Ghana News - Abu Ramadan III - Clarification Ruling & Orders & The EC

21/07/2016 GhanaNewsAbuRamadanIIIClarificationruling&orders&theEC
Home News Politics Sports Business Entertainment Opinion World Radio Photos Audio
Videos
TV
More
AbuRamadanIIIClarificationruling&orders&theEC
Source:Ghana|AkotoAmpawandH.KwasiPrempeh
Date:21-07-2016Time:10:07:55:am
LatestStories
VISAfliesluckywinnertoRioOlympics
StanbicBanklaunchesAchiever
BankingService
Ghanaaccepts5-yeardomesticbond
worthover$200million
IGPurgespolicetobeprofessional
aheadofDecemberpolls
StanchartintroducesnewOnlineUser
Interface,MobileApp
KwasiPrempehandAkotoAmpaw
5
Share(s)
InourfirstcommentaryontheAbuRamadanCasespublishedhereon30thJune,
2016,weputforththefollowingthreepropositionsinresponsetocertainarguments
advancedbyothersinthewakeoftheSupremeCourts5thMay,2016,judgmentand
orders.
First,thatathing(whetherorlaworanact)declaredunconstitutionalbytheapex
courtis,underourConstitution(article1)andsystemoflaws,voidand,thus,ceases
tohavelegaleffectorvalidity.Therefore,followingthedeclarationbytheSupreme
CourtthatuseoftheNHIScardforpurposesofregistrationasavoteris
unconstitutional,allsuchregistrationsceasedtohavecurrentorfuturelegaleffect
orvalidity.
http://www.myjoyonline.com/opinion/2016/July21st/aburamadaniiiclarificationruling.php 1/22
Second,thattheindependenceoftheElectoralCommissionnotwithstanding,the
SupremeCourt,havingfoundanactoractionoftheCommissiontobe
unconstitutional,isvestedwithpowerundertheConstitution(article2(2))tocompel
theCommissiontotakesuchstepsoractionsasthecourtdeemsappropriateto
undoorremedytheconstitutionalviolation.
Therefore,havingfounduseoftheNHIScardforregistrationasavotertobe
unconstitutional,theSupremeCourthadpowertoordertheElectoralCommission
toremoveordeletetheaffectedregistrationsfromtheregisterofvotersandprovide
allaffectedpersonsafreshopportunitytoberegisteredasvotersusinga
constitutionally-compliantformofidentification.
Third,anorderoftheSupremeCourtdirectingapartytodoortakeacertainaction
toenforceadeclarationofunconstitutionalitybytheCourtiseffectiveonitsown
accord;accordingly,itrequiresnoexistingornewlegislationtoimplementitand,
furthermore,trumpsorsupersedesanyexistinglegislationprescribingacontrary
ornonconformingaction.
ThelatestrulingoftheSupremeCourtintheAbuRamadanCases,dated5thJuly,
2016,andissuedtoclarifytheCourtsjudgmentandordersof5thMay,2016,
vindicatesallthreepropositions.
TheSupremeCourtJuly5thclarificationrulingwasexpectedfinallytobringtoa
closurethecontroversyandcompetinginterpretationsastothemeaningand
importofthejudgmentof5thMay,2016,andtheconsequentialordersitmade.
Unfortunatelybutpredictably,thislatestclarification,unambiguousasitis,
appearstobethesourceoffurtherforcedmisinterpretationsandneedless
argumentationbysome.
WhatthePlaintiffssoughtintheirapplicationforclarification.
Itistobenotedthatintheirapplicationforclarification,thePlaintiffsirregularly
soughtdeclaratoryreliefs.Thesewere:
AdeclarationthattheordermadebythisHonourableCourtpursuanttothe
judgmentintheinstantsuitdated5thMay2016that1stdefendant/respondent
deleteorcleanthecurrentregisterofvoterstoconformtotheprovisionsofthe
1992Constitutionandapplicablelawmeanstheimmediateremovalofthenamesof
personswhoregisteredwiththeNationalHealthInsuranceCardandwhohad
otherwisenotestablishedqualificationtoregisterorremainontheregisterof
voters.
Adeclarationthatthesaidorderismadepursuanttoarticle2(2)oftheConstitution
andprovidesthelegalbasisandtheauthorityfor1stDefendant/Respondentto
complywithsameforthwith.
AdeclarationthattheearlierdismissalofPlaintiffs/Applicantsreliefs4(a)and(b)
inthesuitdoesnotbarthe1stDefendant/Respondentfromadoptingthevalidation
processasanauditingtooltocleanthecurrentregisterofvoters;and
Anorderfurtherdirectingthe1stDefendant/Respondenttoremovethenamesof
personswhousedtheNationalHealthInsuranceSchemeCardandotherswhohad
notlawfullyestablishedqualificationtoregisterfromthecurrentregisterofvoters
forthwithandprovidethosewhoremaineligibleandsubsequentlyestablish
qualificationtoregisterunderlawanopportunitytodosointimetoparticipatein
thegeneralelectionsof2016.
TheSupremeCourtcorrectlyobservedthatitwasincompetentforapartytoseek
declaratoryreliefsinanapplicationinvokingtheCourtsinherentjurisdictionto
clarifyordersithadalreadymade,asthatamountedtoopeningthecaseallover
again.Onthatgroundalone,theCourtdismissedreliefs(b)and(c)above.
Itnotedthatrelief(c)inparticularwasanattempttore-packageareliefthatthe
Courthaddismissedinitsjudgmentof5thMay2016.Withregardtorelief(d),the
Courtagaincorrectlydismissedsame,onthegroundsthatthereliefsoughtwasa
repetitionoftheveryorderithadgiveninitsjudgmentof5thMayandwas
thereforeequallyincompetentinanapplicationforclarification.
Withregardtorelief(a)theCourtobservedthat,thoughitwascouchedasa
declaratoryreliefand,thus,technicallyincompetent,inordertodosubstantial
justiceandastheissuesaffectingtherighttoberegisteredareattheheartof
democraticgovernmentastrictadherencetotechnicalitieswouldunderminethe
questforjustice,notingthatthefundamentalprincipleisthattheCourtlooksat
thesubstanceofeveryapplicationandnottheform,andthisprincipleapplieswith
greaterforceinissuesarisingundertheConstitution.Itwasonthatbasisthatthe
Courtproceededtoconsiderthecontendingargumentsandfinallygavetheruling
andorderswehaveconsideredabove.
TheCourtspowertoclarifyitjudgmentsandordersunderitsinherentjurisdiction
TheSupremeCourtnotedthattheCourtspowerstoclarifyitspreviousjudgments
andpowersderivefromitsinherentjurisdictionandaregroundedinitsequitable
authoritytoprotecttheintegrityofitsjudgmentsbyclarifyingthemeaningofits
