ghananlpcommunity/ghana-gov-speeches-sentences huggingface dataset:
127 makes provision for the resolution of discrepancies such as the inclusion of omitted names, removal of names of deceased voters from the register, correction to wrong spelling of names, correction to wrong registration center codes, replacement of poor quality Voter ID Cards, and also makes provision for the transfer of voters, special voters list and objection to names of unqualified voters on the register.
Hence, the identification of any of such errors in the provisional register does not call for an independent forensic audit as being demanded by the NDC.
A careful study of the petition submitted by the NDC to the EC vis-à-vis the provisions of C.I.
127, establishes one undisputed fact, there is no need for an Independent Forensic Audit of the provisional register as the existing electoral laws offer a clear pathway to resolving all concerns raised by the NDC.
It is worthy of note that when the NPP, Let My Vote Count Alliance and a host of Civil Society Organizations made a clarion call for an independent forensic audit of the voters register in 2015 on the basis of errors and discrepancies in the voters’ register, the V.C.R.A.C.
Crabbe led Panel made the recommendation that the Electoral Commission has always had the constitutional mandate to take the ultimate decision.
The position of the panel was supported by Mr.
Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, the then General Secretary of the NDC.
During his presentation of a paper on the integrity of Ghana’s 2012 Biometric Voters’ Register, he insisted that the EC by tradition and convention, has always been able to cure errors and discrepancies in the voters’ register.
Further, Mr.
Nketiah, is quoted in Page 20 of the panel’s report that cleaning the voters register can be done using existing mechanisms; the exhibition procedures, challenging and objecting to names of unqualified persons in the register.
Read also : ‘ I firmly believe an external audit of the voter’s register is necessary’ – Goasomanhene to EC Further, he boldly stated that ‘‘the process of deleting deceased persons from the register is the process of exhibition of the register.
The main purpose of the exhibition is for us to raise objections to people whose names are there which ought not to be there.
There are forms and the means of processing those objections that would lead to deletion of those names and it includes the deletion of names of dead people too.
So opportunity is giving for people to present evidence.
Because let’s face it, the environment we are operating in, if you say people should go and pinpoint the names of dead people for deletion without any evidence, I will go and pinpoint Kwabena Agyapong’s name and say he is dead’’ (video attached).
From the video we have just seen, it is clear, that there are existing protocols to rectifying errors in the provisional register and paramount to such protocols is the need for stakeholders to submit to the EC, an evidence of registered voters who should either be added to or deleted from the provisional register.
On the basis of the panel’s position and that of the NDC which was communicated by Mr.
Asiedu Nketiah, the NPP and other stakeholders abandoned their quest for an independent forensic audit of the 2012 voters’ register and agreed to the use of voters’ exhibition exercise to address our concerns.
In view of the above, we want to ask the NDC, what has changed?
Why, are they running from that tradition and convention?
If there was no need for an independent forensic audit of the register in 2015, why should it be done now?
In playing the devil’s advocate, let us even admit there are errors with the provisional register.
We humbly ask, how can such errors be corrected when the NDC are refusing to present evidence of the errors to the E.C.- the body clothed with the legal authority to supervise the compilation of a voters register?
Ladies and gentlemen, we can equally not forget the words of former President Mahama, who in October 2015, stated that the Electoral Commission is an independent body mandated by law to ‘decide what to do’’ (video attached).
So Mr.
Mahama, why are you and the NDC not allowing the E.C.
to decide what to do but are embarking on demonstrations?
Hence, in view of the above, it is hypocritical for the NDC to be ordering the EC to conduct an independent forensic audit of the provisional register.
Friends from the media, ladies and gentlemen, I will conclude my statement by referencing Page 70 of the report by the 2015 V.C.R.A.C.
Crabbe led Panel on the Biometric Voters Register, which states that political parties and all citizens of Ghana should exercise vigilance and maturity when the provisional Registers of Voters are exhibited so that they can check the entries and thereby help the Electoral Commission to have a Register of Voters as credible and as clean as possible.
We ask, where lies the commitment of the NDC to help the EC produce a credible register when they are refusing to submit evidence of an alleged irregularity to the EC?
