Wednesday, January 23, 2013

NANA VRS MAHAMA - NDC JOINS FIGHT


Nana Akufo-Addo leaves the court yesterday

Posted on : www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday January 23, 2013.

The Supreme Court yesterday in 6 – 3 majority decision ruled that the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) can join to be part of the petition challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as President.

The nine-member panel Chaired by Justice William Atuguba therefore directed the NDC, which had filed the motion for joinder, to file their answer to the petition by New Patriotic Party (NPP) presidential candidate and two others within seven days of receipt of the petitioner’s process.

The case was subsequently adjourned until January 29 for hearing, to enable the NDC enter the fray as the 3rd respondent to the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey petition.

Per the rules of the court, the decision of this landmark case is final and not subject to any form of review and the NDC is officially part of the case as respondent.

Initially, the case J8/31/2013 had Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate Dr. Bawumia and NPP Chairman Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey were the petitioner with President Mahama and Electoral Commission as respondents but as it is now the NDC becomes the 3rd respondent.

Justices Atuguba, Sophia O. Adinyira, Rose C. Owusu, Jones Victor Dotse, Sule N. Gbadegbe and Vida Akoto-Bamfo ruled that the applicant (NDC) should join the case as a necessary party while Julius Ansah, Anin-Yeboah and Paul Baffoe-Bonnie said the NDC failed to demonstrate that it was a necessary party and should not be allowed to join the case.

When the case was called, Justice Atuguba told anxious audience that Justice Akoto Bamfo was to read the ‘lead opinion’.

Each judge then took turns to explain his/her position on the NDC’s joinder, with some giving reasons for their decision while others deferred their reason.

All the judges gave different interpretations to the rationale behind joinder applications and went ahead to apply the law as it relates to the NDC application.

Majority View
Justice Akoto Bamfo said that even though counsel for the petitioners “mounted an attack” on rules under which the NDC came to court to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, the applicant was protected under the 1992 Constitution.

She said that in as much as the challenge by the petitioners is a constitutional matter, the NDC had also properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction to join the case.

‘A necessary party’
Turning her attention to who is a ‘necessary party’, the judge said that the averments of the applicant is obvious that they nominated and sponsored the 1st respondent (President Mahama) as their candidate in the December 7, 2012 general elections and once the respondent’s election is being challenged, the NDC becomes a necessary party.

She said if the NDC is not allowed to join and the court makes it decision, it could affect their interest as a party that nominated and sponsored the 1st respondent to contest the election.

The judge said it is obvious that political parties are integral part of the democratic dispensation and political process as espoused by Article 55 of the 1992 Constitution.

The judge said that it is a ‘notorious fact’ that the petitioners (Nana, and Bawumia) and the 1st respondent (President Mahama) were nominated by their respective political parties and they campaigned and sold their ideas and programmes to the electorate saying “Under this system of governance political parties play a major role.”

She said it will not be just for the NDC who sponsored a candidate  (Mahama) and whose election is being challenged to be asked to sit on the fence and added that should the court come to the conclusion that the election should be re-run, the same candidates will go back to their respective parties to restart campaigns.

Who is a citizen?
The judge interpreted that an applicant may not be a citizen but could file to join such a case, adding that a political party whose rights are enshrined in the constitution, who sponsored a candidate must not be denied its constitutional rights.

Justice Akoto Bamfo said that it was obvious that the 3rd petitioner (Jake) is in court to protect the interest of his party and the NDC are doing same.

Atuguba Concurs
Concurring, Justice Atuguba said the rules for joinder should not be restricted and added the C.I. 16 should be looked at in its broader sense.

He said that “Rule 45 (4) under which the applicant comes falls under the court’s original jurisdiction,” adding “applicant rightly brought application under C.I. 16.”

The panel chairman said there is a danger of “leaving statutes disjointedly and must be read inter alia under Article 55 of the Constitution”, if the applicant’s case is to be appreciated properly.

He said the rule are clear that political parties are enjoined to sponsor candidates for office apart from District Assemblies and others adding “the office of president is within the confines where a political party is can sponsor a candidate.”

He mentioned that Article 297 (c) talks about the stakes of parties in government while Articles 76 and 78 talks about how state institutions should treat political parties and in all of them, the NDC’s rights must be respected.

He also said that Articles 55 (2) and (10) gives every citizen the right to join any political party of choice or participate in any political activity adding that a political party has constitutional rights to field candidates to contest any public office including the office of the President.

He said the petitioners described and identified themselves as coming from a particular party and that the applicant is also seeking to give practical effect to its involvement in the political process.

