Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Ayikoi Otoo says the misjudgment by the Electoral Commission, Ghana (EC) in disqualifying the flagbearer of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) could have been avoided.
Mr Otoo, who led the counsel for the PPP after its flagbearer Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom challenged his disqualification, said Amadu Sulley, who is arguably the most experienced of the EC’s commissioners, should have alerted the Chair of the Commission, Charlotte Osei, over the error in disqualifying his client.
“Amadu Sulley should have been able to draw her attention that Madam [Charlotte Osei] you have only announced the opening of nomination day but you have not told the close and not given a stated period,” he said on TV3’s Hot Issues on Saturday, October 29.
The former Member of Parliament regretted how the current Chair, relatively inexperienced, could not have learned from her predecessor, Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan.
He advised Madam Charlotte Osei to go back and learn from Dr Afari Gyan especially regarding his dealings with political parties.
“[Dr Afari Gyan] has done this thing all through. We have all known the opening and close of nominations and all that.
“She could have maybe learned a thing or two from that individual. It is always dangerous when you take over without reading the notes and getting to know who ever you have taken from.”
Mr Ayikoi Otoo’s client, Dr Nduom, together with 12 other political parties was disqualified from contesting the presidential polls after the EC accused them of several infractions.
In the case of Dr Nduom, one of his subscribers is said to have signed in two different districts.
He took the matter to court.
Fortunately for him, Accra High Court judge Justice Kyei Baffour on Friday, October 28 ordered the EC to allow Dr Nduom to correct the details on his nomination forms – filed at the cost of GH¢50,000 – and re-submit.
Mr Ayikoi Otoo feared the other disqualified presidential aspirants may also go to court for a similar judgement since they raised the same issues.
He said the bone of contention had to do with Regulations 9(1), 9(2) and 9(3) of the CI 94.
“[This is] on the same grounds that we went to court,” he said.
By Emmanuel Kwame Amoh|3news.com|Ghana