judgmentororderswherethereisanambiguityorwherethejudgmentororder
provokesdivergentinterpretationsamongtheparties.TheCourtsjurisdictionto
clarifyitspastjudgmentsorordersmaynot,however,beusedtoeffectsubstantive
alterationinitspriorjudgmentsororders,theCourtheld.
AccordingtotheSupremeCourtinitsmostrecentrulinginthismatter:[The
ordersof5thMay2016,whichtheapplicationforclarificationturnson,are:
ThattheElectoralCommissiontakesstepsimmediatelytodeleteorasispopularly
knowncleanthecurrentregisterofvoterstocomplywiththeprovisionsofthe
Constitutionandapplicablelaw.
ThatanypersonwhosenameisdeletedfromtheregisterofvotersbytheElectoral
Commissionpursuanttoorder(a)abovebegiventheopportunitytoregisterunder
law
Asbackgroundtoitsruling,theSupremeCourtobservedthatwhilebothparties
contendtherewasnoambiguityintheCourtsorders,theCourtitselfnotedthat
theyallplacedifferentmeaningsonthescopeandmeaningoftheordersof5th
May2016andheldstrongdivergentviewsastothemeaningofthoseorders.
Itsaidthat,whiletheApplicants,AbuRamadanandEvansNimako,arguedthatthe
ordersrequiredtheECtotakestepsimmediatelytodeleteorcleannamesof
personswhoregisteredwithNHIScardsaswellasthosedeceasedpersonsand
minorsfromtheregisterofvoters,ostensiblywithoutrecoursetotheaffected
persons,theEC,ontheotherhand,heldacontraryview,arguingthattheprocesses
ofdeletionandorcleaningshouldbedoneunderthePublicElections(Registration
ofVoters)Regulations,C.I.91of2016,astheapplicablelaw.
CourtClarificationorders
Initsrulingonthesecompetinginterpretationsofitsordersof5thMay,2016,the
SupremeCourtwasemphaticandleftnodoubtwhatsoeverforacontrarymeaning
oftheimportofitsordersof5thMay,2016.TheCourtheldintheunanimous
judgmentdeliveredbyJusticeGbadegbeasfollows:
:Bywayofclarificationoftheordersmadeunderthejudgmentof5thMay
2016,the1stdefendant(thatis,theElectoralCommission)wastotake
immediatesteps,thatis,forthwith,totakestepstoremovefromthecurrent
registerofvotersallpersonswhohadusedNHIScardstoregister.Thisorder
havingbeenmadeunderArticle2(2)oftheConstitutionthereforetakes
precedenceoveranyexistingstatutoryprovision,includingC.I91.
Accordingly,the1strespondent(i.e.theEC)wastotakestepsforthwithto
removethenamesofallpersonswhohadregisteredwiththeNHIScards.In
ordernottoviolatetheirfundamentalelectoralrightsandinordernotto
disenfranchisesuchpersons,the1strespondentwastogiveadequatenoticeto
thoseaffectedbytheorderoftheprocessesofdeletionandre-registration,
subjecttoeligibility.Theremovalofthenamesfromtheregisterwasto
precedetheprocessesofre-registrationsclarified
TheChiefJustice,inconcludingmattersreadouttheordersoftheCourtconsequent
upontherulinginthefollowingwords:
1.The1stDefendant/Respondentisherebyorderedtotakestepsforthwithto
implementthiscourtsdecisionof5thMay,2016,inthetermsclarified.
2.Fortheavoidanceofdoubt,the1stDefendant/Respondentishereby
orderedforthwithtotakeallthenecessarystepstodeletefromthecurrent
registerofvotersthelistofpersonswhosenamesweresubmittedtothiscourt
on29thJune2016aspersonswhoregisteredwiththeNHISCard.
3.Furthertotheaboveorder(2)the1stDefendant/Respondentisfurther
orderedtodeletefromthecurrentregisterofvotersthenamesofpersonsnot
includedinthelistsubmittedtothiscourton29thJune2016butwhoarealso
foundtohaveregisteredwithNHISCards.
Nothingcouldbeclearer.First,theECiscommandedtotakestepsforthwith
(immediately)toremovefromtheregisterofvotersthosewhoregisteredusing
NHIScards,becausetheNHIScardsdidnotdistinguishbetweenGhanaiansand
non-Ghanaiansand,thus,thosewhousedittoregisterdidnotmeeta
constitutionally-mandatedeligibilitycriterion,namely,thataregisteredvoter
mustbeaGhanaiancitizen.
Secondly,becausesomeofthosewhoregisteredusingNHIScardsmayindeedbe
Ghanaiansandinordernottoviolatetheirfundamentalrighttoberegisteredand
tovote,theECwastogivetothoseaffectedbytheorderadequatenoticeofthe
processesofdeletionandre-registrationsothattheymayre-register(butsubjectto
theirsatisfyingtheeligibilitycriteriaassetoutinarticle42oftheConstitution,
namelythattheirGhanaiancitizens,of18yearsandabove,andofsoundmind).
Further,andfortheavoidanceofdoubt,theCourtdirectedthattheremovalofthe
NHISregistrantsshouldprecedethere-registration.
Finally,theCourtclarifiedthatitsordersconsequenttoitsdeclaratorypowers
underArticle2(1)oftheConstitutiontakesprecedenceoverorsupersedesany
statutoryprovision,includingC.I91,Nothingcouldbeclearerthantheseorders
anddirectionsofclarification.
Thedueprocessargument
OnewouldhaveexpectedthatwiththislucidclarificationbytheCourtofitsorder
of5thMay2016,thehitherto,ragingcontroversiesoverthemeaningandimportof
theseorderswouldcometoadefinitiveandconclusiveend.Notso,accordingto
certaincommentators.
Nowthatitisnolongerpossibletoadvancetheexhibitionandchallenge
argumentortoarguethattheECcanonlydeletebyusingapplicablelaws,some
commentatorsare,surprisingly,stillarguingthat,somehow,theordersoftheCourt
requiredueprocess,asabasisfordeletionofthenamesfromtheregisterandthat
inaconstitutionaldemocracy,dueprocessrequiresthattherightsofpersons
shouldnotbetakenawaywithoutdueprocessoflaw.
Thisisabizarreargument.Aswhateverrightsandrelatedclaimsareatstakehere
havebeenfullylitigatedandadjudicatedinajudicialproceeding,thenotionthat
theresultingorderoftheapexcourt,issuedtoenforcethefinaljudgmentinthe
case,isitselfnotinaccordwithorlackingindueprocessissimplymind-
boggling.
Thedueprocessargumentindeedmisunderstandsandmisreadstheimportofthe
judgmentandordersof5thMay2016andtherulingclarifyingthatjudgment.
Thejudgmentof5thMay,2016,andtheearlierjudgmentof30thJuly,2014,hadthe
combinedeffectofdeclaringthattheregistrationofpersonswhousedNHIHScards
toregisterwasunconstitutionalandunlawful,notbecausethosepersons,provided
