Mahama Vrs Electoral Commission and Another [2021] GHASC 12 (4 March 2021)

Mahama Vrs Electoral Commission and Another [2021] GHASC 12 (4 March 2021)

The Petitioner failed to prove that the 2nd Respondent did not obtain more than 50% of the valid votes cast or that any errors or alleged vote padding materially affected the outcome. The errors in the declaration were corrected and did not impact the result. The declaration and the Constitutional Instrument (C.I. 135) remain valid, and the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 12
Parties
Petitioner: John Dramani Mahama; 1st Respondent: Electoral Commission; 2nd Respondent: Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Presidential Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Presidential Election, Election Petition, Declaration of Results, Vote Aggregation, Administrative Errors, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Administrative Law Presidential Election Election Petition Declaration of Results Vote Aggregation Administrative Errors +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dramani Mahama

Petitioner

Electoral Commission

1st Respondent

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Presidential Election Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether based on the data contained in the declaration of the 1st Respondent, no candidate obtained more than 50% of the valid votes cast as required by article 63(3) of the 1992 Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent still met the article 63(3) threshold by the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South Constituency Presidential election results

Ratio Decidendi

The Petitioner failed to prove that the 2nd Respondent did not obtain more than 50% of the valid votes cast or that any errors or alleged vote padding materially affected the outcome. The errors in the declaration were corrected and did not impact the result. The declaration and the Constitutional Instrument (C.I. 135) remain valid, and the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed