body-container-line-1
13.09.2013 Feature Article

Justice Crabbe Is Right! Parliament Must Promptly Fix CI 75!!!

Justice V.C.R.A.C CrabbeJustice V.C.R.A.C Crabbe
13.09.2013 LISTEN

Justice V.C.R.A.C. Crabbe's call for a Constitutional Review of CI 75, the part of our Constitution that deals with how we prepare for, conduct and manage our Elections, must be immediately taken up by the Parliament so as to have all the concerns raised about the Instrument and any likely ones lurking in the background fully and succinctly dealt with before the next Elections.

As a former Supreme Court Judge, he and others of similar depths in our Legal System must be allowed to contribute extensively to help the Parliament exhaustively review the Elections Act to plug all loopholes in the Law that could be used to unfairly but perhaps legally influence Elections or manipulate the outcomes thereof.

I, personally, find it most inspiringly constructive that Justice Crabbe has called for that Constitutional Review. It might just lead to a lasting remedy for our electoral woes. Ever since the bold effort by the Petitioners began for us to learn about the charges that they had leveled for their case, many Ghanaians, including I, have been wondering how the potential potholes in the Act were not caught much earlier on, before the Elections. We would have been spared the subsequent Petition to the Supreme Court, and all its insidious ramifications.

As much as I acknowledge that the Petition has generally contributed to our deeper education on our Legal System, especially, the Electioneering process, I think it led us too close to the brink of a disastrous national violent clash that the Nation does not deserve. In fact, even now, I am not sure we are completely out of the woods yet to claim the Supreme Court case has been more positive than otherwise.

We are currently witnessing a spate of biting criticisms of both the collective Supreme Court and some of its individual members by both sides of the historic case. And it seems the tone of the condemnation leveled against these entities is rather escalating with every new day.

How long these increasingly toxic fumes in our political environment will continue is as much my guess as yourssomething we would be better off without. It is in this mode of apprehension as to how well we manage the days following the verdict that I welcome Justice Crabbe's call and appeal to all Citizens to prevail upon and humbly entreat the Parliament to waste no time in attending to the call, which I believe could help neutralize the polarization.

In the layman's observation of many Ghanaians, including mine, the two big questions that immediately need to be settled by the Parliament include:

1). Which of the following takes precedence over the other, the fundamental entitlement of the Citizen to exercise his or her voting right, unimpeded, and the Biometric Registration requirement?

2). How must we fairly or appropriately deal with the absence of a Presiding Officer's Signature on Election declaration forms to avoid controversy as to whether or not the votes involved should count in declaring the winner?

I have been pondering over these two issues in particular because they are the ones that potentially have the tendency to disenfranchise many Citizens, and expose the Electoral Commission to lots of litigations, as well as launching the Nation into a similar threatening situation as we have just experienced with the 2012 General Elections.

We all could come up with numerous scenarios where some folks might be missed on the Biometric Registration, for no fault of theirs, and be subjected to denial from voting. In such a case, do we say the Constitution has worked well for, or against, our Democracy?

Similarly, the concern with the absence of the Presiding Officer's Signature on the declaration forms is best portrayed in the likely incidence of such absence causing the votes of all the Electorate who voted thrown out. Would the possible rejection of those votes truly reflect our Democratic wishes in the Election? If not, why should the negligence of one person, the Presiding Officer, cost a whole lot of people their right to choose who leads them in a Democracy? Consequently, if an aggrieved declared loser of an Election contests the results, as did the NPP, should we accept that their request for the Electoral Commission's strict adherence to the inadequate provisions of the Constitution supersedes the right of the voters to see their votes counted?

The essence of these two concerns is whether we ought to follow the dictates of a Constitution to the letter, however flawed, or uphold the fundamental right of Citizens a flawed Constitution tramples upon. Do we need to prove to be more law-abiding by following the Constitution, even if the Constitution is fundamentally flawed or so inadequate that its implementation violates a Human Right? This raises yet another basic question on how we balance morality and fairness with Constitutionality. Obviously, Constitutionality does not necessarily attest to Democracy.

With these rhetorical questions, we should be cognizant of the fact that some dubious Presiding Officer could deliberately fail to sign some Election declaration forms to have all the votes discounted, if she or he suspects that his favorite candidates would be losing with those votes.

There must, therefore, be adequate fair provisions to deal with such situations without causing anyone's vote thrown out for a Presiding Officer's ineptitude or nefarious omission. The Parliament needs to revisit the limitations of the Biometric System and have more reasonably effective regulations provided to resolve how any of them affects our voting.

In spite of whatever the EC sets up for by-laws or regulations to implement the Biometric System, we need to understand that the System is subject to failures either via some expert forgery or corruption of Software running its programs. All this could be part of the general need for a comprehensive reform in our Voting practices so that subsequent Elections do not end up in the Courts.

Finally, if any Law promulgated by the Parliament deserves exhaustively definitive, well-explained guidelines to limit ambiguities to the barest minimum, it is this CI 75. This is because of the immensity of the intrinsic dangers that lurk in and around its application. We cannot afford to court those dangers with further delay in fixing the CI 75.

In view of this urgency, let us thank Justice Crabbe for showing us the way, and also urge the Parliament to heartily invite all our patriotic Legal luminaries to help our Legislature fix the CI 75. It would save us much Partisan acrimony and avert any possible national catastrophe rising out of it in the future. It is only when the CI 75 is adequately fixed to prevent any future chaos and threats to our Peace, can we claim our Democracy has been truly strengthened via the Petition case.

Long Live Ghana!!!

body-container-line