The High Court has rejected the NDC’s preliminary argument about the jurisdiction of the court adjudicating the Mandamus application.
Trial Judge Justice Forson Agyapong pointed out that, contrary to what the NDC’s lawyers claimed, the lawsuit is not an election petition.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) contested the High Court’s authority to consider the NPP’s (New Patriotic Party) mandamus petition on Tuesday, December 31.
Godwin Tameklo, the NDC’s Head of Legal Affairs, claimed that the application was an improper attempt to contest the legitimacy of the election results.
According to sections 16 and 20 of the Representation of People Law, PNDCL 284 as amended, he said, the only way to contest election results is by a petition.
He argued that any attempt to do so by means of a mandamus or other prerogative writ is an attempt to avoid a legitimate hearing that must be conducted by evidence.
He further argued that order 54 of C.I. 47, which allows for judicial review petitions like these, must be superseded by the process of a petition as described in sections 16 and 20.
On Tuesday, December 31, the Electoral Commission (EC), the National Democratic Congress (NDC), and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) were scheduled to appear in court to resolve disagreements regarding the compilation of results in districts like Tema Central, Okaikwei Central, and Ablekuma North.
This comes after the Supreme Court reversed a previous High Court decision that had approved the NPP’s request to force the EC to re-collect results in constituencies that had previously been ruled in favor of the NDC. The EC subsequently announced that NPP candidates had won seven of these seats.
