The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the National Democratic Congress (NDC) case against the Electoral Commission to compile a new voters register for the 2020 General Elections
The 7-member panel presided over by Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, in its decision held that the EC is an independent body and will only be directed by the court if it acts contrary to law.
The seven member panel that heard the case included Justices Jones Dotse, Paul Baffoe Bonnie, Sule Gbagegbe, Samuel K. Marful-Sau, Nene Amegatcher, and Professor Ashie Kotey.
Peacefmonline.com sources say NDC General Secretary Johnson Asiedu Nketia later told pressmen that the court had ruled in the party’s favour by calling for the inclusion of the existing voter ID card as one of the source documents for registration during the upcoming voter's registration exercise.
It would be recalled that two groups, the opposition NDC and a Private citizen Mark Takyi-Banson filed the case asking the apex court to stop the EC from compiling the register or allow the use of the birth certificate and voters ID card by prospective voters as proof of identification.
Thursday Ruling
The Apex Court thus fixed today (Thursday) to deliver its judgement on whether or not the Electoral Commission’s (EC’s) decision to exclude the existing voter ID card as one of the source documents for registration during the upcoming voter's registration exercise is Constitutional.
The Supreme Court granted only two reliefs sought by the NDC which had nothing to do with the inclusion of the use of an existing voter ID card as source documents and dismissed all the other reliefs. The apex Court further ordered that the compilation of the new register should be in compliance with C.I 126.
Granted reliefs
b. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, specifically article 51 read conjointly with article 42 of the Constitution, the power of the 2nd Defendant to compile and review the voters’ register must be exercised subject to respect for and the protection of the right to vote;
c. A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly article 42, upon the registration of and issuance of a voter identification card to a person, that person has an accrued right to vote which cannot be divested in an arbitrary and capricious manner;
Dismissed reliefs
d. A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 42 of the Constitution, all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the 2nd Defendant to registered voters are valid for purposes of identifying such persons in the exercise of their right to vote;
e. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Article 42, the 2nd Defendant’s purported amendment of Regulation 1 sub-regulation 3 of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2016 (C.I 91) through the Public Elections (Registration of Voters)(Amendment) Regulations, 2020 to exclude existing voter identification cards as proof of identification to enable a person apply for registration as a voter is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever;
f. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant, in purporting to exercise its powers pursuant to article 51 of the 1992 Constitution to exclude the existing voter identification cards from the documents required as of identification to enable a person register as a voter without any legal basis or justification is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to article 296 of the 1992 Constitution;
g. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution specifically Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, proof of identification for registration as a voter should not be limited by the provisions of Public Elections (Registration of Voters)(Amendment) Regulations, 2020;
h. An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to include all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the 2nd Defendant as one of the documents serving as proof of identification for registration as a voter for the purposes of public elections;
Cases against EC
In March this year, the NDC filed a suit against the EC and the (A-G) on two grounds that first, the entire registration exercise was unconstitutional because per Article 45 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC could only compile a voters' register once and periodically revise it.
The second leg of the suit was that the decision of the EC to exclude an existing voter ID card as a form of identification for the registration would disenfranchise many potential registrants and, therefore, it was unconstitutional as it violated Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, which gave a citizen of Ghana the right to vote and also the right to register to vote.
On June 11, this year, lawyers for the biggest opposition party abandoned the first leg of its case, the one challenging the constitutionality of the decision by the EC to compile a new voters register for the 2020 general election after the Supreme Court had pointed out to the lawyers of the NDC that the two claims could not stand side by side.
Second suit
On June 12, this year, Mr Mark Takyi-Banson instituted a different suit at the apex court in relation to the EC’s decision to use the Ghana Card and the Ghanaian passport as the only identification documents for the upcoming mass voters registration exercise.
In his writ filed against the EC and the A-G, Mr Takyi-Benson is seeking an order directed at the EC to include a birth certificate and the existing voters ID card as evidence of identification in the upcoming mass voter registration exercise.
The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 45, the register of voters for the conduct and supervision of all public elections and referenda of the 1992 Constitution, the EC’s constitutional and statutory mandate to compile is spent, saving only the power reserved in the commission to revise and expand the register at such periods as may be determined by law.
Amicus brief
Per the amicus brief, the CSOs sought to offer knowledge regarding the case that will eventually have a bearing on the case.
Counsel for the CSOs, Mr Joe Aboagye Debrah took his turn at the court to make his submissions regarding the application for the amicus brief.
In the course of making his submission, the Chief Justice questioned the lawyer on whether he had taken a look at the substantive processes regarding the two cases.
In response, Mr Debrah told the court he had not read it but had only seen the affidavit.
The Chief Justice further asked how he (Mr Debrah) could contribute to the case with his application since he had not taken a look at the substantive processes in the suits.
A member of the panel, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonney acknowledged the role of the CSOs in the country but argued that as a result of all the issues being raised by the CSOs, it would have been better if the CSO’s had joined one of the parties in the case rather than filing a motion for amicus brief.
Application opposed
A Deputy Attorney General (A-G) Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame and lawyer for the EC opposed the application.
Not Neutral
At the hearing on Wednesday, the seven-member panel of the Apex court, presided over by the Chief Justice dismissed an amicus brief application filed by lawyers of four civil society Organisations (CSOs) including, policy think tank, IMANI Africa and the Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability (ASEPA).
