My attention has been drawn to a publication under the above title and I wish to respond adequately. It is unfortunate that the writer of that piece, an academician ( if he is to be believed) makes such obvious mistakes in both fact and logic. Such a sacrilege, if allowed to stand, will never be forgiven by future generations.

Also, it is worth noting that the said person, has for a long time been pursuing a personal vendetta against the person and good name of Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo, as his writings show. This trait, as unfortunate as it is, is what may have driven his obvious disregard for truth and facts. But thank God all of Ghana is awake.

Firstly, the argument that the petitioners never asked for any form of electoral reform is an exercise in self deceit and a blatant attempt to deceive the public as well. It is rather that line of argument that is 'porous'. Paragraph 83 of the petition, inter alia, makes the claim for a relief sought as " Wherefore I swear to this affidavit in proof of our petition seeking the following reliefs ... c. Consequential orders as to this court may seem meet."

Clearly embedded in this relief sought is the leeway to enable the court make all the orders as it deems fit. Electoral reforms therefore, if the court deems fit, is one of the orders it can make. Thus wherein lies the claim that no electoral reforms are sought? This is an obvious porous argument that will most likely be made by one who has not addressed himself to the facts or is too willing to ignore it on the premise of pursuing a biased personal vendetta.

The idea that Nana Akufo-Addo is only seeking to come to power and therefore his court action is to be seen only as a personal agenda that has no national good is also one that is ill reasoned. If I steal the writer's car, will he go to court to ask for reforms of the procedures that allow me to walk up and down his street among others, or he will seek justice by asking for the court to restore the car to him and then make any other order it, (the court) may deem fit? I would be very interested in an answer to this question.

It is not for nothing that the motto of this country is freedom and justice. The notion of justice entails the idea the one who has been wronged can go to court and ask that the right thing be done. It is only in Ghana that a supposed academician, on the basis of bias, can boldly make such a preposterous proposition that he who has gone to court to ask for justice ( contrary to his ( The supposed own supposition that the person under discussion is a violent man who has no respect for the law), is a greedy evil man and still hold his head up.

Another very disturbing logic coming from the supposed academician is that which states that the petitioners should have examined all 26,000+ pink sheets and not 24,000. Perhaps this person will have been happy is the petitioners forged the remaining 2,000 pink sheets they had stated they do not have. If not, then where from this issue? The petitioners boldly told the whole world that they had in their possession 24,000 of the 26,0000 pink sheets and that their analysis was based on the quantity they had. So where is you case? It is not as though the petitioners have sought to misrepresent the facts, neither have they attempted to conceal it. So once again I ask, struggling to make sense of this argument, wherein lies the case?

Presumably, in an attempt to find fault where there is no, opponents of the petition have consistently said that any analysis of the integrity of the 2012 elections should be based on all 26,000 pink sheets. No problem at all but why did they therefore not join the petitioners when they demanded that the electoral commissioner presents all the pink sheets to court since it is the official custodian of all the pink sheets? These same individuals who shout themselves hoarse from the rooftops, hid behind the E.C. and argued it was not necessary. And today, they accuse the petitioners of not wanting an audit of the integrity of the 2012 elections. My only comfort to myself is that perhaps, to such minds, this is the year of irony.

It is a well known tactic in propaganda studies that one has to keep enforcing a message, no matter how false it is for it to gain a level of acceptability. If the writer of the piece was not seeking to employ this debased tactic in the write- up then all knowledge is false. The point that was sought to be made, that the petitioners selectively brought 11, 000 polling stations that John Mahama won and that it is bad faith. The only problem that this point has is that it has been disproved in court. The petitioners filed 1031 polling stations where the first petitioner won as well.

The fact that the quantity of polling stations won by John Mahama far outweighs this number won by the petitioners only goes to prove the assertion by the petitioners that this was a scheme meant to favour John Mahama, a fact that the commissioner of the electoral commission testified to in court. So once again, wherein lies the point?

Even more frivolous is the claim that the petitioners are contesting only the presidential results. Again, this evinces to me that the writer is so bankrupt of the current situation in the country. Firstly, he must be told that there are more than 20 challenges to the parliamentary elections in some constituencies, most notable among them being that of Mr. Stephen Asamoah Boateng's constituency.

If the argument is that the challenge before the Supreme Court should have included the parliamentary elections as well, then an even more elementary error was made because the laws of the land do not allow for such. If the point was that the entirety of the parliamentary results should have been challenged as well, then it is time to throw up our hands in despair because an even more crass error in logic will be in display.

This is because the petitioners have not alleged that the errors took place in every polling station. Unless those holders of the opinion that the entire parliamentary election results should have been challenged are opining that the petitioners should have gone on a fishing expedition seeking to find fault where there is none, again, one finds it difficult to see the logic. Bear in mind that this is coming from a supposed academician.

It is very clear from the foregoing that the piece coming from a supposed academician is nothing but clearly twisted bad propaganda. Lets learn to see issues from the national benefit perspectives and not from the personal vendetta view.

I stand guard against propaganda.

Nana KoFi oppong-damoah

Host- minority caucus

NPP communication team