The Progressive People’s Party (PPP), says it fears the Supreme Court’s judgement on the Electoral Commission’s suit challenging the disqualification of their flagbearer and eleven others from the December presidential elections, may not bring finality to the matter.
The party’s comments follow the Electoral Commission’s request for the Progressive People’s Party (PPP), to bring before it, one Mr. Richard Aseda, who subscribed to the party’s flagbearer’s forms in two different districts.
The EC’s letter to the PPP and others, came barely hours after the Supreme Court ordered it to allow all the aspirants to correct the errors on their forms by close of day on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
The EC , hours after the Supreme Court delivered its judgement, outlined several others errors on Dr. Nduom’s forms that equally has to be corrected.
Portions of the EC’s letter to the PPP read; “Kindly take the requisite steps to procure the attendance of Mr. Richard Aseda (who is listed as a subscriber on pages 21 and 39 of your nomination) at the head office of the Commission, prior to the close of nomination, to confirm that he actually subscribed to your forms and the district in which he is subscribed,” a letter from the EC stated.
It also said ” Please find attached a list of other concerns and discrepancies found on your nomination form within the extended nomination period. These include signatures which do not tally across copies of your form.”
Speaking on the development on Eyewitness News, the PPP’s Policy Advisor, Kofi Asamoah Siaw, said the EC’s posture at this stage “ will not bring finality to the issue” adding that “ it is likely that other legal issues will be raised as far as this matter is concerned.”
He reiterated the party’s conviction that there is a “deliberate attempt” to frustrate Dr. Nduom and “make it impossible for him to appear on the ballot paper.”
According to Mr. Siaw, some presidential aspirants who besieged the EC hours after the Supreme Court’s judgement, had to wait for several hours before they were attended to, despite the Supreme Court’s short notice.
“We sat at the office of the Electoral Commission from about 1: 00pm till about 5:00pm; nobody talked to us. I had to virtually charge and go to the door of the Commission before Mr. Amadu Suilley came out only for him to call us one by one into the Commissioner’s office as if it is a consulting room, and handed over these letters to us.”
“We are told there are some concerns that we do not even know about. That we should sign a piece of paper to say that we have been given a hearing. Were are all these part of the regulation 9 (2).
Where in regulation 9(2) are we suppose to sign a paper that we have been given a hearing? For the first time in my life as a politician, the Chairperson of the Commission invited us to her office.
It has never happened before. All the interactions the political parties have with the Electoral Chairperson are done in the conference room.if they want us to move onto the streets and solve this politically, we will do so,” he cautioned.