Bernard Mornah, the flagbearer of the People’s National Convention (PNC), has voiced his strong discontent following the High Court’s dismissal of his lawsuit, which challenged the Electoral Commission’s (EC) decision to disqualify him from the 2024 presidential race.
Mornah, alongside ten other presidential aspirants, was disqualified by the EC for various errors and omissions in their nomination forms—a decision that he opposed from the outset.
In an interview on Citi FM’s Eyewitness News with Umaru Sanda Amadu, Mornah did not hold back in expressing his disappointment with the court’s ruling. He described the decision as a sign of a larger problem within Ghana’s judiciary, which he believes is in a state of decline.
“The ruling is a reflection of the appalling decay within the judiciary,” Mornah remarked. He further emphasized his concern about what he perceived to be a decline in the standards of judicial decisions, lamenting that the ruling pointed to a much broader issue within the justice system. For Mornah, this decision is not just about his disqualification but is indicative of a judiciary that is moving away from upholding democracy and instead inching closer to what he termed “anarchy.”
The People’s National Convention flagbearer questioned the fairness and impartiality of the process, especially in light of the errors made by the Electoral Commission itself. He noted that while the EC disqualified him for alleged errors and omissions, the commission did not seem to hold itself to the same standard. In his view, the EC’s own mistakes are often overlooked, while others, like himself, are penalized for similar lapses.
“The EC does not come closer to being meticulous when it comes to errors,” Mornah asserted. He explained that he had identified several errors made by the EC on the presidential and parliamentary forms, yet these mistakes were tolerated. Meanwhile, his candidacy was disqualified over what he argued were relatively minor issues. Mornah found this to be inconsistent and unfair, especially considering that he had worked to correct the issues flagged by the EC.
“I pointed out errors that the EC made on the presidential and parliamentary forms, and its mistakes are tolerated while mine are not. I don’t understand that,” Mornah stated. He went on to question how the court could justify dismissing his case, when in his view, the errors that led to his disqualification had been resolved.
According to Mornah, the EC initially disqualified him on the grounds that his nomination form had incomplete particulars. He claims to have addressed these issues, only for the EC to later claim that additional errors and omissions had been discovered. Mornah expressed his frustration at what he perceived as shifting goalposts, noting that the supposed errors and omissions cited by the EC were neither clear nor substantial.
“The EC told me that I had incomplete particulars on my nomination form, which were worked on, and later the EC came and said they detected several errors and omissions,” Mornah recounted. “So today, if the court is talking about several errors, how can that be justified as several errors and omissions?”
Mornah’s frustration with the court’s decision has only strengthened his resolve to continue challenging the EC’s disqualification. In a media briefing on the morning of October 21, following the court ruling, Mornah declared that he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He reiterated his belief that the EC had erred in disqualifying him and the other presidential aspirants and vowed to fight for what he sees as justice.
“I was shocked at the level of decay that is gripping the judiciary, and if we will be able to practice democracy because what the judge tried to do is appalling,” Mornah said. “I feel that we are a long way from democracy and close to anarchy.”
Mornah’s decision to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court is likely to intensify the debate surrounding the EC’s handling of the nomination process for the 2024 elections. His case raises critical questions about the balance of power between electoral bodies and the judiciary, and how errors on nomination forms are handled in the democratic process.
For Mornah, this fight goes beyond his own candidacy. It’s about ensuring that the rules are applied consistently and fairly to all candidates, without exception. He believes that Ghana’s democracy is at stake, and that without reform in the way such cases are handled, the country risks undermining the very principles that its democratic institutions are built upon.
As the 2024 elections approach, Mornah’s case will likely continue to garner attention, particularly as it moves to the Supreme Court. His call for accountability within both the EC and the judiciary reflects broader concerns about the integrity of the election process and the future of democracy in Ghana.
Whether or not his legal challenge succeeds, Mornah’s outspoken criticism of the system is sure to leave a lasting impact on the political landscape.
