Legality Of Election Validity In The Boardroom Of A Philosopher In 2013 Ghana

The 2013 presidential petition hearing in the Supreme Court of Ghana, following a petition lodged against the Electoral Commission of Ghana's declaration of Mr John Dramani Mahama as validly elected president with 50.70% of total valid votes cast in the 7/8th December 2012 general elections, has indeed attracted huge attention of people from both far and near, including legal experts and philosophers. The contention of the petitioners and the adjudication thereof are in the spirit and backing of article 64(1 to 3) of the 1992 republican constitution of Ghana which gives the petitioners the right to challenge the validity of presidential elections and equally empowers the Supreme Court not only to adjudicate but also to formulate appropriate adjudication rules such as those found in Constitutional Instrument (CI) 74, 2012.

Validity is one of the concepts that may be seen from different perspectives. But it is certainly not without parameters. It may be understood in philosophy as a logical arrangement of argument or contention which posits that the conclusions and premises of any reasoning must necessarily follow or be consistent with each other in truth or falsity wherever it might be seen to be interpreted (Socrates, Aristotle).

For example, in deductive reasoning, if it is said that: 'All animals are cats – The laptop computer is an animal - Therefore, the laptop computer is a cat'; it will be quick for anyone anywhere to raise an unequivocal objection that all the three statements or propositions at issue are false. The reason obviously is that, not all animals are cats – laptop computer cannot also be an animal – laptop computer cannot be a cat either.

Another circumstantial instance may be contended that: 'All irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices make elections invalid – The 2012 elections in Ghana had irregularities, statutory violations and malpractices – Therefore, the 2012 elections in Ghana were invalid'. This argument could also easily be labeled as false and dismissed even though its second premise might have appeared to be true.

Ironically however, in both arguments there seems to be an inherent logical form that proves beyond every sense of flow that, indeed, the contentions are after-all valid. This means that the truthfulness or otherwise of an argument is not necessarily what makes an argument valid but the 'logical form'. That is, validity is obtained in so far as the premises logically support a reason to believe the conclusions. It does not matter the falsity or truthfulness of the propositions – what matters is the logical form and consistency of the truthfulness or falsity. Nevertheless, even though such reasoning may be valid, it cannot be said to be sound.

Sound arguments not only must have logical form but also must have true propositions in its premises and conclusion. In determining reality of circumstances, philosophers are more interested in the soundness of arguments put forward in support of claims made. Philosophers are well-grounded in philosophy or critical thinking and so use structured viewpoints to seek for truth or reality of a phenomenon or claims thereof.

In the field of law, however, validity may be understood as not just the logical flow or form of the argument but also the veracity or truthfulness of the reasoning with attention to both internal and external factors that may have effects on the way the propositions are made. Validity of propositions in this case ought to be determined within a given legal framework and perhaps socio-political and moral imperatives. Thus in determining validity in law, veracity and soundness of reasoning are not considered in isolation but are situated in the context of implicit and explicit guidelines or standards which the society gives recognition or credence to through its legal, political and moral institutions, amongst others.

This implies that validity of an argument on a given issue might vary from one jurisdiction to the other depending upon the frameworks that guide human activities and processes. Such variations may be on both the form and substance. There is nonetheless a huge amount of consensus on the substance and form of issues with international scope which international legal architecture regulates, especially on some fundamental human rights such as right to freedom of expression, democratic and political choices including elections of political leaders, as happened in Ghana during the 2012 December elections.

For example, in many democratic nations where rule of law and freedom of expression predominate, validity of elections is determined by free, fair and transparent processes where each candidate has an equitable chance of being elected by eligible voters who also must be given the political space to exercise their franchise without intimidation or victimization or other hindrances. The legal and socio-political framework to administer and enforce those, may still differ from country to country and determination of validity thereof will largely depend on that country's legal, social and political frameworks, of course with hindsight of international legal experience and standards.

The legal framework that principally guided the conduct and remedies for the 2012 general elections of Ghana principally constituted the constitution of Ghana (primarily articles 49, 50, 51, 52; particularly articles 42, 63,64, 65 ) and (CI.75, and CI.74)2012, as well as '2012 manual on election adjudication, 2nd edition' and other legal and social imperatives. In considering validity of the 2012 presidential elections, it is therefore very important to have a holistic and strategic view of all the parameters that hold a proof of some level of validity in elections across the world but with reasonable consideration of domestic laws such as those mentioned immediately beforehand. Thus, 'malpractices, irregularities and statutory violations' alleged to have occurred in the election of President John Mahama, for example, will have to be subjected to the highest standard of proof of veracity and magnitude of claims on one hand the legal and mathematical effects on the other.

Perhaps a careful balancing walk through strings of technicalities of the philosophical and legal conceptualizations could be very useful and undoubtedly appealing. It may not still be enough to perfection but it should have been realized that philosophical narratives ought to be significantly featured in legal analyses albeit with some transmutations to reflect specific legal imperatives and moral reasoning – whether categorical moral reasoning interested in duties and rights or consequential moral reasoning interested in utility or best outcomes.

In closely observing the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings of the presidential petition in 2013 Ghana, a philosopher with the hindsight of the legal imperatives could therefore be attracted to make these insightful but laconic propositions:

Credible elections should possess basic validity if it is able to secure voter legitimacy involving identification of eligible voters; vote integrity constituting security of ballot, competence of voter, and accuracy of single tally of votes whereby each ballot is stamped or marked, clearly voted and counted; as well as level of accuracy of agreed result as openly counted and declared. Very credible elections should have non-coercible validity if it possesses elements of basic validity together with voter preference which constitutes absence of seduction to vote preferred candidate; and lack of constraint on voter integrity in which the voter should not be coerced to vote. Highly credible elections are characterized by non-deniable validity which integrates non-coercible validity with non-deniability of tally of results by candidates or their representatives and non-deniability of legitimacy of the results obtained by each candidate and the winning candidate thereof.

Simply put, non-deniable validity incorporates basic validity and non-coercible validity which altogether posits that elections are highly credible in validity if the process was free, fair and transparent whereby each eligible voter was openly identified, freely allowed to vote preferred candidate, votes properly counted, tallied and results openly declared in which candidates or representatives of candidates certified and accepted the results and winner at the polling station thereof. This is true for three main reasons: firstly, it would have satisfied most of, if not all, the legal and social imperatives that provided the framework for the elections; secondly, it would have met the standards of international legal jurisprudence on valid elections;

Thirdly, it is consistent with the imperative deductive logic which essays that: Every country's election is valid if its process and outcome was free, fair and transparent, even with some insignificant errors - Ghana's 2012 elections were free, fair and transparent but with some insignificant errors - Therefore, Ghana's 2012 elections were valid. Perhaps, this suppositional hazard may attempt to attract some vibrations of contempt of court. But nay, it shall not be contemptuous for two reasons; first, it is an informed academic opinion which merely attempts to put legal philosophy in perspective; second, it shall not in any way prejudice the outcome or reasoning of the eminent Supreme Court Justices.

It is sufficiently reasonable to then conclude by saying that validity of the 2012 presidential elections can only be interpreted and determined by the Supreme Court of Ghana (1992 Constitution - Articles 64.2; 130.1a). But suffice to reveal that in the categorical and consequential boardroom of the philosopher, logical deliberations attentively try to reconcile with legal imperatives in which rational conclusions reached must comply with the real truth and utmost certainty – the true intentions and preferences of legitimate Ghanaian voters as found in secured ballot boxes.

SUPREME COURT 1