By Ivy Benson
It is the view of the NVP that the refusal of the EC in accepting its presidential nomination forms is unlawful and constitutes a serious act of arbitrariness.
The NVP, in its suit dated Oct 22, this year, is asking the court to declare as unlawful the refusal of the EC to accept it presidential forms and further asked for a compelling order for the Commission to accept its presidential nomination forms and have it registered.
The plaintiff is also demanding that the EC be compelled to add its name to the presidential ballot papers for the December 7 2012 presidential election.
In its affidavit filed before the FTC, the NVP noted that it had informed the EC that it would take part in both Parliamentary and Presidential and subsequently took the requisite presidential forms, filled it and presented it as instructed by the EC.
According to the NVP, it presented four copies of presidential nomination forms to officials of the EC on October 18, 2012 at the Commission’s Headquarters in Accra for perusal but the officials detected that one of the duplicate forms had not been completely filled.
The Plaintiff further asserted that the omission on his form had to do with the Adaklu District in the Volta Region, where it was required to fill in the particulars of two people from that district, but indicated that when its attention was drawn to the omission it quickly filled the two names, “making the forms fully complete”.
In explaining the error on its presidential nomination forms, the NVP noted that the details of the two people from the Adaklu District were already on the original copy of the forms that was presented to the EC officials, but indicated that the omission of that of Adaklu District came about when its officials were copying from the original to the duplicate.
The plaintiff pointed out that while its officials were correcting the errors at the offices of the Commission, the EC officials objected to it, adding that even after the chairman of the EC had personally seen that it was only the Adaklu District that was omitted; he went ahead and rejected the forms.
Plaintiff further indicated that it reached the premises of the EC very early but ended up being called the EC at about 14:30p.m., adding that it corrected the duplicate forms longs before it was called by the EC to submit its forms but was unjustifiably rejected.