The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mr. Asamoah Boateng is facing a law suit which may disqualify him from contesting the Mfantseman West parliamentary seat on grounds that his purported election in the New Patriotic Party primaries a fortnight ago which returned him with 116 votes was an utter sham and a fraud.

The suit which has as many reliefs as the number of polling station chairmen in the constituency, lists the Minister as a refugee in Britain who obtained British nationality and passport, a development whose veracity Mr. Kweku Paintsil, the claimant is challenging, raising the presumption that Asamoah Boateng may not have renounced his British citizenship, a fatal omission. Paintsil also states as a matter of fact that the election itself was held on a statutory holiday, and thus offends the Holidays Act, making it a nullity.

Joined in the suit are senior members of the national and regional executives of the party including regional chairman Mr. Bootie Danquah smith and regional secretary Mr. Kwamena Duncan who allegedly conducted the election. Sensationally, the electoral Commissioner who conducted the election, and the Municipal chief Executive Mr. Robert Quainoo Arthur who is described as Asamoah Boateng’s stooge, have both been joined in the suit which comes off at the Accra Fast Track court this week.

Quoting from the 21 point guidelines to all parliamentary candidates, the claimant cites sections of the guidelines which forbids financial inducements and in particular, camping of delegates and deprives other contestants access to them and makes copious references to the fact that the delegates were camped at Betaanya Hotel near Yamoransa Nkwanta and later at Awa Awaa etu at Otuam, Ekumfi, at Mfantseman East and doused them with valuables such a television sets, bags of rice, wrist watches topped with GH¢300 per delegate to influence their voting intentions.

Article 15 of the guidelines prohibits camping; ‘An aspiring candidate must under no circumstances consciously seek to influence Party Officials or members by the offer of the gift of money or other valuable consideration, which are calculated to undermine the democratic credentials of the Party; 16 Aspiring candidates, Party Executives, delegates or their agents are prohibited from ‘camping’ i.e. depriving other contestants access to delegates so camped.

One of the highlights of the suit was the role of the Municipal Chief Executive Mr. Quainoo Arthur who was disqualified from contesting the Mfantseman East parliamentary seat, and who, the claimant alleges, has openly declared his support for Asamoah Boateng, contrary to the party’s guidelines. ‘Further, on three different dates in the course of May 2008, the 8th defendant (Mr. Quainoo Arthur) organized bus loads of thugs from Kormantse, their home town, to attack Ms. Esi Danquah, the Constituency Women’s Organiser, on the alleged claim that she had diverted to her own use funds the 9th Defendant (Asamoah Boateng) entrusted to her for onward transmission to some party agents within the Constituency, which claim was false, but the same was hatched by the 8th and 9th Defendants as a tactical ploy to intimidate Ms. Esi Danquah and other delegates and constituency executive members to support the 9th Defendant’s bid to be declared unopposed as the party’s nominee.’

Continuing, claimant further averred that by ‘letter dated 12th May, 2008 the Plaintiff lodged a formal protest and complaint of the 7th and 8th Defendant’s said conduct with the 2nd Defendant, but the 2nd defendant refused, failed or neglected to take any action.’ ‘The 1st Defendant did not communicate to the Plaintiff of the outcome of the vetting exercise until Friday 23rd May, 2008, at about 5.30 pm, when the 5th Defendant telephoned the Plaintiff to say that he was under 3rd Defendant’s instructions to notify the Plaintiff that all three candidates had been declared eligible to contest for election to elect one of them as the 1st Defendant’s nominee for the impending parliamentary election. He then added that the election had been scheduled for Sunday 25th May, 2008.’

Upon receipt of the said information, the Plaintiff protested to the 3rd, 4th and 5th (Mr. Danquah Smith) defendants, specifically, about the timing of the notification of the decision on the vetting exercise as well as the date of the election, as being unreasonably short and unable to afford the Plaintiff a reasonable and fair opportunity of conducting any proper or effective campaign among the 143 odd delegates spread throughout the Mfantsiman West Constituency.

In response to the Plaintiff’s protest, the regional chairman (5th Defendant) telephoned the Plaintiff in the morning of Saturday 24th May, 2008 to state that say that he had the instruction of the 3rd Defendant, who is traditionally entrusted with the responsibility of fixing dates for conduct of primaries under his jurisdiction, to inform all three parliamentary candidates that the election had been postponed from Sunday 25th May, 2008 to Wednesday 28th May, 2008, which information the 3rd Defendant subsequently confirmed to the Plaintiff.

‘That with a view to soliciting the delegate’s votes for the election scheduled for Wednesday 28th May, 2008, the Plaintiff, on Saturday 24th May, 2008, made valiant efforts to contact the delegates, but the Plaintiff’s efforts yielded no result at all because the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Defendants, acting by themselves and through their agents, had gone around the constituency overnight in a hired bus (No. AS 3255 W) and party cars and conveyed about 130 party activists and delegates to Betanyaa Hotel in the Abura-Kwamankese –Asebu constituency with the intent that the Plaintiff and Ms Victoria Awuah would be denied access to them.