In view of the submissions made by the New Patriotic Party, it is obvious that the recent agitations by the NDC pertaining the 2024 Provisional Register is needless, deceptive, mischievous and a deliberate attempt to create tensions in the country knowing very well that they are bound to lose the 2024 general elections.
May God bless our homeland Ghana and make us great and strong.
Good morning, distinguished members of the press, members of the New Patriotic Party, and fellow Ghanaians.
Today marks one year and two days since Ghanaians cast their votes on December 7, 2024.
We gather here not in celebration, but in profound alarm, to expose a brazen and sustained assault on our democracy.
I am talking about a vicious attack on the will of the people and a shocking perversion of justice.
Two weeks ago, on November 24, 2025, the Tamale High Court delivered a judgment that is nothing short of a constitutional abomination.
A judgment so flawed, so fundamentally reckless, that it threatens to dismantle the very foundation of electoral justice in Ghana.
A judgment that unlawfully nullified the Kpandai parliamentary election and ordered a rerun.
This judgment is not merely incorrect.
It is catastrophically dangerous.
It is a monument to judicial recklessness.
It is a spectacular perversion.
And if allowed to stand, it will unleash a chaos that will consume our democracy.
Let me be absolutely clear from the outset.
The New Patriotic Party respects the judiciary.
But respect does not mean cowardly silence when injustice screams from the rooftops.
Respect does not demand we meekly accept a verdict that suffocates the law, contemptuously ignores the Constitution, and obscenely rewards violence with victory.
Today, we say enough.
Today, we sound the alarm to wake every Ghanaian who cherishes democracy.
Today, we declare our fearless resistance to this dangerous precedent.
THIS JUDGMENT IS AN UNMITIGATED LEGAL DISASTER This judgment is not just flawed.
It is jurisprudentially bankrupt.
It is a wholesale massacre of established legal principles.
Section 20 of PNDCL 284 requires three cumulative elements before an election can be voided: there must be non‑compliance with the Act or regulations; that non‑compliance must mean the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down by law; and the non‑compliance must have affected the result of the election.
The court quoted this law.
It recited the test.
And then it committed an act of judicial fraud.
It completely abandoned the arithmetic.
Consider the following undeniable numbers.
Our Member of Parliament won by a decisive margin of 3,734 votes.
The petitioner’s own evidence conceded disputed votes amounted to just over 500.
Five hundred votes cannot conceivably overturn a margin of 3,734.
This is primary school arithmetic.
Yet, this judge brazenly voided the entire election.
By simply ignoring the “affected the result” requirement.
The court leaped recklessly from “there were irregularities” to “void the election.”
This is not the law.
This is not justice.
Our election manual is explicit: where proven irregularities could not possibly change the result, the election must stand.
The Supreme Court affirmed this in Enos versus Electoral Commission—an election is not to be invalidated where the outcome manifestly reflects the majority will.
This judge arrogantly discarded that sacred principle.
This judge spat on binding precedent.
This is judicial vandalism.
REGULATION 48 WAS DELIBERATELY IGNORED The judgment pompously declares the petitioner’s absence from the relocated collation centre a fatal breach of natural justice.
But here is the true outrage that exposes this judgment as a sham: the court deliberately, systematically ignored Regulation 48(2) of C.I.
Let me state the law clearly.
Regulation 48(2) states, unambiguously, that the non-attendance of candidates or agents does not invalidate acts lawfully done by the returning officer.
This is black-letter law.
It exists for a vital reason: to prevent a candidate’s deliberate absence from becoming a weapon to void elections.
The Electoral Commission’s witness affirmed this under cross-examination.
Yet, this judge scandalously ignored it, allowing a general principle to brazenly trump an express statutory provision.
This is not interpretation.
This is judicial legislation.
This is dictatorship from the bench.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS CYNICALLY MANIPULATED Observe the court’s cynical double standard.
It refused to find the petitioner led the vandalism that forced the EC to relocate the collation centre, claiming there was insufficient evidence.
It declared it would not speculate.
But then, miraculously, when assessing whether irregularities affected the result, speculation became acceptable.
