The court set the date after it had sought for clarification from both counsels on the specific nomination period set by the EC. Presiding Judge, Justice Barbara Tetteh Charway said she had read the statement of case filed by both parties but needed clarification on the specific nomination period since they both failed to indicate it in their statements.

Mr Maxwell Logan, Counsel for Mr Ayariga said that the EC did not give a clear nomination period, prompting the judge to enquire if there was any document to show that the EC communicated such period to them.

He argued that the nomination day was moved to the 10th of October 2016 because that was the actual day on which the draft deposit was received by the EC and subsequently, that was the same day the APC candidate was disqualified.

He said the EC was required to appoint a day on which nomination forms, statutory declaration and the receipt were to be received and that day is declared by the law as the nomination day. Mr Logan said   the EC selected two days, September 29 and 30, within which this had to be done, and we submitted our nomination forms on September 29, and tendered our deposit but they refused to accept it because of a pending court case.

He told the court that “the EC felt incapacitated that they could not receive the forms until on October 7, when it issued a press release saying parties should submit a draft of their receipt on October 10. Therefore the nomination day was moved from September 30 to October 10”.

“A duty arouse on the EC after our deposit was submitted to examine our nomination form and draw our attention to any invalidity.” Counsel for APC said their disqualification violated the law, saying it is their case that the notice of invalidity is the duty of the EC as they should be given an opportunity to amend same.

“Upon discovery of the information, the EC breached their duty by not alerting it within the period they call the nomination period,” he noted. However, Mr Thaddeus Sory, counsel for the EC rejected the claims, saying that the nomination period set by the EC was from the September 8 to30 contrary to the date posited by the APC.

He said the EC did not attach same to its statements because the nomination period was not the issue of the applicants, adding that the date was also communicated to them on various meetings held with them.

He said their right to make any corrections lies within the nomination period. They were given the opportunity to correct some mistakes within the nomination period and that is different from the nomination day itself. Mr Sory said within the period there is an obligation for the EC to detect every error and point out to candidates. The EC has no obligation to draw your attention to every error within the nomination period.

“The EC drew your attention to over 30 errors, but the error they are complaining about was only discovered by the EC after the nomination period”. “Even if you think it was injustice to you, that is what the law says. The EC did not have to delve into the substance of your nomination form”, he noted.

At the last adjourned date, the court adjourned the matter to November 1, after both parties apologized to the court for not being able to file their statement of case on Friday, October 28, as directed by the court.     The APC Presidential hopeful contends that the EC has no power to disqualify him and as such seeking the orders of the court to compel the Commission to accept his nomination form and include his name on this year’s Presidential ballot.

According to Mr Ayariga, even if the EC had the powers to disqualify him, “Its failure to adhere to due process was so unjust and perverted as to deprive the Commission of its powers.”  He is therefore seeking a declaration that the EC’s closure of the nomination period on October 10, without notifying the applicants of any outstanding issues amounted in law to a representation to all candidates and  the whole world that the applicants' nomination form were fully completed within the requirement of the law and CI 94.

Mr Ayariga is also seeking a declaration that the purported closure of the nomination period before or without giving him an opportunity to amend  any error on his form based on which the EC seeks to invalidate was in breach of natural justice.

He  also wants a declaration that the EC could only disqualify a candidate “where it has notified that candidate of an invalidity which the candidate refuses or fail to amend."