In a tweet, the EC provided examples from previous elections where re-collation led to changes in declared outcomes, stating the importance of ensuring accuracy and fairness in election results.
“Re-collation after the declaration of results is not new. It has happened before,” the EC stated, listing notable instances:
1. 1998: During district-level elections in the Dompose Kokwaado Electoral Area in the KEEA District, the EC, under the leadership of Dr. Afari Gyan, overturned an earlier declaration and declared the correct candidate as the winner.
2. 2004: Under Dr Afari Gyan, the EC re-collated parliamentary results in the Pru Constituency, overturning the initial declaration in favour of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate, who was subsequently declared the winner over the New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidate.
Read also: EC re-collation: These are the winners of the 9 outstanding parliamentary seats so far
3. 2004: The Tolon Constituency results were re-collated, and the correct candidate was declared the winner.
4. 2004: Re-collation also took place in the Yapei-Kusawgu Constituency, leading to the declaration of the rightful winner.
5. 2004: Similarly, in the Zabzugu Constituency, a re-collation resulted in the correct candidate being declared as the winner.
Read also: EC blames re-collation of disputed results on widespread lawlessness by party supporters
The EC’s move to re-collate the nine constituencies’ results has sparked debate, with some questioning its timing and impact.
However, the Commission insists that the re-collation ensures the integrity of the electoral process and aligns with its mandate to deliver free, fair, and credible elections.
The EC’s statement highlights its resolve to prioritise accuracy, even in the face of public scrutiny.
It further underscores that re-collation is a corrective measure aimed at addressing discrepancies and ensuring that declared results reflect the true will of the people.
