Of Course Ghana Is Not Kenya

"Ghana is not Kenya" is one reaction you would hear whenever you compare the presidential election petitions currently pending before the Supreme Courts in both countries.  "Why not" is an immediate reaction to the “Ghana is not Kenya” reaction and I can empathise with that. Both countries are African countries and seem to have taken the path of democracy. Both countries have made provision in their respective constitutions for presidential election petitions to be filed in their respective Supreme Courts to challenge the election of the president. So why can't Ghana be like Kenya?

I can also empathise with those who vehemently say, "Ghana is not Kenya" and indeed, I do empathise with those who react in that manner but for completely different reasons. I mean how can we even think that Ghana can be like Kenya. We have to face facts and be honest with ourselves when comparing the manner in which the Supreme Court in both countries are dealing with the presidential election petitions before them. In that respect, Ghana is nowhere near Kenya at all. In fact, Ghana is millions of miles behind Kenya and we, Ghanaians, ought to be ashamed.

In writing this short piece of article, I have confined myself to the presidential election petitions before the Supreme Courts in both countries and the manner in which those petitions are being dealt with. I must therefore emphasise that this article does not compare the economic success or democratic success of both countries. 

Having set out my intentions clearly, it is my opinion that Ghana is not Kenya because Ghana is far behind Kenya and also because

Test In Election Petitions

The jurisprudence on election petitions make it clear that where there has been substantial non compliance with constitutional provisions and the law, which substantial non compliance affected the outcome of the elections, the results would be overturned. The Petitioners therefore have to show that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the law and that the Electoral Commission's non compliance was substantial and further that the Electoral Commission's substantial non compliance with the law affected the outcome of the 2012 elections. 

The law for the 2012 Elections inter alia required biometric verification prior to voting and that presiding officers must sign the pink sheets. The Petitioners allege that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the requirement of biometric verification prior to voting thereby allowing 743,415 votes to be added to the total valid votes, which votes are invalid and ought to have been disregarded in the final tally. The Petitioners also allege that the Electoral Commission did not comply with the requirement that all pink sheets must be signed by the presiding officer and thereby allowed 751,528 votes to be added to the total valid votes, which votes were invalid and ought to have also been disregarded in the final tally. 

The Petitioners must also demonstrate that the addition of these invalid votes, amongst others, substantially affected the outcome of the 2012 presidential elections. According to the Petitioners, the non compliance with the law by the Electoral Commission was substantial and affected the outcome of the 2012 elections in that if the alleged irregularities are removed, the 1st Petitioner ought to have been declared President of Ghana with 59.69% of the valid votes cast. 

That in my opinion satisfies the test in election petitions, subject to evidentiary proof.