Supreme Court fixes 25 June for judgment in NDC/EC register case
Seven judges will sit on the panel hearing the joint complaint by Mark Takyi-Banson and the NDC, challenging the EC’s right to compile a new voters’ register
A seven-member Supreme Court panel presided over by Chief Justice Anin Yeboah has fixed Thursday 25 June 2020 as the date to deliver its judgement in the consolidated cases of the National Democratic Congress vrs Attorney General, and Electoral Commission of Ghana and Mark Takyi-Banson vrs Electoral Commission of Ghana and Attorney General.
On 19 June 2020, the Supreme Court ordered lawyers to consolidate the two actions and subsequently ordered the plaintiff in the second case (Mark Takyi-Banson) to file his statement of case by 12 noon on Monday 22 June 2020 and the defendant by close of business on Tuesday 23 June 2020.
The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of the cases because both applicants were essentially seeking the same reliefs.
Reliefs sought
Among others, the applicants are seeking “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 45(a) of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana the Electoral Commission’s constitutional and statutory mandate to compile the register of voters for the conduct and supervision of all public elections and referenda is spent saving only the power reserved in the Commission to revise and expand the register of voters at such periods as may be determined by law”.
Second, they demand “a declaration that the Electoral Commission’s decision to compile a new register of voters is inconsistent with and a violation of Article 45(a) of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana”.
Third, they would like “a declaration that Regulation 1(3) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (C.I. 126) is inconsistent with and violates the provisions of Article 42 and 45(e) of the 1992 constitution to the extent that it excludes birth certificates issued to Ghanaians as a mode of identification and/or establishing qualification to be registered in the register of voters”.
The fourth relief sought is “a declaration that Regulation 1(3) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (C.I. 126) is inconsistent with and violates the provisions of Article 42 and 45(e) of the 1992 constitution to the extent that it excludes the existing voter identification card as a mode of identification and/or establishing qualification to be registered in the register of voters”.
Fifth, the plaintiffs want an order directed at the first defendant to include under Regulation 1(3) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (C.I. 126) the existing voter identification card, as issued by the first defendant, as evidence of identification.
The sixth relief is “an order directed at 1st Defendant to include under Regulation 1(3) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (C.I. 126) a birth certificate as evidence of identification” and lastly “any other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit”.
CSOs at work
The Supreme Court, after hearing oral arguments by all the parties in the case, ruled that the court will deliver its judgement on Thursday 25 June 2020.
Earlier on, before dealing with the main issue before it, the court described an application by IMANI Africa, the policy think tank, and other civil society organisations to join the two cases fighting against compilation of a voters’ register by the Electoral Commission as not the argument of neutral parties.
The court panel unanimously dismissed the request to allow the think tanks to join the case, saying their application is not supported by law.
The grounds for dismissal were that the application was filed out of time, the chief applicant did not demonstrate any neutrality as far as the parties are concerned and so cannot hold himself to be one and, lastly, that the application was not supported by law.
Waste of resources?
The policy groups have been at the forefront of the quest to ensure that the EC does not carry out begin compiling a new register. They consider it a waste of time and state resources.
However, the amicus curiae application to join the writs filed by the NDC and a private citizen against the EC and the Attorney General has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
A source close to the Attorney General’s Department described the brief as hollow and devoid of value.
Wilberforce Asare
* Asaase Radio 99.5 FM – now live on your radio. Tune in or log on to live streaming.
* Twitter: @asaaseradio995