theywereGhanaians,didnothavearighttoberegistered,butbecausetheuseof
theNHIScardcouldnot,anddidnot,satisfyaconstitutionallynecessarycondition
forregistration,namelythattheregistrantmust,inaccordancewitharticle42of
theConstitution,beacitizenofGhana.
Thus,withduerespect,deletingthenamesofsuchpersonsdidnottakeawayany
rightsthattheymayhave.(Andunderdueprocessdoctrine,noprocessisdue
unlessthereis,firstandforemost,acognizablelegalrightorinterestatstake).On
thecontrary,deletionofthenamesupheldconstitutionaldueprocessbyrequiring
thatanysuchpersonsenforcetheirrighttoberegisteredasavoterandtovoteby
usingdueprocess,namelysatisfyingtheeligibilitycriteriaunderarticle42ofthe
Constitution.
TheCourtsordersappropriatelygrantallaffectedpersonstheopportunitytoavail
themselvesofpreciselythisprocess.Takentogether,theseconstitutewhatdue
processmeansandrequiresintheinstantcontext.
TheCourtsdecisionspringsfromArticles1(2),2(1)&(2)oftheConstitution,which
provideasfollows:
1(2)ThisConstitutionshallbethesupremelawofGhanaandanyotherlaw
foundtobeinconsistentwithanyprovisionsoftheConstitutionshall,tothe
extentofinconsistency,bevoid.
2(1)Apersonwhoallegesthat
anenactmentoranythingcontainedinordoneundertheauthorityofthatorany
otherenactment;or
anyactoromissionofanyperson
isinconsistentwith,orisincontraventionofaprovisionofthisConstitution,
maybringanactionintheSupremeCourtforadeclarationtothateffect
2(2)TheSupremeCourtshall,forthepurposesofadeclarationunderclause
(1)ofthisarticle,makeshallordersandgivesuchdirections,asitmay
considerappropriateforgivingeffecttoorenablingeffecttobegiventothe
declarationsomade
UntiltheAbuRamdancases,themeaningoftheseplainlywritten,well-trodden
provisionsoftheConstitutionhadneverbeenincontentionandwereclearenough
eventolawstudentsstudyingconstitutionallawandGhanaianlaypersons.
Urbanbias
Itisnowhoweverbeingcontendedthat,wheretheSupremeCourtmakes
consequentialordersunderarticle2(2)toenableeffecttobegiventoitsdeclaratory
powersunderarticle2(1),suchanorderwouldbecontrarytodueprocessifthe
effectistotakeawayforthwithanon-existentrightofacitizen.
Withatouchofpopulism,itisfurtherbeingarguedthatitisconstitutionally
impermissibleforjusttwopersons,AbuRamadanandEvansNimako,the
Plaintiffs/Applicants,todisenfranchiseortakeawayfromthousandswho
registeredbyNHIS,manyofwhommaybetheruralpoor,theirrighttovote.To
givefurtherpopulisttwisttotheargument,itissuggestedthatitisonlytheurban
elite,whohaveanurbanbias,whofailtoseetheinjusticethattheruralpoorstand
tosufferfromsuchaposition.
Theseareveryastonishingargumentsindeed.Suchargumentation,inourview,
seekstojettisonandre-writetheveryclearlanguageandinjunctionofthe
Constitutioninarticle1(2)andarticle2(1)&(2),andtodosonotonsubstantivelegal
andconstitutionalgrounds,butonpopulistgroundsthatruncontrarytowhatthe
Constitutionsaysanddemands.
Trueenough,inanysociety,withsocialandclasscleavages,itistobeexpectedthat
peoplefromdifferentsocialandclassbackgroundswilltendtoseethingsfrom
theirclassbias,thisisespeciallysofortheprivilegedclassesandsocialgroups.
Butitisonethingtomakethatgeneralobservationandquiteanothertosuggest
thatinsistingoncompliancewithclearprovisionsoftheConstitution,inrespectof
anissueasfundamentalaswhoarequalifiedtoberegisteredandvoteinpublic
elections,istolookatissuesfromanurbanbiastothedetrimentofpeoplelivingin
ruralcommunities.
Further,itbearsremindingthatnotonlydoesarticle2(1)empoweraperson(that
is,evenasingleperson,nottwo,asintheAbuRamadancase)whoallegesthatan
enactmentoraprovisionofanenactmentisinconsistentwith,andin
contraventionof,theConstitutiontobringanactionforadeclarationtothateffect,
buttheConstitutionagaininarticle3(4)(a)providesthatallcitizensshallhavethe
rightanddutyatalltimestodefendthisConstitution..
Thus,itisdangerousandsubversiveoftheveryclearlanguageandintendmentof
theConstitutiontosuggestthatitisanaffronttoconstitutionaldemocracyforjust
twopersonstogotoCourttodefendandenforcetheConstitutiononthe
tendentiousandpopulistgroundthattodosowouldpermitjusttwopersonsto
disenfranchisethousandsoftheruralpoor.
Takentoitslogicalconclusion,thisbizarretheorymeansthatanytimeacitizen
invokesArticle2oftheConstitutiontoseektooverturnalaworactofapublicbody
oragentthatisotherwisebindingontheentirepopulation,thatPlaintiffmaybe
accusedoftryingtoimposehisorhersolitarywillorwishesontheentirecountry.
Perhapswhattheproponentofthisoutlandishtheorywishestoseeisthecomplete
abolitionofArticle2.
Inanyevent,itisnotthetwoPlaintiffs,buttheSupremeCourtthatdeterminedthe
matterandmadetheconsequentialorders.
Automaticdeletion
But,sincetherecentrulingoftheCourtonthemotionforclarificationmakesit
clear,beyondashadowofadoubt,thattheCourtsorderswerenotfortheECto
deleteinaccordancewithorbyusingapplicablelawsbuttotakestepstodelete
forthwith,TOCOMPLYWITHTHECONSTITUTIONANDAPPLICABLELAW,there
isanewshifttothedueprocessargument.
Thisnewshiftisprocuredbythemagicandnewwordsautomaticdeletion,which
havebeensmuggledintothedebate.Thedueprocessargumentisnolongerthat
thatdueprocessrequiresthatthenamesbedeletedbyso-calledapplicablelaws.
ThatargumenthavingbeendealtadeathblowbytheSupremeCourtsclarification,
thenewargumentgoesthus:
TheSupremeCourtclarificationdidnotordertheECautomaticallytodeletethe
namesofNHISregistrantsfromthevotersregister,asthePlaintiffshadaskedfor.
Rather,astheargumentgoes,theCourtorderedthattheECshouldtakesstepsby
givingadequatenoticetosuchpersonsoftheprocessesofdeletionandre-
registrationbeforedeletingthenames;andthatautomaticdeletionwouldbe
contrarytodueprocess.
InthefirstplacenowhereintheapplicationofthePlaintiffsdidtheymakeany
