This could have been my second term in office – Nana Addo

President Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo has revealed that he could have been finishing his second term as president instead of the commencement of his mandate if the Supreme Court had upheld the 2012 election petition brought before it.

After the 2012 elections which saw former President John Dramani Mahama become the leader of the nation, President Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and former Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, the late Jake Obetsebi Lamptey disputed the results and took the issue to the Supreme Court for the declaration to be overturned due to irregularities.

This was however overturned by 5 of the nine justices who sat on the issue back in 2013 causing disappointment and anger amongst NPP members.
The President made the remark during the swearing in off the new Chief Justice; Justice Sophia Akuffo on Monday in a room full of some of Ghana’s dignified men and women.
“Thus far, the Judiciary can be said, generally, to have discharged, in the Fourth Republic, its duties creditably and responsibly, even though I was on the wrong end of the decision in the famous election petition of 2013.”

“A favourable decision on the day could have meant, perhaps, that this was my second term in office, rather than the commencement of my mandate.”

“The attachment of the Ghanaian people to the rule of law made it possible for us, in the New Patriotic Party, to entrust our fate to the highest court in the land in the aftermath of the disputed elections of 2012.

“It also enabled the country to move on, in unity and stability, after the court handed down its verdict.” He intimated.
According to the President, the decision by the then Chief Justice, Justice Georgina Theodora Woods who is now a member of the Council of State to broadcast the proceedings on television went a long way to strengthen Ghana’s democratic credentials.

“Ghanaian democracy was enhanced by the decision of then Chief Justice Georgina Wood to broadcast the proceedings of the petition on television. It helped in the process of demystifying judicial proceedings and helped send the clear message from the majority on the court that the controlling principle of judicial intervention in elections was the result delivered at the polling station, which would not be easily reversed by a court. It is a salutary message,” he pointed out.