The Ghana National Party (GNP) has opposed the implementation of Representation of the Peoples Amendment Act for the 2008 elections.
The party called on the government to rather provide the basic essential necessities of life to all Ghanaian.
"It has been reported many times that huge loans and grants of more than 603 million dollars have been procured for water as also for electricity since January 2005. The people of Ghana want to see better and satisfactory delivery of water and electricity before we dance for votes under ROPAA," a statement signed by Mr Kobina Amo-Aidoo, Interim National Chairman of the party said.
The GNP said essential necessities of life to all Ghanaians were also constitutional demands of the people.
"Water, a basic need of life, is a hard commodity to get in the country including the capital city, Accra....There are serious water-borne diseases all over the country, especially in the northern parts of out country," it said.
The GNP said although it supported the passage of the law, the government must leave the decision of its implementation to the Electoral Commission so that it was not perceived as pressure from the government.
It said two weeks after a report that three Ghanaians had sued the EC in an attempt to implement the law, the EC decided to meet all political parties to talk about it.
The Party noted that some opposition parties walked out of the discussion thus making the GNP to believe that the ROPAA had a lot of challenging issues ahead until 2008 elections.
It said it hoped that those in the Diaspora would go to court to demand answers from the government, "why with all the abundance of wealth, our people still live in misery, disease, no opportunities and majority had no means of livelihood".
It said: "These are what we think our Diaspora brothers must go to court to demand answers from the government of Ghana...."
The GNP said in any event, even if it took 10 years, the implementation of ROPAA under any government should be done in a manner that the strongest opposition and all critics to the Act would say it was fair.