He said that the purpose for joinder is to ensure that any issue regarding the case is ‘effectively and completely’ determined so that the court’s decision will be binding on all the parties.

He said the NDC has a ‘very real interest’ as sponsor of the 1st respondent (Mahama) and they (NDC) would better assist the court to resolve the matter adding, “the applicant’s joinder cannot be superfluous.”

Justice Atuguba however, made it clear that the court could not be intimidated by the respondent’s threats to bring 4,800 witnesses because the court has specific rules to cater for that.

Adinyira Concurs
Justice Adinyira who concurred with the majority also said that “it is just and convenient that all the parties should be bound by the decision of the court.”

Owusu Concurs
Justice Owusu, also a member of the majority said the grant of such application is discretional but after assessing the strength of the affidavit she concurred with the majority that the NDC should be made to join the case.

“The applicant is seeking to join the petition on its own intervention so it is called an intervener.”

“It is apparent in the face of the affidavit of the applicant and the petitioners and I find that the applicant has some interest. They are directly to be affected.”

Dotse Concurs
Justice Dotse, another member of the majority said he concurred with his colleagues that the NDC  should be allowed to join to the petition because “a lot of injustice will be done to the applicant and the development of the law in general if they are not allowed to be joined.”

He also supported Justice Atuguba’s assertion that the court will put appropriate measures in place to ensure that the case is not unduly delayed.

Gbadegbe Concurs
Justice Gbadegbe said he agreed with the majority’s view but said “I reserve my conclusion.”

Minority Position
Then came the three justices who dissented starting with Justice Baffoe-Bonnie.

Baffoe-Bonnie Dissents
He said, “I am still not convinced that the applicant (NDC) are a necessary party to be joined in this petition. I find the application unmeritorious.”

 “The the applicant’s (NDC) averments clearly shows that they are only an interested party and no more. They have not shown that they are a necessary party.”

He said that the court was looking at the petitioner as one whose presence would help to effectually and completely deal with the case or one whose exclusion will not serve the interest of justice.

He said the 1st respondent’s (President Mahama) has a higher stake than the NDC because it is the President’s election which is being challenged and the NDC has no business being part of the case.

Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said that the petitioners have not sought any reliefs against the NDC for them to join the case.

He said he looked carefully at the political parties law and others and still did not see how any other statute “makes the NDC a necessary party.”

“I have looked at the law. It is a straight fight between human persons and not between political parties,” he said.

He said that if by the rules, a losing party cannot seek to join the petition then he did not see the reason why the majority could decide that the NDC can join in the name of ‘pluralism and multipartism’ adding “it is obvious discrimination.”

“The applicant has only demonstrated that they have interest in the outcome but not a necessary party who without them there cannot be effectual and complete disposal of the petition.”

Minority stance on who is a citizen
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie said that statutory order makes it clear that political parties cannot file petition but can be done by human persons adding “surely if you don’t have the capacity to sue you must lack the capacity to sue.”

He said in this matter, the law restricts the word ‘include’ when it comes to those who have the capacity to sue or challenge an election petition saying “it excludes the NDC who no claim has been made against.”

He said the 1st respondent has been added to the petition because the law specifically mentions him and added that if the President resigns from the NDC today, he will continue to be President but that cannot apply in the case of an MP and that is the reason why the NDC cannot takeover seek to join the case when President Mahama is the one directly affected.

Annin-Yeboah Dissents
Justice Annin-Yeboah in his support for the minority’s decision said that “I don’t think that any of the factual deposition to the applicant’s affidavit is not denying that the 1st respondent stood on the applicant’s ticket.”

He said that there are three channels through which an applicant can be joined in a case. It is either by the court’s order, by a request from the parties or by an application by an interested party who becomes an intervener according to the court’s rules and clearly the NDC had applied to join as an intervener saying “this is joinder of intervener.”

He said that in this case however, a non-joinder of an intervener will not affect the case in anyway and added that “the applicant failed to justify to the court that they are a necessary party.”

He said there was no attempt made by the NDC to define a ‘necessary party’ as the majority is portraying them saying “the applicant has not demonstrated that without its presence the court cannot effectively dispose off the case.”

“The rule does not provide any rule for an intervener,” and went ahead to state that in the Ekwam vrs Pianim case it was the court that ordered the NPP to join because the reliefs sought directly affected the NPP.

Ansah Dissents
Justice Ansah also supported the minority’s position. He said “I agree that this application must be dismissed.”

He said the petition is properly constituted before the court and the action can be completed without the presence of the applicant.

No comments: