This was after the Supreme Court had ordered the EC to re-open nominations, to enable presidential nominees the Commission had earlier disqualified to make the necessary corrections and resubmit by close of work on Tuesday, November 8.
It would be recalled that at the close of nominations, the EC acting on statutes regulating the filing of nominations for Presidential Elections – the 1992 Constitution, Public Elections Regulations 2016 (CI 94), Representation of People’s Law, 1992 (PNDC Law 284) and the Presidential Elections Law, 1992 (PNDC Law 285) disqualified Dr Nduom and 12 other presidential nominees.
Dr Nduom however, proceeded to the High Court and overturned the EC’s decision.
Not satisfied with the verdict of the High Court, the EC also took the matter to the Supreme Court, which also ruled in favour of Dr Nduom.
Addressing the media at the EC Head Office in Accra, Mr Otoo said the only error the EC pointed out on the presidential nominee’s forms was that of the double signature of one Richard Aseda of the Buem Constituency in the Volta Region and at Hemang Lower Denkyira Constituency in the Central Region.
He said the Party had since replaced him in both constituencies.
Mr Otoo said the PPP had presented Mr Aseda before the EC Chair, who testified that we had nothing to do with the Hemang Lower Denkyira Constituency.
On the issue of the EC identifying 105 additional errors on their presidential nominee’s forms on Monday after the Supreme Court verdict, Mr Otoo said, the Commission only pointed out the errors which were bordering on signatures; adding that the forms were in triplicate and that the EC was not a forensic expert to determine the authenticity of signatures.
He said when they appeared before the Commission, they were told that they did not ask to amend the issues raised and that the Commission demanded an apology from the PPP on that issue.
Mr Otoo noted that in the filing of the nominations, under the laws of Ghana, the Returning Officer and in the case of presidential, the EC Chair had no power to disqualify anybody and that the Chair could only draw a nominee’s attention to errors to be corrected.
He said after the nominee had resubmitted the forms after the corrections, the Returning Officers would then consult with the Commission within a space of one week before announcing a verdict.
Mr Otoo also recommended that in view of the law, the filing of nominations and closing deadline for corrections should be a week apart.
On the question of whether the PPP Flagbearer’s candidature had been approved or not, Mr Otoo replied, that it was up to the Commission.