The others include the Policy Innovation Alliance for Social Equity and the Conservative Policy Research Centre and Institute for Liberty.
Upon listening to the submissions, the Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah dismissed the application stating that it was not supported by law.
Source: Peacefmonline.com/Ghana
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. |
BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL NPP JUDGES. EVEN THE ONE WHO PLANTED THE BOMB ON DR KWAME NKRUMAH WAS RELEASED FOR DOING NOTHING WRONG HOW MUCH FOR VOTER REGISTRATION. VOTER SUPPRESION
If you packed the bench to favour you, your output amount to zero. The most important thing to think about is the economy. We were made to believe that we have economic guru government. We are now witnessing poor thoughts, poor thinking, poor judgement, and poor economic management. The liability president and government.
Haaaaaa Ndc general secretary why deceiving your party members with this huge lies. I keep on telling u that if you appoint a palm wine tapper as general secretary and appoint the most corrupt Man as your party leader and devil church elder chairman what will happen. You the palm wine tapper general secretary came out from court telling you lies and uneducated Ndc party members believe him because they are all the same category. If Ndc party general secretary was not drunk apuooo why could him come out with such huge lies but it's serves you Ndc party right who cares.
NDC must remember that Rawlings appointed all Supreme court judges in 1992.... Today NDc is crying wolf. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. NDc will forever remain in opposition. You guys are c0rrupt and incompetent.
The Supreme Court (SC) of Ghana sat and came out with her verdict on the suit against the Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana on the impending compilation of new voters register 25/06/20. After the verdict, the bone of contention has been whether the EC obliged to use the old voter's ID card. Now let us look at the various remits of the verdict. In the SC's verdict all the 8 substantial reliefs were dismissed except the second and third reliefs. 'Relief two' permits all eligible voters avail themselves for registration as directed by the EC in accordance to the law- the prevailing CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENT (C.I.) 126-(amendment regulation 2020). 'Relief three' grants the EC to go ahead to compile the new public election voters register subject to the prevailing CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENT 126-(amendment regulation 2020). However the reiteration of the case between Abu Ramadan and Nimako vrs EC and Attorney General (AG) referencing of article 296 expresses the permission of the judicious use of her discretional powers by the EC. In this remit, the key words are 'due process of law' and 'consistency with the constitution of Ghana'. SC CONSEQUENCIAL ORDERS In the nutshell, the SC of Ghana orders all parties in this suit and eligible Ghanaian voters to comply with article 42 and 45 of Ghana Constitution, and C.I. 126 regulated by the EC and (AG). This SC verdict directs the EC and AG to commence the compilation of the public voter's register as planned. This ruling by the SC makes it that any court in Ghana dealing with same or similar case apply this SC verdict. Going back to the bone of contention, the documents permitted by law for registration in new public voter's register, one can find them only in the current C.I. 126. These documents are: Ghana National ID card, Ghana passport and the guarantee by registered voter under the prevailing C.I. 126. Now the conjecture has been around the above third requirement for impending registration schedule to start at the end of this month. The permitted voters ID as a requirement has to be permitted by the prevailing C.I. 126, and this ID is to be given birth to by the impending voter's registration exercise. Clearly let us look at this!! The food at the kitchen (electoral register) has gone bad, do we continue eating it? No we have to prepare a new dish. Investigations conducted revealed that the process of preparation is the reason why the food has gone bad, do we repeat the same recipe? By careful look at the statements in the verdict of the SC, I do not see any chance of qualification for the old voter's ID card.
Hmm this is what de supreme Court can do all of them are npp supporters who are there to serve their master nana addo not to interpret de law ooohhh ghana we are dead but whether voters ID or no voters ID Mr mahama will win de coming elections everybody can mark it on the wall
Insipid journalism at it's best. How does this story seek to inform your readers? Anyway for those who are confused, the supreme court has dismissed NDCs case seeking to use the existing voter register as verification in the upcoming new voter registration exercise.
Peace FM and other outlets in Despite Media, how many stomach journalists do you have on staff? For how long will you continue to be paid by the NDC to spread false and fake news to the general public? Please grow up!
Ghana should be strengthening the National Identification Authority to generate national IDs from which i. A master national data should be developed ii. From the national data all other registrations should be linked, reviewed and updated iii. Any kind of register can the be generated be it Electoral Commission, SSNIT, Pension, births and deaths registers, Tax PINs, Passport office should be linked as soon as one gets to 21 iv. The National ID then becomes the sole card for all transactions implying it becomes the card for elections etc.. With this approach there will no need for any kind of registration. When a person is born on registration at the Births Registry, the master national data will be updated through interconnectivity. When the person gets of age, you just go and update data for a national ID. Same when someone dies the hospital can update and the person can be expunged from the national data. That is what all countries are doing now, Will save Ghana massive amount of money and no period new voters registers biaa. it is an attempt to just waste money and promote corruption by political parties
This is what the NDC is good at. Even when the supreme court has ruled, they go to town claiming otherise. Their stomach journalist friends, led by Kwesi Pratt will join in the chorus and flood the airwaves with their falsehood. They did similar things during the ruling to get rid of names during Charlotte Osei's time. They waste money on demonstrations and finally here they are. Such a horrible party!