According to the EC, the party’s nominee was disqualified because three of its subscribers had supported the nomination of another candidate.

A letter from the EC to the presidential candidate announcing its rejection of the IPP’s nomination and dated October 10, 2016, said in part, “After careful scrutiny of the information provided on the forms, we regret to tell you that the commission is unable to accept your nomination for the following reasons: a. Three of your subscribers supported the nomination of another candidate in breach of Regulation 7 (4) of CI 94.

The names of the subscribers were given as Alfred Yevuglo with voter ID number 1270013632 and polling station code D091201; Dagadu Raymond with voter ID number 1270012857 and polling station code D091201 and Adu Thomas with voter ID number 3703013114 and polling station code F310202.

At a press conference yesterday to discount the EC’s reasons for the disqualification, the General Secretary of the IPP, Mr Kwame O. Akyempim-Boadu, said, “The reasons upon which the EC disqualified our candidate is incorrect and that allegation does not hold water.”

Call for revocation

“Instead of the EC giving us a fair hearing, it did not. I don’t know if it was a deliberate ploy to disqualify our candidate, a mere show of power or administrative lapses. “

“Based on this and other evidence gathered, we are calling on the EC to revoke its decision for disqualifying the IPP from the presidential election with immediate effect,” the general secretary stated.

He expressed the hope that as the IPP had done its part by providing evidence, the EC would also take the necessary steps to ensure the reversal of its earlier decision against the IPP’s presidential candidate.

For his part, Mr Akpaloo described the reasons provided by the EC for his disqualification as flimsy and unfair because the accused persons who are members of the party have said they did not endorse any other presidential candidate.

Corroboration 

Speaking with the media, all the three subscribers confirmed that they had only endorsed Mr Akpaloo’s candidature and were ready to prove same in any court of competent jurisdiction if the matter was sent to court, to clear their names