Vague, unsubstantiated assertions were deemed sufficient.
The petitioner produced no credible alternative tally.
He called no agents from the disputed polling stations.
He never demonstrated how 500 votes could overturn a 3,734-vote lead.
Yet, this judge granted the most drastic relief possible—voiding the entire election, disenfranchising thousands, and rewarding the petitioner for his evidentiary failure.
In many shocking ways, this is a grotesque perversion of the burden of proof.
It is a classic case of brazen judicial malpractice.
PROPORTIONALITY WAS GROSSLY ABANDONED Let us now examine the court's most consequential failure: its reckless abandonment of the constitutional duty to act proportionately.
Section 19 of PNDCL 284 gives the High Court only three tightly framed choices: cancel the election, seat another candidate, or dismiss the petition.
This is not an arbitrary menu.
It is a sacred, limited grant of power.
Because these choices directly touch the Article 42 right of every citizen to vote and to be counted, the court is constitutionally bound—by Articles 23 and 296—to use that power cautiously, fairly, and in a manner that preserves the voters’ real choice wherever the law makes it possible.
Our jurisprudence is unequivocal on how this duty must operate.
In Enos v Electoral Commission, the Court found the returning officer had breached the law.
Yet, instead of voiding the entire poll, it used section 19(b) to declare the petitioner duly elected, emphasizing that a whole election should not be invalidated if the result still reflects the majority will.
This principle was elevated to the highest level in the 2013 Presidential Election Petition.
The Supreme Court, adopting the Medhurst v Lough test, held that proven non-compliance will not justify voiding a poll if the election was “really and in substance” conducted under the law and the result was not, and could not reasonably be supposed to have been, affected.
This is the settled doctrine of “substantial compliance”: elections are to be upheld where breaches do not overturn the people’s choice.
Measured against this unbroken line of authority, the Kpandai judgment is starkly, dangerously out of step.
The court itself accepted that many defects were mere administrative errors—clerical lapses that could be addressed through scrutiny or re-collation under the law.
The petitioner’s own case originally reflected this reality; he sought targeted relief in only 41 polling stations, not the wholesale annihilation of the constituency’s choice.
The evidence was clear: every single Form 8A existed.
The result was gazetted.
The raw materials to ascertain the true will of the people were all present and available.
Despite this, the court leapt straight to the harshest of the three section 19 outcomes: a full constituency-wide rerun.
Its justification?
That some collation materials were destroyed.
But the judgment provides no convincing reason why the loss of those materials made it impossible to reconstruct the lawful majority from the existing Form 8As.
It offers no justification for why narrower remedies—a scrutiny, a re-tabulation, or at most a limited rerun—were inadequate or even considered.
It fails to squarely answer the central question that Section 20 and our Supreme Court demand: Did the proven irregularities actually show that the declared winner did not secure the majority of lawful votes?
This is the core, unforgivable flaw.
Where our case law insists on proportionate, vote-preserving remedies, this judgment defaults to nuclear relief.
Where precedent commands caution to respect the sovereign will, this court exercised caprice.
It did not use section 19 in the careful, constitution-compliant manner our jurisprudence requires.
It acted not as a guardian of constitutional rights, but as an agent of their destruction.
This is not a lawful judicial order.
It is a fatal constitutional dereliction.
Put differently, this is not justice.
This is judicial brutality against the sovereign will of the people.
THE MOST DANGEROUS PRECEDENT: REWARDING VIOLENCE Now we arrive at the most outrageous, the most terrifying part of this abomination.
It was the violent, criminal acts of the petitioner’s supporters that forced the relocation of the collation.
They vandalized the centre.
They destroyed materials.
They created terror.
And now, this judge declares that because the petitioner was not notified of the new venue—a venue made necessary by his own supporters’ violence—the entire election must be voided.
Do you comprehend the perversity?
Do you see the catastrophic precedent?
There is an ancient, sacred legal principle: an evildoer must never benefit from his evil.
This judgment violates that principle utterly.
It rewards violence.
It incentivizes chaos.
The message is chilling: if you are losing an election, create chaos.
Destroy materials.
Then run to court and claim your rights were violated.
