MAHAMA VRS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (J1/05/2021) [2021] GHASC 190 (4 March 2021)

MAHAMA VRS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (J1/05/2021) [2021] GHASC 190 (4 March 2021)

The petitioner failed to adduce credible evidence to prove that the 2nd Respondent did not obtain more than 50% of valid votes cast or that alleged errors and vote padding materially affected the outcome. The error in the declaration was corrected and did not impact the result. The presumption of validity of the declaration was not rebutted. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 190
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
Case Number
J1/05/2021
Procedural Posture
Presidential Election Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
Legal Topics
Presidential Election Challenge, Declaration of Election Results, Burden of Proof in Election Petitions, Vote Padding Allegations, Administrative Errors in Election Results, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Under Article 64
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Administrative Law Presidential Election Challenge Declaration of Election Results Burden of Proof in Election Petitions Vote Padding Allegations Administrative Errors in Election Results +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 3 Authorities cited 29 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition discloses any 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 adduce credible evidence to prove that the 2nd Respondent did not obtain more than 50% of valid votes cast or that alleged errors and vote padding materially affected the outcome. The error in the declaration was corrected and did not impact the result. The presumption of validity of the declaration was not rebutted. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.