Maybe it was meant to be or maybe not. That which initially appeared to have jolted Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom’s presidential ambition forever has seen sudden revival. Nduom’s disqualification couldn’t retire him. And it didn’t mean condemnation for the candidates’ political career. Perhaps, it means there’s something good in the offing…
But I believe everything positive possibly has its negative effects and vice versa. Let me also put it this way: You don’t allow a new engine to go rusty when you’ve the right lubricant. I said the right lubricant.
That’s exactly what the Progressive People’s Party’s (PPP) presidential candidate Dr. Nduom did awhile back. He took his case to an Accra High Court after the nominee and 11 other presidential aspirants were disqualified by the Electoral Commission (EC) on Monday October 10, for some electoral flaws on their application forms.
And on Friday October 28, the court turned the tables on the PPP candidate’s advantage. Justice Kyei Baffour who presided over the court ordered the EC to allow Dr. Nduom to correct mistakes on his nomination forms to enable him to contest in the December 7, polls.
This brings to four the number of candidates now vying for the 2016 presidential race, while three others—NDP’s Agyeman-Rawlings, PNC’s, Edward Mahama and APC’s Mahama Ayariga continue to battle with the court to have them reinstated. One horse is out of the woods while 10 still remain in the rugged terrain. Their fates hang in limbo and it might depend on whether they’ve the right ‘lubricant’.
A former Attorney General in the Kufour’s administration Mr. Ayikoi Otoo speaking after Nduom’s court victory remarked that the three embattled nominees could have found themselves in a joyous mood, if they’d joined his client to file a single suit. Well, that’s debatable too. Mr. Otoo.
Apples are not oranges, you can’t mix them together.
I thought the candidates were disqualified based on varied reasons.
Therefore the premise if true how does it satisfy the conclusion?
For example, candidate Rawlings’ case is different from PNC’s Ayariga. But beyond that I think other factors come into play. I mentioned right lubricant! Right lubricant could mean having right lawyers, right advisors and probably right case. It could also mean the right money to expend. Suffice to say that a loaded gun feeds the hunter, while an empty one starves him.
So what got candidate Nduom disqualified?
On Monday October 10, EC’s Commissioner Charlotte Osei announced at a news conference that the commission had disqualified Nduom and 11 others for their failure to meet the necessary requirements, hence their ineligibility to run for the high office.
“The Commission is unable to accept Dr. Nduom’s nomination because the number of subscribers to his forms did not meet the requirements of Regulation 7 (2) (b) of CI 94,” she said.
One subscriber by name Richard Aseda (‘Asida’) endorsed the forms with different signatures in both portions of the nomination form. “This raises question,’ Madam Osei noted, ‘as to the legitimacy of one or both signatures.”
In addition to that the EC had threatened it would refer the matter of possible forgery of the signature (s) to the Ghana Police Service and the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution in line with the following sections of Criminal Offence Act, 1960 (Act 29):
But the judge who held the case said the EC breached the regulations by not allowing Dr. Nduom to make amends.
What does this mean to the nominee?
Remember I said every positive thing possibly has its negative effects and vice versa. Already the business man turned politician is counting his loses. He’s revealed that the party had expended so much on the court case: “We’ve had to spend a lot of money on this court case with finding good advisors, finding good lawyers and finding researchers and so on.”
That comes at a cost, so much money that we could have used to go to the people to sell our message we were using it there [court].”
However, Dr. Nduom maintained, he was optimistic that wouldn’t have negative impact on the party’s chances in the impending elections.
“We are working but it has definitely cost us time and certain things but we have hope. We started this thing on a good foot and we are doing well but we just have to go and pick it up from there…” I now believe that this year when the election is over, everybody will see that we have PPP members going into the next parliament.”
What’s trending?
Nduom’s court victory has since generated a lot of debates and got many talking in both the mainstream and social media circles. Bloggers are blogging, political analysts are analysing and writers are writing while observers home and abroad are observing closely. A lot had been read into the ruling; and a lot had been said.
There is a conspiracy theory already making rounds in the political landscape. The theory is that the whole EC disqualification move was targeted at candidates Nduom and Rawlings whose vice presidential nominees are believed to hail from the Volta region. The two described as ‘Spoilers’ could ruin NDC’s chances of winning massively in an area considered as its ‘World Bank’, pundits say.
According to the theory the EC did so in order to help the ruling NDC in the upcoming general elections. Similarly the theory holds the view that the disqualification was politically motivated, particularly in the two battle ground regions—-western and central, given the fact Dr. Nduom who’s a native of central region could rub shoulders with the two major parties for votes. They contend he could do well in western region too.
That notwithstanding one has to peer back into the two previous elections (2008/2012) and check how candidate Nduom fared.