Mr. Paintsil allegedly lodged a formal complaint to the relevant authorities but all to no avail. Next he heard was that the delegates had been conveyed from Betanyaa Hotel to Awaa Waa Etuu Hotel where their mobile phones were taken off them. Mr. Quainoo-Arthur allegedly offered each of the said delegates and party activists an amount of GH¢300.00 and a wrist watch with a further promise of a television set and a bag of rice after voting, the writ said.

The tale of electoral surprises was further played out when on Monday 26th May, 2008, being a national public holiday, the primaries were conducted at Kormantsi, the home town of Quainoo Arthur and Asamoah Boateng where Asamoah Boateng allegedly polled 116 votes; the Kweku Paintsil 2 votes; and Ms Vicky Awuah, the third contestant 1 vote. ‘That beginning from the evening of Monday 26th May, 2008, the 7th Defendant, acting on 8th and 9th Defendant’s instructions, distributed TV sets and bags of rice, which at all material times were being kept at the 8th Defendant’s residence, to all the delegates and other party agents who were camped, during which exercise a certain Kojo Adu, a delegate who did not attend camp, forcibly seized one of the TV sets at Mankessim, compelling the 7th Defendant to lodge a complaint on the Quainoo Arthur’s instructions at the Mankessim Police Station.

AUDIO RECORDING Ominously, Kweku Paintsil promised to tender in evidence, for the purpose of it being played live, an audio recording of the open confession of some of the delegates recounting their experiences with the 7th ,8th and 9th Defendants in camp at Betanyaa Hotel and Awaa Waa Etuu Hotel.

In conclusion Paintsil made the following declarations:

Particulars:

1. The timing of the communication of the decision of the vetting exercise to the Plaintiff vis-à-vis the fixing of the date for the conduct of the election was unreasonably short and denied the Plaintiff a fair opportunity of campaigning;

2. The election was held on Monday 26th May, 2008, at all material times when the 3rd Defendant had not countermanded the earlier notice that it would be held on Wednesday 28th May,2008;

3. The election was conducted on a national public holiday;

4. The Plaintiff received no notice or no official notice of the conduct of the said election scheduled for Monday 26th May,2008;

5. A purported notice calling an extra-ordinary delegate’s conference for the express purpose of conducting the said election on Monday 26th May,2008 came to the Plaintiff’s notice only after the election;

6. The said election was conducted without any notice or any proper notice to some of the delegates who were perceived to be opposed to the 9th Defendant;

7. The said election was held without any balloting whatsoever by the 10th Defendant to determine the candidates position on the ballot paper;

8. Even though all three candidates submitted passport pictures to the 1st Defendant with their nomination forms, the ballot papers used to conduct the election did not bear the pictures of any candidate to sufficiently identify the candidates to the delegates;

9. The choice of Kormantse as the venue for the election was unwarranted and intended to intimidate some delegates, notably the Constituency Women’s Organizer and other perceived opponents of the 9th Defendant from attending; and

10. The Plaintiff was effectively denied access to campaign among the majority of delegates through their being camped by the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Defendants. 27. By letters dated 26th May, 2008 and 27th May, 2008, the Plaintiff petitioned the 2nd Defendant and 1st Defendant’s National Executive Committee, respectively, about the several irregularities in relation to the conduct of the said election, but very characteristically of him, the 2nd Defendant who has the responsibility for convening meetings, has blatantly refused to acknowledge receipt of the Plaintiff’s petition or convene a meeting to consider same. On the contrary, the 1st and 2nd Defendants have shown no inclination whatsoever to investigate the Plaintiff’s allegations at all or sanction the offending culprits.

Further, they have evinced a clear intention to ignore the Plaintiff’s petitions and have also taken the clear position that the 9th Defendant is the 1stDefendant’s duly elected nominee for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

28. The Plaintiff shall contend that all the processes and procedures for the election of the 1st Defendant’s nominee for the Mfantsiman West Constituency, including the 1st and 2nd defendant’s deliberate refusal to investigate the Plaintiff’s several allegations of fraud and impropriety , were part of a carefully choreographed and orchestrated attempt by the 1st, 2nd ,3rd ,4th, 5th ,6th and 10th Defendants to give undeserved advantage to the 9th Defendant and foist him on the Mfantsiman West Constituency as the 1st Defendant’s parliamentary candidate.

29. Further, or in the alternative, the conduct and/ or actions of the Defendants before, during and after the purported elections on Monday 26th May.2008 is inconsistent and/or in contravention of Article 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution and the Representation of People Law, 1992 (PNDC L 284) as amended and the Public Holidays Act, 2001 (Act 601).