body-container-line-1
28.02.2015 Headlines

Atuguba Stops Afari-Gyan

By Daily Guide
Atuguba Stops Afari-Gyan
28.02.2015 LISTEN

The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to start the district assembly election processes afresh because there was no law covering the electoral process.

The elections were scheduled for Tuesday, March 3, 2015, but with the latest development, the EC has no choice but to start the process from scratch in a move seen by an analyst as causing financial loss to the state.

In a unanimous decision read by Justice William Atuguba who was presiding, the seven-member panel of judges said the fresh elections should be covered by CI 85 which was not in force at the time the processes began.

The ruling was on a suit filed by Benjamin Eyi Mensah, an aspiring assemblyman in the Effutu District of the Central Region, who had dragged the EC to court over its failure to include him in the upcoming district assembly elections.

According to the justices, counsel for the EC, James Quarshie- Idun, had failed to satisfy the court on the exact law they used to begin the opening and closing of nominations because when confronted, the EC sought to rely on CI 75 and when that explanation failed, it relied on CI 68.

The justices noted that when that also failed, the EC sought to rely on Act 473, which was the Representation of the People's Act, but that did not help so it relied on PNDC Law 284, which the judge said had left the electoral process to the EC to prescribe and noted that the question on what law the EC used 'remains unanswered'.

The Supreme Court stated that there was subsequently no law covering the process as CI 85 was not in force at the time the process began and CI 78, which the EC said it relied on, remained a non-existent legislation.

The judges said the act of the EC on the elections was unconstitutional and ordered that the whole process be started afresh in accordance with CI 85.

The order prompted counsel for the EC to repeatedly ask the judges whether they said the whole processes should start afresh, to which Justice Atuguba answered in the affirmative and Quarshie Idun then said 'My Lords I did not hear the words, start afresh?'

Justice Jones Dotse told the EC that in the interest of justice, anytime there was a dispute adverts and other process should be halted for the matter to be determined.

Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the EC, was in court on Thursday but yesterday failed to show up and rather chose one of his deputies by name, Georgina Opoku Amankwa, to represent him.Alexander Kwamina Afenyo- Markin represented the aspiring assemblyman.

William Kpobi was Principal State Attorney in the case, representing the State.

Other justices in the case were Sophia Akuffo, Julius Ansah, Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Sule Gbadegbe.

The court had declared last Thursday that it was not right for the EC to continue running adverts on television and other media outlets saying that the district assembly elections would be held next Tuesday.

Justice Sule Gbadegbe asked Quarshie Idun whether or not the adverts were still running on air, to which counsel answered in the affirmative so the Supreme Court Judge then said, 'It is not right'.

According to the EC, nominations were received in the plaintiff's district and that if he decided to wait and submit his submissions late, he had himself to blame.

Afenyo Markin told the court that the whole essence of the CI 85 was to fortify the conduct of the elections and stated that the EC could only take a step after the CI 85 was in force, therefore taking a step before the CI was unconstitutional.

Plaintiff counsel stated that the purpose of laying the CI 85 before Parliament for 21 days was to ensure its passage and noted that 'you cannot open nominations when the electoral areas remain a proposal and haven't gone through the electoral process to become law.'

Mr Mensah believes that the EC's decision to open and close nominations on the said date, which denied him the opportunity to contest the election, was in contravention of Article 45(b) and 51 of the 1992 Constitution and wanted the Supreme Court to declare the action unconstitutional

BY Fidelia Achama

body-container-line