Mahama Vrs Electoral Commission & Anor [2021] GHASC 146 (4 March 2021)

Mahama Vrs Electoral Commission & Anor [2021] GHASC 146 (4 March 2021)

The petitioner failed to prove by credible evidence that the declaration of the 2nd Respondent as President-elect was unconstitutional or that any errors or alleged vote padding materially affected the outcome; the evidence established that the 2nd Respondent obtained more than 50% of valid votes as required by Article 63(3), both with and without the Techiman South results, and administrative errors or corrections did not invalidate the declaration.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 146
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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
Legal Topics
Presidential Election Challenge, Burden of Proof in Election Petitions, Vote Tallying and Declaration, Administrative Errors in Election Results, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Under Article 64, Effect of Vote Padding, Correction of Electoral Errors
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Administrative Law Presidential Election Challenge Burden of Proof in Election Petitions Vote Tallying and Declaration Administrative Errors in Election Results Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Under Article 64 +2 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether based on the data in the declaration, no candidate obtained more than 50% of valid votes as required by Article 63(3)
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent met the Article 63(3) threshold with or without Techiman South results

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to prove by credible evidence that the declaration of the 2nd Respondent as President-elect was unconstitutional or that any errors or alleged vote padding materially affected the outcome; the evidence established that the 2nd Respondent obtained more than 50% of valid votes as required by Article 63(3), both with and without the Techiman South results, and administrative errors or corrections did not invalidate the declaration.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.