Ghana inauguration goes on, while opposition plots court comeback

President John Dramani Mahama was inaugurated today. But the opposition is not giving up its legal challenge to his election.

Gabriela Barnuevo/AP
President John Dramani Mahama, second from left, takes the oath of office during his inauguration ceremony, in Accra, Ghana, Monday, Jan. 7. Mr. Mahama was sworn in Monday for a new four-year term in the West African nation's capital of Accra after winning a closely fought election in December.

The inauguration of Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, on Monday was packed with visiting heads of state and foreign dignitaries, but perhaps the most important guests to take a seat in Accra’s expansive Independence Square were the robed judges of the country’s Supreme Court.

They have been tasked with deciding if the 54-year-old president really won last month’s election or if the voting was marred by fraud, as the country’s largest opposition party alleges in a lawsuit filed after the results were announced.

President Mahama – a former vice president who took over in July after President John Atta Mills died in office – was elected to a full term with 51.7 percent of the vote to the 47.7 percent garnered by New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidate Nana Akufo-Addo. International observers call the vote free and fair.

Soon after the votes were announced, the NPP emerged with allegations that the vote had been stolen by Mahama’s National Democratic Congress, and promised to take both the president and the electoral commission to court to prove it. Until the court rules, the challenge will hang over Ghana's regionally respected track record in elections and the rule of law.

“It is not an easy decision for us to tell the people of Ghana that we will not accept the results of the election as declared by the chairman of the electoral commission,” Mr. Akufo-Addo told a press conference late last month. “But we had to accept the responsibility of righting what in our view was the wrong of an invalid election.”

Mahama’s inauguration speech called for unity in the West African nation – home to a fast-growing economy and a stable democracy that’s seen three peaceful transitions between presidents.

But before that unity can be achieved, the 13 judges in the whitewashed colonial building down the street from Independence Square will have to figure out what, if anything, went wrong with last month’s polls, and what to do about it.

Akufo-Addo’s lawsuit alleges that 1.3 million votes were improperly cast, and asks the judges to reverse the outcome of the election to give him the victory.

The lawsuit claims foul-ups ranging from unsigned ballots to ballots cast without use of the new biometric verification system. The system scans voters’ fingerprints to prevent fraud, but ended up breaking down in some polling places.

A study released last year by the World Justice Project ranked Ghana as one of the most steadfast in the region when it comes to rule of law, and with a court composed of jurors appointed by different presidents, how they’ll rule on Akufo-Addo’s challenge is anyone’s guess.

Isaac Owusu-Mensah, a political science lecturer at the University of Ghana, said the case is a chance for the court to rise above the country’s often-feisty partisan politics.

“Now [the court] has an opportunity to show their [independence], that the judiciary is not in bed with the opposition or the government,” says Mr. Owusu-Mensah in a phone interview.

Owusu-Mensah questions how well the court would receive some of the evidence brought forth by the NPP, but says the party’s claim that people voted without verification may prove decisive when the justices consider the case.

“The law says in a polling station, if there’s no verification, there’s no voting. The votes will not be counted,” says Owusu-Mensah. “It means that Mahama wouldn’t have gotten 50 percent and Akufo-Addo wouldn’t have gotten 50 percent.”

That would force a runoff vote, which would send Ghanaians back to the polls.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.