Recruit Competent Polling Agents - Mac Manu To Political Parties

The Campaign Director of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2020 elections, Mr Peter Mac Manu has asked political parties to recruit competent polling agents for future elections. He also urged the parties to train and retrain those recruited to ensure that they do not also commit serious unpardonable errors that could cause

problems for them in the polls. Speaking at a lecture series organised by the Centre for Social Justice on the March 18, he also said the just ended election petition hearing has taught the political parties many electoral lessons. Political parties should continually train and deploy competent people to serve in their interest as

polling agents, he said. He added It will also be a lesson for the Electoral Commission, the political parties and major stakeholders to correct certain mistakes made during the 2020 elections. The EC must train and retain its permanent and temporary staff on electoral issues and systems. The Supreme Court of Ghana dismissed

the petition filed by the presidential candidate of the NDC National Democratic Congress. John Dramani Mahama. The apex court said the petition was without merit. During proceedings, the first Respondent, the Electoral Commission failed to elect to testify in the case on the heels that the burden of proof on was on

the petitioner. The court, accordingly, agreed with the position of the 2nd respondent to that effect and ruled that witnesses cannot be compelled to testify in a case. Touching on this matter while speaking at the same forum, a former Minister for the Defence Dr Benjamin Kumbuor said Mr Mahama was denied the opportunity that was given to the respondents in the case by the court. If you watch the nature of this case closely with

the absence of evidence of the respondent, they used cross examination as a tool to elicit evidence that the Supreme Court of Ghana relied heavily on and also that opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Because the only one information they were looking for which they claimed was not provided and that the burden was not discharged by the nature of the evidence they gave. Is it jot certainly the case that the cross examination would have brought out that evidence?