The court victory by the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) against the Electoral Commission on Friday, 28 October, is a victory for Ghana, flag bearer Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom’s wife, Mrs Yvonne Nduom, has said.

“Justice has been served,” she told Atiewin Mbillah Lawson in an exclusive interview. “It’s a win for democracy. … This has been won for Ghana, for human rights,” she said.

Meanwhile, Dr Nduom himself has welcomed the ruling by the Accra High Court which nullified his disqualification from the 2016 presidential race.

According to the court, the Electoral Commission should have given Dr Nduom an opportunity to correct anomalies on his nomination form before disqualifying him.

Speaking exclusively to Class News’ Kwesi Parker-Wilson shortly after the court ruling, Dr Nduom said: “It’s not a great moment for me, but it’s a great moment for democracy and for our human rights.”

Dr Nduom was part of 13 aspirants disqualified from contesting in the elections over alleged illegalities on their nomination forms.

Dr Nduom, according to the EC, was disqualified because “the number of subscribers to his forms did not meet the requirements of Regulation 7 (2) (b) of CI 94. The details are as follows:

- One subscriber Richard Aseda (‘Asida’ on the Voters’ Register), with Voter ID no 7812003957) endorsed the forms in two different districts (pages 21 and 39).

The subscriber was found to be on the Voter’s Register in one district thereby disqualifying his second subscription and reducing the total number of subscribers to below the minimum required by the Law.

The same subscriber (Richard Aseda (‘Asida’) endorsed the form with different signatures in both portions of the nomination form. This raises questions as to the legitimacy of one or both signatures.

We will refer the matter of the 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 the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29):

Section 211: Perjury

Section 248: making false declaration etc. for office or voting;

Section 251: Deceiving a public officer

Section 256: Corruption, Intimidation and impersonation in respect of election.”

The PPP took the case to court seeking “an order directed against the 1st respondent in her capacity as returning officer for presidential elections to grant the applicant the opportunity to amend and alter the one anomaly found in his nomination papers as well as accept his nomination papers as amended or altered to enable him contest as a presidential candidate for the 7th December 2016 elections.”

The court said the EC did not give the PPP fair opportunity to amend mistakes on their nomination forms.