referencetoautomaticdeletion.WhattheyarguedwasthattheCourtsorders
meanttheECwastodeleteforthwith,orimmediatelydelete,thenamesofthose
whoregisteredwithNHIScardsaswellasdeceasedpersonsandminorsfromthe
registerofvotersandnotbytheexhibitionandchallengemechanismunderC.I.91.
Inthatsense,theautomaticdeletionphrasewassimplybeingfoistedonthe
Plaintiffsasastrawmanargument.
Secondly,tojuxtaposeautomaticdeletion(asthepositionofthe
Plaintiffs/Applicants)totheSupremeCourtsordersistodosooutofthecontextof
thecontendingviewsontheimportoftheCourtsorders.TheECsviewwasthat
theECcouldonlydeletebyusingapplicablelaws,(i.e.bytheexhibitionand
challengeprocessunderC.I.91).
ThePlaintiffsview,ontheotherhand,wasthattheCourtsordersunderarticle2(2)
supersededtheexhibitionandchallengeprocessandmeanttheECshoulddelete
forthwithorimmediatelythosenamesfromtheregisterofvoters,without
recoursetothatprocess.ThiswasthecontextoftheCourtsorder.Forthe
avoidanceofdoubt,wereproducetheorderinJusticeGbadegbesrulingandthe
ChiefJusticesordersoftheCourt.
GbadegbeJSCsaidintherulingoftheCourtthus:
ThisorderhavingbeenmadeunderArticle2(2)oftheConstitutiontherefore
takesprecedenceoveranyexistingstatutoryprovision,includingC.I.91.
Accordingly,the1strespondent(i.e.theEC)wastotakestepsforthwithto
removethenamesofallpersonswhohadregisteredwiththeNHIScards.
TheChiefJusticeonherpartsaidinorder(2)thus:
2.Fortheavoidanceofdoubt,the1stDefendant/Respondentishereby
orderedforthwithtotakeallthenecessarystepstodeletefromthecurrent
registerofvotersthelistofpersonswhosenamesweresubmittedtothiscourt
on29thJune2016aspersonswhoregisteredwiththeNHISCard.
Itwillbeseen,fromananalysisofthesyntaxofthetwoorders,thatbothorderscall
upontheECimmediatelyorforthwithtotakethenecessarystepstodeletetheNHIS
registrantsfromthevotersregister.Inorderwords,theorderswerethatwhatever
stepsyouneedtotakeinordertodeleteimmediatelyorforthwiththenamesofthe
NHISregistrantsfromthevotersregister,withoutrecoursetothechallengeand
exhibitionprocess,takethem.
SuchanorderincontrasttothosewhohavebeenarguingthattheECcouldonlydo
sobyusingapplicablelaws(namelytheexhibitionandchallengeprocess)was,if
youwish,anorderofautomaticdeletion,eventhoughthatwasnotthelanguageof
thePlaintiffsoroftheCourt.
OfcoursetheCourtalsocorrectlyandinfairnesstothosewhosenamesweretobe
deletedorderedthattheECwastogiveadequatenoticetothoseaffectedbythe
orderoftheprocessesofdeletionandre-registration,subjecttoeligibility,inorder
nottoviolatetheirfundamentalelectoralrightsandinordernottodisenfranchise
suchpersons.NooneoughttohaveanydifficultywiththataspectoftheCourts
orders.
Certainly,thePlaintiffs,haveneverarguedthatthoseaffectedshouldnothave
noticeoftheprocessesofdeletionandanopportunitytore-register.Their
argumenthasalwaysbeenthattheordersoftheCourtrequirednoother
applicablelawsforthemtobecarriedoutbytheEC!!
THEINDEPENDENCEOFTHEELECTORALCOMMISSION
ThroughouttheAbuRamadantrilogy,themeaningandimportoftheindependence
oftheElectoralCommissionhasdominateddiscussions,bothinthepublicspace
andthejudgmentsoftheCourt,withsomesuggestingthattheSupremeCourt
cannottakeoverthefunctionsoftheconstitutionallyindependentcommissionand
socannotgiveordersdirectedattheCommission.
WhileitisnotindisputethattheSupremeCourtcannottakeoverthefunctionsof
theElectoralCommission,itisplayingtothegallerytosuggestthatwhenaparty
obtainsadeclarationthataparticularprovisionofalawunderwhichtheEC
operatesoranactionoftheECisunconstitutionalandtheSupremeCourtmakes
consequentialorderstoenableeffecttobegiventothatdeclaration,theCourt,
thereby,isencroachingontheindependenceoftheECormaybeseekingtodowhat
theECwassetuptodo.
Itismostunfortunatetoframeanysuchconsequentialorders,(directedtoensure
thattheactsofECoranyotherindependentconstitutionalbodyareincompliance
withtheConstitution)asunderminingtheindependenceofsuchconstitutional
bodiesortakingovertheirfunctions.TheECandtheotherindependent
constitutionalbodies,itneedbeemphasized,arecreaturesoftheConstitution.
TheyowetheirindependencetotheprovisionsoftheConstitution,andthatsame
Constitutionmakesclearthattheirindependenceissubjecttotheprovisionsofthe
Constitutionandtothesupervisoryjurisdictionofthesuperiorcourtstoensure
thattheiractionsareinaccordwiththeConstitutionandwithinthelaw.Thatis
whyarticle295(8)oftheConstitutionprovidesthefollowing,innouncertainterms:
NoprovisionofthisConstitutionoranyotherlawtotheeffectthataperson
orauthorityshallnotbesubjecttothedirectionorcontrolofanyother
personorauthorityintheperformanceofanyfunctionsunderthis
Constitutionorthatlaw,shallprecludeacourtfromexercisingjurisdictionin
relationtoanyquestionwhetherthatpersonorauthorityhasperformed
thosefunctionsinaccordancewiththisConstitutionorthelaw
ItissalutaryfortheECanditsmemberstobearinmindthisimportantprovisionof
theConstitutionwhenevertheyasserttheirconstitutionalindependence.Quite
apartfromarticle295(8),whichappliesequallytoallindependentconstitutional
andstatutorybodies,thereisarticle46,whichguaranteestheindependenceofthe
EC,butalsoexpresslymakestheindependencesubjecttotheprovisionsofthe
Constitutionandanyotherconstitutionallyvalidlawthus:
46.ExceptasprovideinthisConstitutionorinanyotherlawnot
inconsistentwiththeConstitution,intheperformanceofitsfunctions,the
ElectoralCommissionshallnotbesubjecttothedirectionorcontrolofany
personorauthority.
Inshort,theElectoralCommission,notwithstandingitsconstitutional
independence,isnotabovetheConstitutionandthelawbutissubjecttolawand
thesupervisoryjurisdictionofthesuperiorcourts.Itisirresponsibleand
dangerousforanycommentatortosuggestotherwiseandtherebyleadsectionsof
thepublictothemistakenviewthattheSupremeCourt,inorderingthedeletionof
NHISregistrationsfromtheregisterofvotersinordertoenforceadeclarationof
unconstitutionality,isactingbeyonditspowersandseekingtousurpthepowersof
theEC.
THELISTOFNHISREGISTRANTSANDTHECREDIBILITYANDINTEGRITYOF
THEECASANINDEPENDENTCONSTITUIONALBODY.
ThoughtheapplicationforclarificationoftheCourtsordersof5thMay,2016,did
notdirectlyraisethisissue,inthecourseofdealingwiththeclarificationofits
orders,theissueofECscredibilityasabodythatGhanaianscantrustandrely
upontoactimpartiallyandhonestlyandconductfree,fairandcrediblenational
electionscameupfromthemostunexpectedquarters.
Oncorrectproceduralgroundsandinordernottotarnishcompletelytheintegrity
oftheCommission,theSupremeCourt,however,declinedtheinvitationtowade
intowhatappearedtobeascandalofmonumentalproportionsfortheintegrityof
theCommission.
Itwouldberecalledthat,inthecourseofproceedingsontheapplicationfor
clarificationoftheordersof5thMay,2016,theSupremeCourtorderedtheECtofile
inthecourtregistryby29thJune,2016,thefulllistofpersonswhoregisteredwith
NHIScardsandthemodalitiesorproceduresitintendedtousetodeletethenames
fromtheregisterofvotersandadjournedthecaseto30thJune2016..
TheCommission,incompliancewiththeCourtsorder,producedalistof56,772
personsasthefulllistofthosewhoregisteredwiththeNHIScards.Whenon30th
June2016,CounselforthePlaintiffswasaskedhisreactiontothelist,heobserved
thathehadonlybeenservedwiththelistanhourandhalfagoandsocouldnot
speakintelligentlytoit.TheCourtwentintorecess,givingthePlaintiffslawyers
onehourtostudythelistandthecomeupwiththeirreactionthereto.
WhentheCourtresumedsittingonthesameday,Plaintiffslawyerpointedouta
numberofmind-bogglingdefectsandinconsistenciesinthelistandobservedthat
thelistwasafictitiousone,manufacturedbytheECandconjuredoutofnothing
simplytomeetthecourtsorders.
MidwaythroughCounselsoralsubmissionontheEClist,theCourt,seeingthat
thesewereweightymatters,whichcouldtakesometime,directedPlaintiffstofilein
theregistryoftheCourtwrittensubmissionsonwhateverobjectionstheyhadtothe
listbyMonday,July4th,2016,andadjournedthecasetoTuesday,5thJuly,2016.
OnTuesday,5thJuly,2016,theCourtgaveitsrulingontheapplicationfor
clarificationinthetermssetoutabove.Withrespecttothechallengetothe
authenticityandcredibilityofthelistofNHISregistrantsthattheEChadprovided,
theCourtdismissedsameforlackofjurisdiction.TheCourtnotedasfollows:
Wehavegivendueconsiderationtotheobjectionstenderedtothelistof
personssubmittedtotheCourtby1stdefendant/respondent(i.e.theEC).We
areoftheopinionthatweareprecludedintheinstantpost-judgment
applicationforclarificationfromveeringintoissuesnotimmediatelycovered
bytheapplication.Thedeterminationofthesequestionsdoesnotproperly
belongtoanapplicationforclarification.Ourjurisdictionislimitedto
clearlyindicatingwhatwemeantbytheportionsofthejudgmentonwhich
thisapplicationisbase.
Weareoftheopinionthatanenquiryintotheauthenticityandcredibilityof
thelistsubmittedmightresultinthemodificationoralterationofthe
substanceofthejudgment.Theissuesraisedbytheobjectionstothelist
submittedby1strespondent(theEC)areoutsidetheordersonwhichthe
post-judgmentclarificationapplicationisbased.
Though,theCourtdeclinedtheinvitationtoveerintotheauthenticityand
credibilityofthelistsubmittedbytheEC,initsorders,theCourt,inourview,
impliedlyrecognizedthattheremayverywellhavebeenmerittotheobjections,
whentheCourtmadethefollowingthirdorder:
3.Furthertotheaboveorder(2)the1stDefendant/Respondentisfurther
orderedtodeletefromthecurrentregisterofvotersthenamesofpersonsnot
includedinthelistsubmittedtothiscourton29thJune2016butwhoarealso
foundtohaveregisteredwithNHISCards.
Clearly,ifindeed,thelistsubmittedbytheECwasthefulllistofNHISregistrants
ontheregisterofvoters,order(3)wouldhavebeencompletelyunnecessary.
PlaintiffsobjectiontoECslist
ThePlaintiffsraisedobjectionstotheauthenticityandcredibilityofthelist,stating
thatitwasneitheraccuratenorcredible,ofdoubtfulintegrity,riddledwith
manifestinconsistenciesandcontradictionsand,infact,hadbeenconjuredoutof
nothingbytheEC.Theseare,indeed,veryseriousallegationsmadeagainsttheEC,
andiftrue,impugntheveryintegrityoftheECandquestionswhetheritisreadyor
fittoactimpartiallyandconductthe2016generalelectionsinacredibleandfair
manner.
EventhoughtheCourtmayseemtechnicallycorrect,onjurisdictionalgrounds,not
tohaveveeredintothematteroftheaccuracyandcredibilityoftheEClist,the
issuesarenotthatstraightforward.ItwillberecalledthatthePlaintiffsinAbu
RamadanIIdidnotaskdirectlyforthereliefthattheECshouldbeorderedtodelete
fromtheregisterofvotersthosewhoregisteredusingtheNHIScards.Thereliefs
PlaintiffssoughtinAbuRamadanIIwerethefollowing:
"1.Adeclarationthatuponatrueandproperinterpretationofarticle45(a)of
theconstitutionoftheRepublicofGhana,1992,(hereinafter,the
constitution"},themandateoftheElectoralCommissionofGhanatocompile
theregisterofvotersimpliesadutytocompileareasonablyaccurateand
credibleregister.
2.Adeclarationthatthecurrentregisterofvoterswhichcontainsthenames
ofpersonswhohavenotestablishedqualificationtoberegisteredisnor
reasonablyaccurateorcredibleandthereforeinconsistentwitharticle45(a)
oftheConstitutionandtherebymakingsamenullandvoid,ofnoeffect.
3.Adeclarationthatthecurrentregisterofvoterswhichcontainsthenames
ofpersonswhoaredeceasedisnotreasonablyaccurateorcredibleandis
thereforeinconsistentwitharticle45(a)oftheConstitutiontherebymaking
sameunconstitutional,nullandvoid,ofnoteffect.
4(a).Anordersettingasidethecurrentregisterofvotersandcompellingthe
ElectoralCommissiontocompileafreshregisterofvotersbeforetheconduct
ofanynewpublicelectionsorreferendainGhana.
Or,inthealternative:

(b)AnordercompellingtheElectoralCommissiontoauditthecurrent
registerofvotersthroughthevalidationoftheregistrationsofsuchpersons
currentlyontheregister:
Todeletethenamesofunqualifiedpersonsanddeceasedpersons,and
Toprovideeachvalidatedregistrationwithbiometricevidencethereof,and
Tostrikeoutthenamesofthosepersonswhofailtovalidatetheirvotervalidation
withinthestipulatedperiodbeforetheconductofanynewregistrationexerciseor
publicelectionorreferenduminGhana.
Itcanthusbeseenthat,whentheCourtinitsjudgmentof5thMay,2016,ordered
theECtotakestepsimmediatelytodeleteorasispopularlyknowncleanthe
currentregisterofvoterstocomplywiththeprovisionsoftheConstitutionand
applicablelaw,itwasinfactnotgrantingthespecificreliefssoughtbyPlaintiffs,
butratherreliefsformulatedintheCourtsownterms.Thesecondpointtobe
notedisthattheCourtitselfrecognizedthattherewasadifficultyofdetermining
theexactnumberofthosewhoregisteredusingtheNHIScards,whenitobservedat
page21ofitsjudgmentasfollows:
..itappearsfromtheproceedingshereinthatthattheexactnumbersarenot
known.Thiscreatessomedifficultyindeterminingtheactualpercentageinorderto
answerthequestionposedwhethertheregistermayonsuchgroundonlybesaid
nottobereasonablyaccurateorcredible..
Itnonethelessproceededtostatethatthatshouldnotpresentuswithan
insurmountableproblem.Itcan,therefore,beseenthatthecurrentpredicament
thatthenationfindsitselfinisdirectlytheresultofthefailuretodetermineatthe
stageofAbuRamdanIIthenumberofpersonswhoregisteredusingNHIScardsby
requiringtheEC,whichhasexclusivecustodyofthedata,toproduce,atthatstage
ofproceedings,thefulllistofsuchpersons.
HadtheSupremeCourtdoneso,andthePlaintiffsthenproceededtochallengethe
authenticityofthelist,theCourtwouldclearlyhavebeenseizedwithjurisdictionto
delveintothisallimportantmatteranddeterminewhetherornotthelistwas
credibleorconcocted.
Asitis,theSupremeCourtandthewholenationappeartohavebeendeliberately
short-changedbytheECwithalist,whichisneitheraccuratenorcredible,but
whichtheCourtrefusesonjurisdictionalgroundstoveerinto.
ReasonsforPlaintiffsobjectiontotheEClist.
ThereasonsforthePlaintiffsobjectionstotheEClistasfictitiousandconjuredout
ofnothingwereseveralandweighty.Butthemostfundamentalreasonadvancedby
thePlaintiffswasthattheECwasincapableofdeterminingthosewhoregistered
withNHIScardsforthe2012generalelectionsbecausetheregistrationformsdid
nothaveanycolumnorportionforrecordingthosewhousedtheNHIScardto
register.
AccordingtoPlaintiffs,theonlycolumnontheprimaryregistrationform,Form1A,
foridentificationofthecardusedtoregisterwasthecolumnforthosewho
registeredusingthenationalidentificationcardsissuedbytheNational
IdentificationAuthority.
TherewasnocolumnforfillingintheNHIScardnumber,passportnumberor
driverslicensenumberonthatform.Thus,sotheargumentofthePlaintiffsgoes,
whetherbyForm1Aoritselectronicreproduction,Form1C,whichislodgedinthe
ECsdatabase,itisimpossibleforeithertheECoranyotherpersontodetermine
thosewhoregisteredusingNHIScards.
ThePlaintiffs,inaddition,statedthattheyhadrecordingsofameetingheldatthe
ECsconferenceroom,betweenthemselvesandtheirlawyers,ontheonehand,and
thetwoDeputyCommissionersoftheEC,namelyMrs.GeorginaOpoku-Amankwaa
andMr.SulleyAmadu,andtheECslawyer,atwhichthetwoadmittedthattheEC
didnothavetherecordofthosewhoregisteredwithNHIScards.
Indeed,itwasinrecognitionofthiserrorintheForm1A,whichwasusedforthe
2012registrationexerciseunderC.I.72,thatwhentheECdraftedthecurrentC.I.91,
itmadeprovisionforfillinginnotonlythenationalIDnumberofaregistrant,but
aregistrantspassportnumberanddriverslicensenumber.Noneofthesecanbe
foundintheForm1AandForm1Cusedforregistrationin2012.
TofurtherbuttresstheirpointsthePlaintiffsdrewattentiontonamesonthelist
thathadnoNHIScardnumberswhatsoever.Again,thePlaintiffsarguedthatall
theNHIScardsissuedin2012hadeight(8)digits.However,fromthelistfiledbythe
ECsomeofthenumberswere2digits,others3,others5,andyetothers7and12!
Furthermore,thePlaintiffspointedtotheincredulousfactthatfromthelist
submitted,therewereatotalof82districts,outofthe216districts,wherenota
singleperson,accordingtotheECslist,registeredusingNHIScard.Thepointwas
furthermadethatsomeofthepurportedNHISnumberswereinfactpassport
numbers.
Asindicated,thesearenottriflingmattersandifgoneintoandestablishedasfacts
byanadjudicatorybodywouldgroundthecitingofallthemembersoftheECfor
contemptoftheSupremeCourt.Itisthustobeverymuchregrettedthatthe
SupremeCourtdeemeditselfunabletodelveintothisallimportantissue.
LessonsoftheAbuRamadan/EvansNimakoTrilogy
WhatthendoestheAbuRamadan/EvansNimakosagateachus?Inourview,there
areanumberoflessonstobelearntbyallofus,asapeople.First,wemust
commendthePlaintiffs,AbuRamadanandEvansNimako,forsteppingforwardto
defendtheConstitutionwiththetenacitytheydisplayed.Itisindeedtherightand
dutyofallcitizenstodefendandguardjealouslytheConstitutionoftheRepublic.
Second,itshouldbeunderstoodwithoutdisputationthattheSupremeCourthas
thepowerandauthorityunderarticle2(2)togiveorderstoanypersonorauthority
togiveeffectorenableeffecttobegiventoanydeclarationofunconstitutionality.
Third,anysuchorderstakeprecedenceoveranystatutoryprovision,including
constitutionalinstruments.Fourth,theSupremeCourtsclarificationrulingand
ordersapplywithequalforcetothedeletionofdeceasedpersonsfromtheregister
ofvoters.
TheECshouldnotwaittobedraggedtoCourtagain,thistimeoncontemptcitation,
beforeitimplementsthisaspectoftheCourtsordersof5thMay,2016.Again,theEC
andallotherindependentconstitutionalbodiesaresubjecttotheConstitutionand
thesupervisoryjurisdictionofthesuperiorcourts.Next,itisabouttimethatour
governments,especially,andallofustookseriouslytheestablishmentofanational
identificationsystemthatwillassurereasonableproofofwhoisaGhanaiancitizen.
TheSupremeCourtstatedthisneedinthemosteloquentoftermswhenitobserved
initsjudgmentasfarbackas30thJuly2014thus:Theneedforacredibleand
reliablemultipurposenationalidentificationsystemcomprisingtherelevantdata
andcommunicationinfrastructurethatwouldanswertomostofournational
needs,whetherforelectoral,planningordevelopmental,orotherpurposes,is
greaterthaneverbefore.Wethinkthetimehascomefortheappropriate
authoritiestorespondtothisneed.WeareinJuly2016andnothinghasyetbeen
doneaboutthisbytheauthorities!
.Anysuchnationalidentificationsystemshouldbeeffectivelylinkedtotherecords
atthebirthsanddeathregistry.Ourbirthsanddeathregistry,ontheotherhand,
shouldbeproperlyequippedandresourcedwithqualifiedandcompetentpersonnel
toensurethatwehaveaccuraterecordsofeveryGhanaiancitizenwhoisgiven
birthtoandwhodies.AllGhanaiansneedtobevigilanttoensurethatthewillof
thepeopleprevailsinthe2016generalelections.
Finally,theElectoralCommissionneedstorecognizethatitsintegrityand
reputationhavebeenseriouslycalledintoquestionbytheAbuRamadan&Evans
Animakotrilogy,especiallywithrespecttothelistitproducedclaimingonly56,772
NHISregistrantsontheregisterofvoters,asagainstthetotal14,031,000voterson
theregister.
ItthereforebehovestheCommissiontotakegenuinesteps,bydeedandnotpious
assurances,towinbacktheconfidenceofthepopulace,includingdemonstratinga
readinesstolistentoreasonableproposalsmadebyallstakeholderstoensurethat
the2016electionsarecredible,freeandfair,andaffirmthesovereignwillofthe
peopleofGhana.
AkotoAmpawisaprivatelegalpractitionerbasedinAccra.
H.KwasiPrempehisalegalpolicyandruleoflawandgovernanceconsultantbased
inTema.
Postscript
On13thJuly2016,theElectoralCommissionannouncedtothegeneralpublic,
throughitsDirectorofElectoralServices,oneSamuelTettey,itstimetablein
respectofthedeletionofthenamesofNHIScardregistrantsfromtheregisterof
votersandtheirre-registrationwheretheysatisfytheeligibilityconditions.TheEC,
atthesametimeannounced,itstime-tablefortheexhibitionofprovisionalvoters
registertoenableregistrantsverifytheirnamesontheregister.Thereareobviously
worryingaspectoftheprogrammeannouncedthatneedtobeaddressed.
Accordingtotheannouncedtime-table,theEChaddeletedthenamesof56,772
personswhoregisteredusingNHHIScardsfromtheregisterofvotersandwould
publicizethenamesofthesepersonsinoneofthedailies,atthedistrictregistration
centresandatmunicipalanddistrictassemblyofficeson15thJuly2016.From18th
July2016,itwouldcommencethere-registrationofthosewhohavenameshadbeen
deletedsubjecttotheirmeetingtheeligibilitycriteria.There-registrationexercise
wouldendon12thAugust2016.Atthesametimefrom18thJuly2016,theECwould
commencetheprocessofexhibitionoftheregisterofvotersforaperiodofthree
weekstoendon7thAugust,2016.
Thefirstdifficultywiththisprogrammeasannouncedisthatitdoesnotmake
provisionforthedisplayattheirregistrationcentresofthenamesofthosewhose
nameshavebeendeletedfromthevotersregister.Thus,unless,theaffected
personsreadtheirnamesinthedailies,theECswebsiteorgotothemetropolitan,
municipalordistrictofficesoftheEC,theywouldhavenomeansofknowingthat
theirnameshavebeendeletedfromtheregistersotheycanre-register,subjectto
satisfyingtheeligibilitycriteria.
Tocomplicatematters,noticeofthedeletionofnameswillbegivenonlythree(3)
daysbeforere-registrationcommencesonthe18thofJuly2016.Tofurther
confoundissues,theexhibitionofthevotersregisterwillbetakingplace,moreor
less,concurrently(atthesametime)withthere-registrationofthosewhonames
havebeendeletedfromtheregister.Finally,thereistobetheexhibitionofthe
registerofthosewhore-registerbetween5thand7thAugust2016.
Thequestioniswhenwillthefinalvotersregister,inclusiveofthosewhosenames
weredeletedandwhore-registered,beexhibitedforverificationbyallregistered
voters?Itwouldseemthatthejumblethatthetwoexercisesareenmeshedinis
becausetheECisindangerofbeingcaughtbyRegulation9(4)ofC.I.91which
providesthattheECshallnotincludeintheregisterofvotersthenameofaperson
whoqualifiestoregisterasavoterforanelectionbutwhoregisterslessthansixty
daystothatelection.
Thus,inordernottobecaughtbythe60daysdeadline,theECnowhastorushto
dothenotificationofdeletionofnamesfromtheregister,there-registrationand
theexhibitionofthevotersregister,all,moreorless,atthesametime.
ItisclearthattheEChasalloweditselftobecaughtinthispredicamentbecauseof
itsintransigenceinnotcomplyingwiththedecisionoftheSupremeCourtasfar
backas30thJuly,2014,ontheunconstitutionalityofregistrationofpersonswho
usedtheNHIScardtoregisterasvoters.
Sharethisarticle
5
Share(s)
LeaveaComment
nocomments
Leaveacomment...
SortbyNewest
Whatothersarereading
TwoKNUSTstudents ECreadytoworkwith "NPPhasprovenits Stanchartintroduces

winawards December7date anti-Ghanabehavior" newOnlineUser
byrejectingNov7 Interface,MobileApp
KofiAdams
Werecommend
Promoted Promoted
3squaremeals,snacks LivingWithMS:Never InsideAsiedua'schest: Cybercrimeisontherise
andBrazilianhair GivingUp Pregnantformysister's Howtoprotect

HealthCentral husbandPt.3 yourselforyour
VisitDenmarkonThe
Guardian
Promoted Promoted
IfImarriedasexaddict, SuperyachtTrends Turkeycharges99top Aged35andspeaks11
Iwouldbehisantidote MansionGlobal officialsovercoup languageshis11tricks
Nollywoodactress tolearnanylanguage
Babbel
Recommendedby
EDUCATION LIFESTYLE TRAVEL OBITUARY ODDNEWS
CHASScriticisedfor Menopausecanbe Passengerkickedoff Mrs.RebeccaBorley Meetthegirlbornwith

undulyblaminggov'tfor 'reversed,'scientistsclaim flightafterattendant Baddoo(Borquaye) noarmsorlegswholives
failuretopayarrears announced:I'llbe inaplasticbowl
watchingyou
Home MoreSections Media Social Myjoyonline Services

News Entertainment AudioonDemand RSSFeeds Advertise Contactus
Politics Elections PhotoGallery Twitter OnlineTeam Feedback
Business Health OnlineRadio Facebook PrivacyPolicy Ourdailybread
Sports Science VideosOnDemand Youtube
WorldNews Automobile LiveTV Google+
Opinion Technology Instagram

Ghana News - Abu Ramadan III - Clarification Ruling & Orders & The EC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ghana News - Abu Ramadan III - Clarification Ruling & Orders & The EC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

21/07/2016 GhanaNewsAbuRamadanIIIClarificationruling&orders&theEC

TwoKNUSTstudents ECreadytoworkwith "NPPhasprovenits Stanchartintroduces

andBrazilianhair GivingUp Pregnantformysister's Howtoprotect

EDUCATION LIFESTYLE TRAVEL OBITUARY ODDNEWS

CHASScriticisedfor Menopausecanbe Passengerkickedoff Mrs.RebeccaBorley Meetthegirlbornwith

Home MoreSections Media Social Myjoyonline Services

Opinion Technology Instagram

Вам также может понравиться