If this stands, it will destroy our democracy.
It will turn every election into a battleground.
It will make thuggery profitable.
This is not law.
This is the death of democracy.
We categorically reject this monstrous principle.
We call on the appellate courts of this land to uproot this poison before it infects our entire jurisprudence.
OUR UNYIELDING LEGAL RESPONSE AND PLEDGE TO KPANDAI Let this be heard by all: our condemnation of this judicial abomination is matched only by our decisive, unified, and lawful action.
The New Patriotic Party stands as one solid rock behind our Member of Parliament for Kpandai, the Honorable Matthew Nyindam.
His fight is our fight.
His cause is the cause of every member and supporter of this great party.
With the full authority, resources, and total backing of the entire NPP, Hon.
Nyindam has taken the following immediate and formidable legal actions: First, he has filed a stay of execution against the orders of this bogus judgment, halting any illegitimate rerun in its tracks.
Second, he has filed a powerful notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, respectfully praying for the total overturning of this legal travesty.
And third, recognizing the grave constitutional injury inflicted, he has initiated an application for certiorari at the Supreme Court, respectfully calling on the highest court of the land to quash this perverse judgment and restore constitutional order.
We are deploying the full force of our legal arsenal within the framework of the law.
Our weapons are the Constitution, precedent, and an unshakeable commitment to justice.
To the resilient people of Kpandai, we send this message directly: We see your clearly expressed will, written in the indelible ink of 3,734 votes.
We hear your sovereign voice, which this judgment tried to silence.
Do not lose heart.
The New Patriotic Party has not abandoned you.
We have not retreated.
We are with you, completely and unfailingly.
We will walk every step of this legal journey with you.
We will fight in every court, at every hour, with every resource at our command, to defend the mandate you freely gave.
Your victory was legitimate.
Your choice was just.
And we will not rest until that choice is vindicated and your rightful Member of Parliament is restored.
This is our sacred pledge to you.
PART OF A SINISTER, CALCULATED AGENDA Ladies and gentlemen, this catastrophic judgment did not happen in isolation.
It is part of a deliberate pattern.
It is a thread in a sinister, calculated agenda by the National Democratic Congress to use captured state institutions to silence opposition, suppress dissent, and hold Ghana’s democracy hostage.
Look at the facts.
Since assuming power, the NDC has waged a relentless assault on democratic norms.
In Ablekuma North, we witnessed the criminal annexation of our seat—a daylight robbery.
State-sponsored thuggery marred the partial rerun.
Our stalwarts, including the distinguished Hon.
Hawa Koomson, were savagely beaten.
The perpetrators received a mere Court fine.
We chose peace and stability, and did not escalate.
In Akwatia, votes were bought openly, shamelessly, and systematically.
And let us never forget Sofo Azorka’s chilling threat to eliminate our Minority Leader—a reckless incitement still unanswered for in court.
And this assault is not confined to our courtrooms.
We see it now in the very halls of Parliament, the people’s house.
We see the machinations to intimidate our Members of Parliament and suppress their voices through a dishonest and autocratic misuse of the rules of procedure—a clear breach of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of Ghana.
We know they have made our courageous Minority Leader their prime target, seeking to silence the most powerful voice holding this government to account.
But let this warning echo through the corridors of Parliament: we in the NPP will not allow their evil plots to succeed in any way.
We will have our say in that House.
We will expose their fraud, their corruption, and their abuse of power with relentless clarity.
We will use every legitimate tool within parliamentary practice to ensure the voice of the people, as represented by their elected Members, is never stifled by the tyranny of the majority.
Attempting to mute the Minority is an attack on democracy itself, and we shall resist it utterly.
Yet even then, we chose peace.
We exercised maximum restraint.
We voiced our profound concerns and moved on.
But the NDC must never mistake our commitment to peace for weakness.
They must never confuse our restraint for surrender.
Now, they bring this outrageous Kpandai judgment.
Now they threaten a showdown.
Now they have the audacity to argue our lawfully elected candidate should not sit in Parliament.
This is not democracy.
This is dictatorship masquerading as law.
The NPP puts the NDC on firm notice: we will not stand idly by while you destroy our institutions.
