This comes barely hours after the Supreme Court ordered the commission to allow all the presidential aspirants to correct the errors on their forms.
The EC in a letter to the PPP sighted by citifmonline.com asked them to bring before it one Mr. Richard Aseda, who subscribed to the party’s flagbearer’s forms in two different districts.
Portions of the EC’s letter reads; “Kindly take the requisite steps to procure the attendance of Mr. Richard Aseda (who is listed as a subscriber on pages 21 and 39 of your nomination) at the head office of the Commission, prior to the close of nomination, to confirm that he actually subscribed to your forms and the district in which he is subscribed,” a letter from the EC stated.
It also said ” Please find attached a list of other concerns and discrepancies found on your nomination form within the extended nomination period. These include signatures which do not tally across copies of your form.”
The Commission disqualified the PPP’s flagbearer, Dr. Nduom, and 11 others because there were errors on their nomination forms.
With respect to the PPP, the EC accused Mr. Aseda of subscribing to Nduom’s forms in two different districts.
But the PPP and the other parties sued the commission for taking such an action against them. In response to the PPP’s suit, the EC went to the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the High Court which favoured Dr. Nduom.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday, November 7, 2016, ordered an extension of the nomination period to November 8, to enable the affected aspirants correct the errors on their forms.
EC writes letter to other disqualified nominees
The Electoral Commission has also written letters to the other 11 disqualified parties, pointing out the various errors in their nomination forms, reminding them of the guidelines for the filing of the nomination forms.
Below is the full letter from the EC to the PPP
Re-Presidential Election Nomination
We refer to the Supreme Court ruling on Monday 7, 2016 in the case of the R vs High Court (Commercial Division) Accra Ex Parte Electoral Commission (Applicant) and Papa Kwesi Nduom (Applicant).
The Court in the said case, ordered that the Electoral Commission extend the nomination period of Monday 7 November 2016 to 17.00 hours GMT on Tuesday 8 November 2016. The court further ordered that you be given a hearing within the extended period and that we afford you the opportunity to comply with regulation 9 (2) (b) of CI 94, in appropriate cases.
You would recall that by our letter to you on October 10, 2016, we informed you of two subscriptions that were not as required by law on pages 21 and 39 of your form. Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, which effectively extended the nomination period to November 8, 2016, and following the hearing provided you today, we should be grateful if you would do the following.
Kindly take the requisite steps to procure the attendance of Mr. Richar Aseda (who is listed as a subscriber on pages 21 and 39 of your form) at the head office of the Commission, prior to the close of nomination, to confirm that he actually subscribed to your forms and the district in which he subscribed.
Further, please find attached a list of other concerns and discrepancies found on your nomination form within the extended nomination period. These include signatures which do not tally across copies of your form.
Please be advised that in line with the requirements of law;
i. You must have a minimum of two subscribers in every district of Ghana and that your subscribers are all validly registered voters;
ii. That your subscribers have duly endorsed your nomination papers as required by law.
iii. A subscriber cannot nominate more than one presidential candidate
By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana