Reader mode

Fact Check: The 3 'key' Reliefs of NDC that were dismissed by Supreme Court

zeckon52 06/25/2020

View pictures in App save up to 80% data.

Several interpretation have been given to the Supreme Court ruling on legal action by the National Democratic Congress in the consolidated cases of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) vrs Attorney General and Electoral Commission of Ghana, and Mark Takyi-Banson vrs Electoral Commission of Ghana and Attorney General.

Some of the publications made on the matter have been quiet misinforming, and could affect public discourse on the matter.

The controversies that exist in all these matters have gotten to do with some three specific reliefs the NDC sought from the Supreme Court.

I herein, tender the contrasting narratives of the NDC and the ruling by the court on these reliefs.

These three reliefs are noted in 4, 5, and 6 items stated in the writ of the NDC.

Except for Relief 6, which the Supreme Court provided some recommendations to the Electoral Commission in the exercise of its mandate, all others were dismissed without any documented brief. It was clear and explicit; "Dismissed"

I will share the details of the reliefs sought by the NDC, and the associated ruling and recommendations of the Supreme Court.

View pictures in App save up to 80% data.

Relief 4

A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 42 of the Constitution, all existing existing voter identification cards duly issued by the 2nd defendant to registered voters are valid for the purposes of identifying such persons in the exercise of their right to vote

The Supreme Court's ruling on Relief 4


Relief 5

A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Article 42, the 2nd Defendant's purported amendment of Regulation 1 subregulation 3 of the Public Election (Registration of Voters)(Amendment) Regulations, 2016 (C.I 91) through the Public Elections (Registration of Voters)(Amendment) Regulations, 2020 to exclude existing voter identification cards as proof of identification to enable a person apply for registration as a voter is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

Supreme Court's ruling on Relief 5


Relief 6

A declaration that the 2nd Defendant, in purporting to exercise its powers pursuant to article 51 of the 1992 Constitution to exclude the existing voter identification cards from the documents required as proof of identification to enable a person register as voter without any justification is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to article 296 of the 1992 constitution

Supreme Court's ruling on Relief 6


We however reiterate the decision of the court in the Abu Ramadan and Nimako (No.2) Vs Electoral Commission and Attorney-General (No.2) (2015-2016) 1 SCGLR 1 where the curt per Benin JSC stated;

"if the law provides for alternative ways of performing the task, the discretion is vested in the actor in deciding within the limits of article 296 of the Constitution as to which one of them would best suit the task on hand"

The court continued by re-emphasising the fact that the Electoral Commission in exercising the discretion in the discharge of their constitutional mandate in cleaning the voter register should be deemed as authorised to be acting within the law and the regulations therein, and cannot be faulted even if it is considered that there is a more efficient mode or method available. 

Source: opera.com
The views expressed in this article are the writer's, they do not reflect the views of Opera News. Read more>>
Top Comments
HarmonyDelaseKwesi · 06/25/2020
NDC please boycott the registration and the VOTING

Less Data,More News — Less than 1MB