Assembly Member seeks to annul election of Presiding Member

By William Yaw Owusu

Friday January 26, 2007
An Assembly Member for the Balobia Electoral Area in the Kasena Nankana District of the Upper East Region has petitioned the Bolgatanga High Court to restrain the Presiding Member of the assembly from performing his functions since the membership of the assembly exceeds the 30 percent appointees stipulated by law.

Mr. Daniel Kansaki, who filed the suit against Mr. Sylvester Amoah and the Co-ordinating Director of the Kasena Nankana District Assembly (KNDA) in Navrongo, says the assembly was not properly constituted before the Presiding Member was elected into office.

The plaintiff wants a declaration that the election of Mr. Amoah as the Presiding Member of the District is void.

He also wants an injunction to restrain the Mr. Amoah from carrying himself and performing the functions of a presiding Member for the district.

In the petition, Mr. Kansaki said by virtue of the rules governing the KNDA and Article 242 of the 1992 Constitution, the assembly was to be consist of 54 elected members, two Members of Parliament, the District Chief Executive and 24 government appointees to make a total of 81 members.

He averred that in October last year at the inauguration of the assembly the Co-ordinating Director allegedly allowed 25 persons instead of 24 to sit as government appointees, bringing the total to 82 members.

“Since the coming into force of the constitution, the KNDA has always been constituted with 81 members including 24 government appointees”, adding that “in 1997 when the then government attempted to appoint 25, the elected members protested and the number was reduced to 24”.

The plaintiff further averred that the constitution required the appointment of not more than 30 percent of members from the government and the 24 was the exact composition.

“When a protest was raised on the issue of more than 30 percent appointment was raised, Co-ordinating Director explained they decided to add an extra number to take care of the traditional authorities and claimed he could not remove the chief once appointed”.

“Whereas a percentage less than 30 will be within the constitutional provision, anything more than 30 is a clear violation and an illegality”.

The plaintiff averred that “the illegality of the composition of the assembly for the purpose of the election was done with the knowledge and consent or Mr. Amoah and those who nominated and proposed him”.

But in a statement of defence, the defendants contended that even though there were 25 government appointees, they did not breach the rule, saying “the presiding member was duly elected”.

“When the issue of government appointees was raised on October 30, last year, it was the DCE who explained that the 25th appointee was to cater for the traditional authorities”

They said it did not exceed the number required by the Legislative Instrument (LI) 1445 and therefore at the said meeting accepted the composition of the assembly before proceeding to elect the Presiding Member.