First, in the 2012 elections Dr. Nduom polled 64.267 national votes representing 0.58%. He tailed candidates John Mahama and Akufo Addo respectively.
His performance at the battleground regions wasn’t encouraging. He came third in both Western and Central regions. Dr. Nduom polled 8,599 votes in western region representing 0.80% and central with 13, 873 representing 1.47%.
With such performance against the two dominant parties that garnered almost half a million votes apiece from the central region, it leaves one to wonder whether the conspirators’ theory really holds water. In Western region for example, the NDC’s candidate polled over half a million votes while the NPP’s Akufo Addo was shy of 500, 000 votes in that region.
At the NDC’s ‘World Bank’ the Volta region, the margin was humongous. Candidate John Mahama polled over 700,000 as against nominee Akufo Addo’s a little over 100,000 votes. Presidential candidate Nduom came third with less than 4,000 votes.
So it remains to be seen whether Nduom’s running mate could change the fortunes in the 2016 presidential poll in the Volta region —-the bastion of the ruling NDC.
In the other regions his performance wasn’t different either. Ashanti region with 0.31% representing 6,594, fifth in the Brong Ahafo region, third in Eastern , third in Northern, fifth in Upper East region, fourth in Upper West region, third in Volta with 3,952 votes representing 0.46%.
Third party factor
The country since the fourth republic has seen two major parties and many believe having a third party would help change the dynamics of the game. But for now given the fact that the splinter parties had had poor showings in the past elections that dream seems to be a fairy-tale.
Again some political chieftains have suggested a merger by all the Nkrumaist parties notably, the PNC, CPP, PPP, and APC could probably see a more vibrant third party. It’s something that would amaze many should there ever be a third party candidate emerging as a winner in a major election.
In fact that would be the biggest surprise in Ghana’s political history; perhaps the first in 37 years (since 1979) when president Hilla Limann’s PNP third party beat two most influential Akan presidential nominees of the Popular Front Party (PFP) and United National Convention (UNC). At the time PFP’s presidential candidate Victor Owusu and UNC’s William Ofori Atta (Paa Willie) failed to come together as a unified force, hence Dr. Limann’s election in September 24, 1979 to December 31, 1981.
In the 2008 presidential election many pundits had tipped Dr. Nduom who then ran on the CPP’s ticket to pull that surprise; but his poor showing coupled with the post-election in-fighting necessitated the birth of the PPP.
So could this be Nduom’s last shot?
This would be Dr. Nduom’s third time running for the first office. In December 2007 he was elected by the CPP to run for the 2008 presidential election. His campaign was vigorous but that couldn’t translate into votes as the party performed poorly. He quit the CPP and had his eyes set on a third force galvanising likeminded Ghanaians to join him form a progressive movement — that would eventually give birth to the PPP on whose ticket he gave himself another shot but his dream to become president failed to materialise.
Disqualification ghost haunts EC?
Meanwhile, some political analysts say the ruling cast doubts on EC’s reputation or otherwise credibility. They argue the commission erred in the first place for not allowing the parties to correct the mistakes found in their forms.
A founding member of GIJANA Mr. Emmanuel Mezikpi says the EC is the Headmaster and should ensure that all necessary corrections on any forms are corrected.
The journalist and a former Daily Graphic reporter capped his argument with this analogy: “It’s like writing our A’ Level Exams…Headmaster or assistant headmaster announces date to be registered… Now we take our pictures, fees, etc. to that office. I fill the registration form and pay my money. Later headmaster notices mistakes on my forms. He keeps mute without drawing my attention to effect correction. Index numbers arrive and I am told I can’t write exams. Reason…I made mistake on my registration form,” he said.
What an irony. Isn’t the duty of the headmaster to ensure my form is 100% right? What gain does the headmaster derive from not asking me to effect necessary changes on my form?’ he quizzed.
Indeed I think that argument has a good standing if one finds himself in the loser’s shoes. Usually those at the opposite side don’t see it that way. What perhaps we forget is that this is a contest and every mistake (s) committed in the process gives your opponent an advantage over you. The criteria are there for a reason.
Take athletics for instance, some athletes in 100-metre race get a good start others don’t, when the gun is fired. You don’t blame the referee for your poor start. Rather you keep your eyes on the ball and keep on. After all, they say the race is not for the swift.
So in that sense I don’t think the EC did anything unthinkable. I believe the development has rather emboldened the commission—stamping its authority and demonstrating that it’s up to the task. It’s also a true testament that our democracy is maturing every political season. And that’s why the courts are there if in doubt seek redress. I view the EC-Nduom case as a win-win situation other than a loser and a winner in this situation.
Nonetheless, the EC must all the time be guided by the laid down principles that established it and strive to live above reproach. It must be aware that fair play, transparency and free election are not to be compromised in anyway whatsoever.