The Supreme Court will not deliver judgement on June 23 in the case, in which the National Democratic Congress (NDC) sued the Attorney General and the (EC) over the exclusion of existing voters’ identification card in the upcoming mass voters’ registration exercise.
This is because another person has filed a suit against the defendants asking the court to declare that the EC can only compile a voters’ register once and subsequently revise it.
The SC has consolidated the two cases during proceedings on Friday and asked the plaintiff to file witness statement before noon on Monday.
The court also asked the defendants to file their statement of case before the close of work on Tuesday, June 24.
The case has been adjourned to Wednesday, June 25 for hearing.
On March 26, 2020, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) dragged the Attorney-General and the EC to the apex court over the decision by the Commission to compile a fresh electoral roll for the December 7, 2020 polls.
The EC had stated that it would compile a new voters’ register for the Presidential and Parliamentary elections because the existing register was incurably defective for purpose.
But the NDC, the biggest opposition political party in Ghana insisted that the exclusion of existing voters’ ID card as a form of identification to obtain a new voters’ ID card was unconstitutional.
In its writ which seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of the SC, the NDC asked the court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 45(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC has the constitutional power to, and can, compile a register of voters only once, and thereafter revise it periodically, as may be determined by law.
The plaintiff urged the court to order the EC to include all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the EC as one of the documents serving as proof of identification for registration for the purposes of public elections.
The writ, filed by counsel for the NDC, Mr Godwin KudzoTamakloe further asked the SC for a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, specifically article 51 read conjointly with article 42 of the Constitution, the power of the EC to compile and review the voters’ register must be exercised subject to respect for and the protection of the right to vote.
The party want the court to hold that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 42, upon the registration of and issuance of a voter identification card to a person, that person has an accrued right to vote which cannot be divested in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution particularly Article 42 of the Constitution, all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the EC to registered voters are valid for purposes of identifying such persons in the exercise of their right to vote.
It urged the court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Article 42, the 2nd Defendant’s purported amendment of Regulation 1 sub-regulation 3 of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) 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.
Meanwhile, the A-G in its response filed by Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, a Deputy A-G stated that the reliefs endorsed on the plaintiff’s writ of summons are not only procedurally incompetent, but also not cognisable as reliefs that may properly be applied for pursuant “to this Court’s original jurisdiction under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the Constitution, and therefore ought to be struck out.
The defendant contended that the instant action neither raises any real issue(s) for constitutional interpretation nor properly invokes the enforcement jurisdiction of the court.
“Further, we find support in the prohibition contained in the rules of this Court for a relief pursuant to this Court’s original jurisdiction, to be nebulous and argumentative.”
The defendant argued that the first palpable absurdity with the plaintiff’s difficult endeavor to raise a strained constitutional issue “in this matter is the plaintiff’s proposition that the words “….at such periods as may be determined by law” in Article 45(a) apply to only the revision of the voters register, and not its compilation.”
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
