US-Based Ghanaian Lawyer Raises Concerns Over Electoral Commission’s Ruling on Dome Kwabenya Rerun

Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, a US-based Ghanaian lawyer, has voiced strong concerns regarding the Electoral Commission’s decision to order a rerun of the election in one polling station within the Dome Kwabenya Constituency.

Asare, a prominent advocate for the integrity of the electoral process, argued that the decision could undermine the core principles of democracy, particularly the will of the people.

Asare’s concerns are rooted in a long-standing legal precedent, citing the case of Akufo-Addo et al. v. Mahama et al., in which the courts emphasized that the will of the electorate should remain paramount and that procedural errors should not nullify valid election results. “The ultimate purpose of election results is to reflect the will of the electorate. If the results declared on the training sheet are accurate and can be verified, rejecting them solely because of the medium used is akin to ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater,’” he remarked. According to Asare, such actions risk disenfranchising voters and betray the very essence of democracy.

The ruling by the Electoral Commission, he argued, sets a troubling precedent that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of Ghana’s electoral system. While Asare acknowledged that strict adherence to procedural protocols is important for maintaining the integrity of elections, he emphasized that fairness and equity must also be prioritized. He believes that a decision which does not explore available options for verification and correction misses the crucial balance between procedure and justice.

In Professor Asare’s view, the Electoral Commission’s approach to this issue fails to account for the practical realities of election administration, where minor procedural lapses should not be allowed to overshadow the broader objective of ensuring that the voters’ will is respected and upheld. For Asare, the decision could set a dangerous precedent for future elections, where the focus on procedural purity may inadvertently diminish the power of the people’s voice.

As the debate continues, Professor Asare’s remarks underscore a growing concern about the intersection of electoral procedures and democratic values, raising important questions about the need to safeguard the integrity of elections without inadvertently disenfranchising voters or undermining public trust in the electoral process.

Read His Post Shared On Social Media Below

GOGO is deeply concerned about the Electoral Commission’s (EC) decision to rerun the election at the Abokobi Women’s Development Centre 2 polling station in the Dome Kwabenya constituency. This decision, rooted solely in the use of training sheets rather than the official statement of poll, raises significant questions about prioritizing form over substance.

By rejecting the declaration outright on such a procedural basis, the commission has chosen to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” While adherence to proper forms is essential for safeguarding electoral integrity, dismissing a declaration without examining the substantive validity of the results undermines public confidence in the process.

As the courts have consistently ruled, beginning with Akufo-Addo et al. v. Mahama et al., the will of the people is paramount and should not be nullified by mere procedural lapses.

The ultimate purpose of election results is to reflect the will of the electorate. If the results declared on the training sheet are accurate and can be verified, rejecting them solely because of the medium used is akin to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Such actions risk disenfranchising voters and betraying the very essence of democracy.

Rather than outright rejection, the commission could have opted for rectification—verifying the results and re-declaring them using the correct forms. This approach would have preserved both procedural integrity and the electorate’s trust.

Unfortunately, the EC’s decision casts the troubling impression that it is more concerned with procedural rigidity than ensuring a transparent and equitable process. As the Akan proverb goes, “When the rhythm of the drum changes, the dance steps must adapt.” Electoral processes must remain flexible enough to address human error without undermining the voters’ will.

Rejecting declarations based on procedural errors without exploring alternative means of verification sets a dangerous precedent. It suggests that technical missteps, no matter how inadvertent, can override the sovereign will of the people—a principle that should be sacrosanct in any democracy.

Elections are inherently complex, and procedural errors are not entirely avoidable. That is precisely why multiple redundancies are built into the process, providing safeguards to verify and affirm the integrity of results. The EC’s decision, however, disregards these safeguards, opting instead for an approach that prioritizes perfection in form over fairness in substance.

The voters fulfilled their democratic duty and cast their votes in good faith. Their voices should not be disregarded simply because an EC official failed to adhere to proper procedures. As the saying goes, “The fault of one should not ruin the efforts of many.” The responsibility for procedural errors lies squarely with the commission, not with the electorate. To penalize voters for mistakes beyond their control undermines the very principles of fairness and justice that elections are meant to uphold.

Ultimately, while strict adherence to procedure is vital, the commission must balance this with fairness and equity. A decision that fails to explore options for verification and correction misses this balance entirely.

Da Yie!