NPP Deceives Ghanaians
Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the past flagbearer of the NPP held a press conference last month and claimed that he had been robbed of victory by the Electoral Commission (EC) in the 2012 presidential election.
After Akufo-Addo had addressed the press conference without providing any proof, he ceded the spotlight to his running mate, Dr. Mahamadu Bawumia to share light on the evidence they had to buttress their case.
Dr. Bawumia made some opening remarks and then went on to give details of the so-called evidence that the NPP had claimed through multiple sources that it was going to be mind blowing to Ghanaians. Bawumia threw some numbers around; made some calculations amidst cheers from the hired NPP Professional Clappers and showed portions of some of the ECs pink results sheets (The pink results sheet provides a statement of Poll and Declaration of Results by the EC).
But before I proceed further, I would like to give a general overview of the ECs pink results sheet. The pink results sheet basically has five (5) sections from A thru E. Section A is the Ballot Information (To be filled in at the START of poll, Section B has Information about the register and other lists at the polling station, Section C caters for the Ballot Accounting (To be filled in at END of the poll before counting commences), Section D is Rejected Ballot Report (To be filled in at the END of poll after counting is completed) whilst Section E is the Declaration Form.
What Ghanaians need to know is that the NPP during their so-called press conference deceived Ghanaians and the world at large by showing photocopies of only sections A thru D of the pink results sheet. They deliberately left out section E of the three (3) pink results sheets they claimed have details of their so-called claims of irregularities. Why would the NPP leave section E of the pink results sheet which provides details of what each presidential candidate actually got?
The reason is simple: The details on section E of the pink results sheet would have exposed the NPP to the whole world that their so-called bogus claims about electoral fraud, was fraud in itself and that the figures on section E really tallies with the actual number of people who voted on that day and that the details on section E is indeed what the EC has.
Another thing that is very troubling is the fact that the NPP claimed during the press conference that there were 4,709 polling stations that they have uncovered with questionable figures in favour of President Mahama, hence their decision to call on the EC to throw away over 1.34 million votes from those polling stations. The NPP added that pink results sheets from 24,000 polling stations indicated that the irregularities were enough to throw the elections in favour of Nana Akufo-Addo.
But very strangely, a party that has been able to review election results of 24,000 polling stations showed only three (3) of those pink results sheets during the press conference. And to add insult to injury the NPP presented those three (3) pink results sheets to the Supreme Court to buttress their case.
If indeed you have a strong case against the EC and you have reviewed elections results from 24,000 polling stations why would you add only three (3) pink results sheets to bolster your case? The NPP provided only three (3) pink results sheets from 24,000 polling stations? It is important to note that the three (3) pink results sheets represent only 0.013% of the 24,000 polling stations. The biggest question is, why did the NPP present three (3) pink results sheets when they could have presented at least 1,000 or 2,000 or even 10,000 pink results sheets to boost their case? If the NPP indeed have the evidence against the EC, why did the NPP decide not to make it available and only showed three (3) pink results sheets?
We have 26,000 polling stations. At the time the NPP held its press conference or presented its petition to the EC they told the whole world that they have reviewed 24,000 of the polling stations and found some irregularities in 4,709 of them. If the NDC math is right, or if your math teacher is still around you can deduce that at the time the suit was filed at the Supreme Court, the NPP was left with just 2,000 polling stations to review.
But strangely enough when the NPP filed an amendment to their suit last week, they told Ghanaians that they have now uncovered irregularities from 11,916 polling stations. When they filed their original suit they had 4,709 irregularities leaving 2,000 polling stations to go. But assuming that the NPP found irregularities in all the remaining 2,000 polling stations, can the number suddenly balloon from 4,709 to 11,916? Did the NPP go back and reviewed the 24,000 polling stations they had earlier on reviewed? If yes, then did the NPP do a poor job with the earlier assessment?
This is why Asiedu Nketia, General Secretary of the NDC, famously claimed that the NPP have problems with math.
Apart from that some of their reasoning does not add up. Can you imagine the response the NPP lead lawyer, Addison gave when he was pressed to provide evidence of their claims in the 24,000 polling stations? He claimed that the EC officials have the evidence so they should go and fish them out. But when the heat steamed up he told the court that when they provide the evidence to the EC and the NDC the case might end abruptly.
This statement alone should have been mind boggling for the NPP supporters. They want the case to end early for Akufo-Addo to receive his so-called crown, yet their lead lawyer does not want to provide the evidence to help case end early. Can you eat your case and later turn round to demand it?
If you are a member of the NPP, you should know that you are currently being taken on a roller coaster ride with no light at the end of the tunnel. The NPP is pursuing a bad case but do not have the guts to let their supporters know. We live to see!
Disclaimer: "The views/contents expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Modern Ghana. Modern Ghana will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article."