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.

Politics and Football⚽

They say we should not mix politics with football. But are the two mutually exclusive? Can they ever be? For politics and football have so much in common that it would wrong on anyone's part to ignore the obvious. Football, in my opinion, is a reflection of politics and perhaps vice versa. In politics, there are always two sides - the winner and the loser. Same with football. In politics, supporters passionately support these two sides; just like in football. In politics, there is a referee; again just like in football. I can go on and on but there is no need for that.

So why am I writing this? Well, all is not

Canes For What?

Cane-holding supporters of the NDC

As I drove to work this morning, I thought about the topic of today's blog. Of course, the first and most obvious thing that came to mind was "blog about what happens at the Supreme Court today". Great idea but I realised my blog was becoming an update for Nana Akufo-Addo's Petition at the Supreme Court. Ah well. 

So as I drove, I went past a school and I saw children with brooms sweeping the compound before assembly and then class. There wasn't a child in sight without a broom, duster or dustbin. Then I thought to myself ah, I will blog about this especially because every Ghanaian in their formative years undergoes some discipline in sanitation but somewhere along the line we become filthy.

And then I ended up at the airport to catch my flight to Kumasi and just before I went on board the plane, I decided to use the bathroom and pay some water bills. I entered the male bathroom and to my surprise, for the first time in Ghana, a public bathroom was neat. I thought to myself, this is worth blogging about. I will title my blog today "Neat Toilets". 

What Happened At The Supreme Court Today

This morning, I deemed it wise to educate my followers so I wrote a post on exactly what was going to happen at the Supreme Court today. But I forgot to add that in litigation, anything can happen. And indeed, 'anything' did happen today. As my senior and I drove into the court premises on the High Street, we were amazed at the beefed up security. Tons of police officers and armoured cars. Even more interesting was that the police officers were armed to the teeth. No nonsense. But on another note, there were some very cute looking girls in the police force. And you know the saying, a woman dressed in uniform is always ...

So the judges entered the court room and the lawyers announced themselves. After brief consultations with his team, the lead counsel for Nana Akufo-Addo and others, objected to Justice William Atuguba presiding over the panel to hear the joinder application. After some small drama, Nana Akufo-Addo's legal team was directed to formally object to Justice Atuguba presiding over the panel.

What will happen at the Supreme Court today?

Today, the Supreme Court of Ghana will hear an aspect of the NPP's petition which has been filed before it, to wit, the NDC's application to join the Petition as a Respondent. I noticed many media houses are referring to today's hearing as the hearing of the Petition. The substantive Petition will not be heard today but probably within the next five days as the Rules stipulate.

So what exactly will happen today? The task before the Supreme Court today is basically to determine whether or not the NDC is a necessary party to be joined to the Petition. The NDC argues that John Mahama was elected on their Party's ticket and therefore they have a 'direct stake' in his election. In Ghana, however, personalities are elected and not political parties. But there is the valid argument that the political parties sponsor the candidacy of the person to be elected.

A Historic Swearing In

On 7 January 2013, John Mahama took the oath of allegiance and became the fourth President of the fourth Republic of Ghana. Sounds historic, right? I mean if you are the fourth John to be the fourth president of the fourth Republic that must be of some historical importance. The ceremony was historic alright but not for the reasons I have just mentioned.

For starters, Mahama, who was being sworn in, is currently a respondent to a Petition currently before the Supreme Court of Ghana, which Petition is challenging his election as president. So you can imagine what was running through Mahama's mind as he repeated the oath of allegiance.

The uneasiness at the ceremony itself was self evident. And to crown it, the largest opposition party in Ghana, the New Patriotic Party, boycotted the event purely on the basis of principle: we cannot celebrate what we don't agree with. I agree with that.

An Objective Analysis of the Overdraft Fees Case

Sometime during this week, Wednesday (November 25, 2009) to be exact, the new Supreme Court of England and Wales handed down a favourable decision to the banks and building society that had been battling in the country's courts with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in the last couple of years. I don't know how familiar readers are with that case. The main issue had to do with the fairness of overdraft fees being charged by the banks and building society. Now this was test case meaning no one was suing anyone except the OFT wanted the question - whether the OFT could assess the fairness of the overdraft fees - answered. The OFT won in the High Court and Court of Appeals. Or should I say the banks and building society lost in the High Court and Court of Appeals. Either way, both the High Court and Court of Appeals thought the OFT could assess the fairness in the overdraft fees. When the decision was handed down by the learned Law Lords of the Supreme Court, many websites and media outlets described the decision as a big blow to millions of consumers/customers. Why? Well these millions of customers/consumers were owed some money as a result of the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings. But their refunds had to be put on hold as the case progressed through the justice system. Now with this ruling, they get zero. Harsh? Not really if you ask me. Bear in mind I have an overdraft to pay as well. Now these banks and building society charge around £39 as overdraft fees per transaction when in fact they spend under £3 pounds when a transaction occurs involving a consumer's/customer's overdraft. You may view this as unfair and rightly so which was why this test case was brought. Now the banks and building society make around £2.6 billion from these overdraft fees. If the OFT are allowed to assess the fairness of those fees and subsequently those fees are reduced significantly or eliminated, the banks and building society will seek to gain that £2.6 billion from other avenues which were originally free. For example, fees for having an account (regardless of the type), fees for all forms of transaction, fees for using the ATM (like in the US) and many other free services we take for granted on a daily basis. I encourage you to view this from an objective standpoint. An overdraft is spending money you don't have at a time you really need the money. Usually in a financial emergency. The bank then says fine, you can use some of our money but you will have to pay this amount of money as overdraft fees. The customers/consumers have a choice, either make sure you always have money in your account or be willing to pay whatever fees for using money which isn't yours to bail yourself out. Harsh as it may sound, it is the right way to go. In a time when people spend and spend without any discipline. I may have to pay my overdraft soon but I am absolutely in favour of leaving the fairness of the overdraft fees to the banks and building society.