Abstract:
Most presidential election disputes have been unsuccessful. Although the
petitioners almost invariably have adduced evidence of non-compliance
with electoral laws, so far the judiciary has hardly been persuaded that
the alleged infractions against electoral laws have had any adverse impact
on the validity of disputed presidential election results. The article
examines the burden and standard of proof which must be discharged in
presidential election disputes, and then, based on relevant national case
law, it discusses the circumstances under which the courts would
invalidate presidential elections results. It concludes with the observation
that, although the Raila Odinga case confirms the reluctance of judges to
overturn election results, the narrow win in the Nana Akufo-Addo case
suggests that the era of unsuccessful presidential election petitions may be
drawing to a close.
