The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has accused the trial judge who ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to re-collate election results in nine disputed constituencies of bias and procedural errors.

The High Court’s December 20 ruling, which stemmed from a mandamus application filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary candidates, directed the EC to re-collate results in constituencies where irregularities were alleged. The NPP argued that discrepancies in tabulated results necessitated verification to ensure transparency and accuracy.

While some viewed the ruling as upholding the EC’s constitutional mandate to ensure credible elections, the NDC challenged it, describing it as controversial and legally flawed.

The EC complied with the order in seven constituencies, but the re-collation processes for Dome/Kwabenya and Ablekuma North remain incomplete.

During Supreme Court proceedings on Friday, December 27, the NDC’s Director of Legal Affairs, Godwin Edudzi Tamakloe, argued that the High Court’s decision violated principles of natural justice. He claimed the NDC was denied the opportunity to present its case, which significantly influenced the ruling.

The NDC further alleged that the trial judge displayed bias and failed to address critical procedural requirements. Tamakloe pointed to a “non-jurisdictional error of law,” stating that the judge neglected Order 55 Rule 5 (2) of CI 47, which requires parties with an interest in a mandamus application to be notified and allowed to respond.

The allegations of judicial misconduct and procedural lapses have added another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal battle, with the Supreme Court’s ruling expected to have far-reaching implications.

“Our ground for this application is that the orders made by the High Court were made in breach of the applicant’s rights to be heard. The further ground is that the trial judge demonstrated apparent bias and partiality.

“There was a non-jurisdictional error of law by failing to exercise the court’s powers under Order 55 Rule 5 (2) of CI 47 to direct second to sixth interested parties to serve the mandamus application on the applicant who have interest in the dispute.”