A Ghanaian constitutional law professor based in the United States of America (USA),Professor Kwaku Asare, has stated that there is no ambiguity regarding the Supreme Court ruling on expunction of National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) registrants from the voters’ register.
He wondered why some sects of the public are trying to make a fuss about the ruling.
“There is no ambiguity regarding orders the court made, there is no ambiguity whatsoever, it’s very clear and I’m surprised the public seem to be creating ambiguity when none exist,” he insisted.
“There is no confusion, just because someone put a spin on an order that is clear does not mean that there is confusion or a controversy,” he stated.
The Supreme Court ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to delete NHIS card registrants from the voters’ register but some sects of the public have given different interpretations on the ruling.
Prof. Asare described Justice Jones Dotse as a fair-minded Judge who will not say anything to undermine the delivery of justice.
He indicated that “it is so clear as a court can get on a matter and that is what I think Justice Dotse was saying. He was not saying anything new, he was not interpreting opinion, Justice Dotse is a very thoughtful person, fair-minded Judge, and he will not say anything to undermine the administration of justice”.
“All he was saying was reading for the public what is clear on page 33, there is no doubt about anything at all,” he said.
“The ultimate conclusion the court is saying is that this NHIS is unconstitutional, problematic, doesn’t belong to the voters’ register and must be cleaned or deleted immediately,” Prof. Asare said.
“In order not to disenfranchise people, anyone whose name is deleted must be given the opportunity to regularise their registration. There is no controversy at all,’ he asserted and added it was wrong for the court to declare that the ruling is not automatically void.
Prof. Asare explained that once something is declared unconstitutional, then it’s automatically void, so the declaration by the court that it’s not automatically void is problematic and pointed out that there is a problem with the process the court used in arriving at the decision.