Oliver Barker-Vormawor, a lawyer and social activist, has asserted that it is inappropriate to claim that once an election result is declared—regardless of how it was obtained or any errors in collating or transcribing the results—the Electoral Commission (EC) is barred from correcting itself.
He argued that limiting recourse to filing an election petition undermines the process.
He emphasized that the essence of democracy lies not in safeguarding the initial declaration but in ensuring the correct declaration.
“There is no support anywhere in the Commonwealth that an administrative body has no legal authority to correct mistakes it makes. It is entitled to défine what it considers those mistakes to be, as long as they are consonant with law”.
“If we make this a race to declare, and insist that all you need to do is get that first declaration, I assure you that we will be imperiling our democracy”.
Oliver Barker-Vormawor
Barker-Vormawor further observed that corrupt Returning Officers could make all kinds of declarations, effectively silencing the Electoral Commission (EC).
He maintained that even if they are not corrupt, this approach risks granting Returning Officers so much power that the focus shifts from winning elections at the polling station to securing the declaration.
He warned that Returning Officers could even be kidnapped, threatened, or blackmailed into making the initial declaration that binds the EC.
Vormawor acknowledged the EC’s history of being shady, inconsistent, and incompetent but cautioned against actions that could worsen the law in addressing these issues.
He urged treating the EC’s incompetence as a separate matter. “If you think the EC is incompetent, wait till it is made law that what they declare is God”.
He urged the public to wait until a law is enacted clearly stating that once election results are declared, only death or the courts can overturn the initial declaration, no matter how erroneous or flawed it may be.
Re-declarations, Re-collations to Face Scrutiny
Oliver Barker-Vormawor further clarified that the Electoral Commission’s ability to redeclare results does not imply that the redeclaration or the preceding re-collation cannot be challenged if it fails to reflect the will of the electorate.
He emphasized that the recollation process itself can and must be scrutinized. “Nowhere have I suggested that it cannot be.”
He urged against interpreting his position to mean that all actions taken in the name of re-collation must be accepted as legally valid.
According to Vormawor, if an initial declaration can be flawed, he argued, a redeclaration can also be legally flawed.
He indicated that similarly, if the original collation was faulty, any subsequent re-collation could also contain errors.
“I am also not saying that I know for sure or accept as proven automatically that the errors alleged by the EC or the claims of gunpoint declarations are all true. It must be proven upon challenge of its administrative action. So what I am saying isn’t about the facts or that I am choosing a factual side. No.
“You and I were not there, and we didn’t collate the first time, count the ballots originally. He who alleges must proof. And even if they don’t prove it, the real question is, are the re-collations correct, or was something changed? We can still ask those questions”.
Oliver Barker-Vormawor
Vormawor explained that his point is simply that the Elections Manager should always have the authority to recollate results to ensure that its declaration complies with the law, based on its interpretation of that law.
He emphasized that this interpretation could be either correct or incorrect, and if deemed wrong, it can always be challenged in court to uphold the integrity of the process. “But you cannot stop the Elections Manager from auditing itself, including its declarations”.
READ ALSO: M.anifest Reflects on Galamsey’s Devastation
