The decision of the Electoral Commission (EC) to accept the banker’s draft of GHS50, 000, being the filing fee for the presidential aspirant of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP), was wrong, flag bearer of the Independent People’s Party (IPP), Kofi Akpaloo has said.
The EC rejected the filing fees of the New Patriotic Party’s Nana Akufo-Addo as well as other presidential aspirants who submitted their forms on Thursday. However, it collected that of the PPP as it submitted its presidential nominee’s forms on Friday September 30.
In Mr Akpaloo’s view, “the EC should not have taken the money because when Akufo-Addo came with the banker’s draft, they refused to take it, so, I do not see why they should go ahead and take PPP’s gift”.
In an interview with Class91.3FM’s Kwesi Parker-Wilson, Mr Akpaloo explained that even though the PPP added the banker’s draft to their submitted documents, the EC should have returned it.
Mr Akpaloo, who submitted his presidential nomination forms a day earlier, maintained that he did not add the fees to his forms because he had heard that the EC was not accepting the fees due to the suit filed by the PPP.
The PPP has filed a suit against the EC in connection with the GHS50,000 filing fee for presidential nominees, leading to an injunction placed on some aspects of the filing process.
Source: classfmonline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
this whole thing can be viewed like a "tenant-landlord" issue or dispute where the tenant is complaining of high rent..its one of 3 things: you leave and find another place,talk to the landlord to do something about the high rent or you pay the high rent..
@..what exactly is your point? you think your rather long essay as a comment is a subjective comment? This country is gradually turning into something..smh
@ What kind of poor subjective comments are these ; it is the lawyers at EC who are poorly informed and not THINKING and this idea of been SMART is what I call FRAUD !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!besides what kind of 'disgrace is this ediotic full talking about because we are talking about the law not spring fraudulent traps on innocent people ; another WOyome 419 or KRIMINALLY MINDED AND DISHONEST SCHEMES ; to me the EC is totally WRONG !!!!!!!! for accepting this draft or fees ; Mr Apaloo is correct ; you need to ask yourself what are the rules ; the rules request that fess be paid upon presentation of application on a specified date ;the fact that there is an application or injunction in court by PPP to review the fees does not prevent them from paying whilst the matter is in court; if the Ec decides to refuse payment from other parties but accepts payment from another party on grounds that they are capable of paying the fees ; that argument is irrelevant to the case in court ;the case in court is for a review of the fees not the ability to pay ; if they do not pay on the day the EC can accuse them of not paying the fees as the rules requires ; the fact that some parties payment have been rejected is irrelevant and because other pyments from other parties have been rejected does not mean they should not pay ; technically they have to pay ; if they win in court the EC is obliged to refund the difference to them but if they lose they are back to square one and have fufilled the rules; your ability to pay has no relevance to pay has no relevance to the injubction at Court; the EC should be careful they are not accused of discriminatory practice by the PPP; if you have to pay your child fees can you refuse to pay because the fees have been increased -NO ; you pay and go to court or go to Court and pay besides the onus will be on the EC to show in why such massive increaeses; is it a mechanism EC to deprive those unable to pay not to stand for the position and if so what were the relevant legislative instruments on which the EC based its decision to change the fees or is the EC attempting to help Jon Mahama to win the elections by preventing potential good candidates to join such election ; the EC should be careful.
its like Mr Akpalo doesnt know how to use a bait.. the EC's decision is a smart move to disgrace the PPP in court. cos why will the PPP file a case in court concerning the filing fee yet have that money to pay? so the EC is playing smart here...a good move if you ask me.