The ongoing Supreme Court hearing on the disputed parliamentary election results has become a focal point of contention, as the National Democratic Congress (NDC) challenges the High Court’s ruling that directed the Electoral Commission (EC) to re-collate results in nine constituencies.
The December 20 ruling, which originated from a mandamus application filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary candidates, has been described by the NDC as both legally flawed and procedurally unjust.
The High Court ordered the EC to re-collate results in constituencies where the NPP alleged irregularities in tabulated results, citing the need for verification to ensure transparency.
While the EC complied with this order in seven constituencies, the re-collation processes for Dome/Kwabenya and Ablekuma North remain incomplete.
At the Supreme Court on December 27, Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, the NDC’s Director of Legal Affairs, strongly criticized the High Court’s ruling.
He argued that the decision violated principles of natural justice, asserting that the NDC was denied an opportunity to present its case, which unfairly influenced the outcome.
Tamakloe further alleged judicial misconduct, claiming the trial judge displayed bias and failed to adhere to procedural requirements, particularly under Order 55 Rule 5 (2) of CI 47.
This rule mandates that parties with an interest in a mandamus application must be notified and given the chance to respond.
The NDC’s allegations of bias and procedural lapses have intensified the legal and political stakes of this dispute.
The party argues that the ruling not only undermines the rights of the NDC and its candidates but also casts doubt on the judicial process.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will be pivotal, as it could clarify the scope of judicial oversight in electoral disputes and set a precedent for addressing similar cases in the future.
It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will uphold or overturn the High Court’s controversial decision.
