrs Jean Adukwei
Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring President Nana Addo
Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential poll, reports
Graphic Online’s Emmanuel Ebo Hawkson.
With the second process – request to admit facts, the petitioner wants the
EC to either admit or deny certain “facts” with regard to what ensued on
December 9, 2020, the day Mrs Mensa, who is the returning officer for the
presidential poll, declared President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as
the President-elect.
In a latest document, Mr Mahama through his attorney Tony Lithur, is
pressing the EC to admit: “That when the percentages of the valid votes
cast and standing to the names of each of the Presidential Candidates as
announced by Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa, the Chairperson of 1st
Respondent on December 9, 2020, are summed up, they would yield a
total of 100.3%.”
The amended petition, according to Ghanaweb asked the EC to admit
further: “That Mrs. Jean Mensa, Chairperson of 1st Respondent, in her
purported declaration on December 9, 2020, stated that the results from
Techiman South Constituency were not yet available.
The amended petition further asked the EC to admit: “That Mrs. Jean
Mensa, Chairperson of 1st Respondent, in her purported declaration on
December 9, 2020, stated that even if the 128,018 votes of Techiman
South Constituency were added to the votes standing to the name of [the]
petitioner, that would not change the results.”
In that expected amendment submitted on Thursday 14 January, former
President Mahama was expected to only amend the typographical error of
labelling the “1st Respondent”, namely the Electoral Commission (EC) as
“2nd Respondent”, being Nana Akufo-Addo and vice versa, a reason the
justices withdrew into chambers and returned with a ruling granting the
motion to amend, despite opposition from Akoto Ampaw, counsel for
Akufo-Addo.
In the initial response by the first respondent, namely the EC, there was an
admission that “computational and mathematical errors” were made but
that those errors did not “materially affect” the results.
Source: ENFRANS MEDIA
 inthe 2020 election,){kind=link}