The Supreme Court will today, March 30, 2021, determine the faith of the review application brought to it by lawyers of interested parties from Sankrofi, Akpafu, Lipke, and Lolobi (SALL).
The seven-member panel presided over by Justice Yaw Appau will determine the merit or otherwise of the review application that was filed following the apex court's decision to quash an earlier ruling by the Ho High Court.
On 5th January 2021, the Supreme Court quashed a ruling by the Ho High Court ordering John Peter Amewu from holding himself as the MP-elect for the Hohoe constituency following a suit filed by professor Margaret Kweku and four others arguing that the decision to disenfranchise the people of SALL is a human right violation.
But an application filed by the Attorney General at the Supreme Court led to the quashing of the orders of the Ho High Court made on 23rd December 2020.
Following the quashing of that application, lawyers of the interested parties led by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata are seeking to convince the court to reverse that ruling.
Moving an 18-ground relief, Tsatsu Tsikata, lead Counsel for the petitioners argued on March 17, 2021, that the apex court erred when it referred to the right to vote as a provision falling within the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution rather than being among the fundamental human rights.
He added that the Supreme Court erred in claiming that the High Court, Ho would have to determine whether the right to vote is a fundamental human right or not since this was something that has been settled by a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court itself.
He was more concerned that students of constitutional law should not have to consider these erroneous statements as legally correct.
The representative of the Attorney General, Chief State Attorney, Ms. Grace Ewoal, conceded to the first ground of the application for review argued by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata but opposed the idea of granting the plaintiffs the review sought.
She asked that the application be dismissed because there was no new information submitted by counsel for the petitioners that merit granting the review.
Mr. Tsikata in a rebuttal stated that since the Attorney General conceded to Ground (a) alone is reason enough for the application for review to be granted but Justice Kulendi asked Mr. Tsikata to leave that to the court to decide.
The other grounds for review raised by counsel for petitioners were objected to by the Chief State Attorney.