The court presided by Mrs. Justice Barbara Tetteh Charway revealed that after hearing oral submissions from both parties yesterday.
The counsel for Mr. Hassan Ayariga, Maxwell Logan in his submission said the Commission did not comply with their own laws to invite and draw the applicant’s attention to errors for correction.
He said the applicant submitted his nomination on September 29, following which the EC drew his attention to correct about 30 errors in the conference room and later submit it on September 30.
He added that the irregularities did not include the one upon which they were disqualified.
This he said meant that the Commission saw the error, kept quiet and used it as basis to disqualify those three hours after taking the deposit from them.
He said that the argument that when one person endorses two candidates, it makes all the forms invalid flies in the face of regulation 9(1) of CI 94.
He added that when the disqualification of Mr. Ayariga was announced the applicants through his lawyers wrote to the EC in exercising the right to information requesting for the document in their possession, but they were ignored.
He said they wanted to know the other candidate who was endorsed by their subscriber on which basis they were disqualified.
Mr. Logan indicated that having regard that the nomination form was submitted again on September 30, the applicant should have been afforded another opportunity to correct his errors, describing the decision of the Commission as a capricious exercise of administrative power.
The first candidate who is endorsed by a subscriber should supersede that of the second endorsement.
Counsel for the applicant prayed Court to ensure that those vested with constitutional mandate exercise it fairly and candidly.
He said the entirety of their case was based on the fact that their right to make those corrections was denied.
However, Counsel for the EC, Mr. Thaddeus Sori in his opposing statement said the paragraph seven of the applicants affidavit stated that on September 29, they sent their forms to the commission, which the returning Officer, Mrs Charlotte Osei drew the attention of the applicant to about 30 errors for amendment.
He added that CI 94 says that the correction should be done within the nomination period and it’s been emphasised.
According to him the argument that within the nomination period, the EC should point out all the errors in the nomination form to the candidates cannot be upheld, adding that the EC does not have any obligation to point out all errors to candidates.
He said the Regulation 7 of CI 94 avers that no one should have his form endorsed by more than one person, which the applicant was informed prior to picking of the form.
He added that the EC has no power to extend the nomination period for every candidate, adding that EC cannot amend the law to favour his client.
He further prayed the court to dismiss the application because they were afforded an opportunity to make amends, adding that the EC is not bound to inform them of all errors.
By Edem Mensah-Tsotorme