We will not be silent while you pervert justice.
We will not allow you to criminally annex seats you could not win at the ballot box.
CATASTROPHIC MISGOVERNANCE And even as the NDC schemes to entrench itself, governance collapses.
Our Senior High School students have started failing at record rates.
Their futures are in jeopardy, and there is no plan.
‘GoldBod’ and others sponsor the destruction of our water bodies through galamsey.
Our rivers die, our forests vanish, and state institutions look away.
A million tonnes of local rice rot while farmers weep.
Insecurity rises.
Ghanaians no longer feel safe in their own country.
This is not governance.
This is catastrophic failure on an epic scale.
This is not the Ghana we handed over to the NDC.
OUR UNSHAKEABLE COMMITMENT Let me state clearly where we stand.
The NPP is committed to constitutionalism, the rule of law, and responsible opposition.
We reject violence.
But commitment does not make us doormats.
Constitutionalism does not mean accepting lawlessness from those in power.
The rule of law applies to all—including the government, judges, and the president.
We have been patient.
We have been restrained.
We have prioritized peace.
But our patience has limits.
If the NDC continues on this path of institutional capture and democratic subversion, they will find a different NPP—a party ready to defend democracy with every lawful tool at its disposal.
We promise not violence, but resistance.
Powerful, democratic, constitutional resistance.
Resistance that will shake the foundations of their captured institutions.
URGENT CALL TO ACTION To the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court: The Kpandai judgment is fundamentally, catastrophically flawed.
It misapplies the law, ignores regulation, manipulates evidence, abandons proportionality, and rewards violence.
These are not minor errors; they are defects that strike at the heart of electoral justice.
We respectfully urge you to set this dangerous judgment aside.
Restore the mandate the people of Kpandai overwhelmingly gave.
Uproot this vicious precedent.
To President Mahama and the NDC: We see what you are doing.
Every scheme.
Every plot.
We will never be silent.
I Respect the Constitution.
Focus on governing.
Stop capturing institutions.
Stop annexing seats.
Stop rewarding violence.
The people are watching.
History is watching.
To the media and people of Ghana: Stay vigilant.
Your democracy is under severe threat.
Stand firm.
Do not let this country slip back into authoritarian rule.
To our members and supporters: Stay strong.
Stay peaceful.
Stay ready.
The fight for Ghana’s democracy is not over.
It has just begun.
And we will win.
CONCLUSION One year and one day ago, the people of Kpandai voted freely.
They chose their Member of Parliament by a crushing margin of 3,734 votes.
That vote is sacred.
That voice is sovereign.
A flawed judgment cannot silence it.
A captured judiciary cannot overturn it.
Violence cannot be rewarded.
Thuggery cannot triumph.
The New Patriotic Party stands today as the fierce defender of that vote, that voice, and Ghana’s democracy.
We will pursue lawful means to abort this travesty.
We will protect this Constitution.
We will never give up on Ghana.
May God bless the New Patriotic Party.
May God bless our beloved Ghana.
And may God defend our democracy against all enemies.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends of the media, thank you for coming.
We have invited you today to share our grave concern.
Concern that a former Attorney General of this dear Republic of Ghana, Hon Marietta Brew-Oppong, chose to allow herself to be used in a matter that is virtually beyond salvation.
The matter at hand is the judgment against Airbus SE.
Airbus SE, Europe’s largest aerospace multinational, confessed to a High Court in London of paying huge bribes in order to secure contracts in several countries including Ghana, between 2011 and 2015.
The planemaker has been fined in excess of three billion pounds (£3bn) as penalties.
Anti-corruption investigators, have described the court's decision as the largest ever corporate fine for bribery in the world after judges declared that the scale of corruption uncovered was “grave, pervasive and pernicious.”
The Court noted that Airbus “used a network of secret agents to pay large-scale backhanders to officials in foreign countries to land high-value contracts."
Court documents and proceedings on the internet say a high ranking elected Ghanaian government official was allegedly involved in acts of bribery intended to improperly influence his conduct of government business.
That official is further referred to as ‘Government Official 1’ (GO1).