Bernard Mornah, General Secretary of the PNC
Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Friday February 1, 2013
The Supreme Court
yesterday adjourned sine die (indefinitely), the case in which Bernard Mornah,
General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC) is seeking the
annulment of Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 74.
The C.I. 74 is the instrument
being used to regulate disputes arising out of the December 7 & 8, 2012
general elections.
The seven-member panel
chaired by Justice Julius Ansah adjourned the case because Mr. Mornah, who is
said to have been tipped as a deputy minister in the NDC administration, had
not filed what is termed as ‘Memorandum of Issues” before the sitting.
Representation
The PNC General
Secretary was in court with his lawyers: Benson Nutsupkui, James Agalga who has
won the Builsa North seat for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and Alhaji
Hudu Yahaya, a former General-Secretary of the NDC.
Panel
Apart from Justice
Ansah, other Justices on the panel were Sophia O.
Adinyira, Rose C. Owusu, Anin-Yeboah, Sule N. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto-Bamfo and
A.A Benin.
The application had
been filed in late December 2012 by Raymond Atuguba, the man who was recently
appointed as Executive Secretary to President John Mahama in late 2012.
The action come in the
wake of the petition filed by the New Patriotic Party
(NPP) presidential candidate Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and two others to challenge
the validity of the election of Mr. Mahama as President.
Even before the matter
is determined, some conspiracy theorists are beginning to contemplate that the
PNC general-secretary’s move is to ‘scatter’ the NPP’s attempt to seek justice
in the election they described as ‘fixed’ in favour of the President.
Mr. Mornah’s suit filed
on December 30, 2012 cites the Attorney-General who was represented by Principal
State Attorney Sylvester Williams as the defendant.
Reliefs
Sought
He is seeking a
declaration that “on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 133, 157,
93(2) and 11 of the 1992 Constitution; Rule 71B, a portion of Rule 69C (5) and
a portion of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) are
unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no effect.”
He also wants “any
consequential orders” that the highest court of the land may deem fit.”
Facts
of the Case
In the facts of the case, the PNC General Secretary
averred that in early December 2012, he noticed that Rule 71B and a portion of
Rule 69C (5) “do not appear to be consistent with
provisions of the 1992 Constitution.”
He said consequently he
sought legal advice and now brings the action to “declare Rule
71B and a portion of Rule 69C (5) of C.I. 74
unconstitutional.”
The plaintiff insisted
that he has the capacity to initiate the action and cited the case of “Dr.
Clement Apaak v. Electoral Commission and Attorney-General” to back his claim.
Mr. Mornah said the
unconstitutionality of Rule 71B of C.I. 74 stems from the fact that Article 133
has come to provide “a right to every potential and actual party to a suit in
the Supreme Court to apply for a review of a decision of the Supreme Court,”
adding “ and in that regard, the party must benefit from the attention of at
least seven Supreme Court judges and no less.”
“To the extent that
Rule 71B of C.I. 74 seeks to extinguish the constitutional right in Article 133
of the Constitution to seek a review of a decision of the Supreme Court in
Presidential election petitions, same is unconstitutional, null and void, and
of no effect and the plaintiff requests this Honourable court to so declare.”
On the
unconstitutionality of a part of Rule 69C (5) of C.I. 74, the PNC General
Secretary said “Given the hierarchy of norms provided for in Article 11 of the
constitution, it is unconstitutional for C.I. 74, a piece of subordinate
legislation, to contradict the Public Holiday Act, an act of Parliament.”
The plaintiff said that
“the Rule of Court Committee does not have the power to make rules to regulate
‘practice and procedure’ under Article 64 which have no effect of obviating and
extinguishing a substantive rule of law on holidays in Ghana.”
“It is unconstitutional for the Rule of Court
Committee to arrogate itself the power to amend Acts of Parliament. That power
is reserved for Parliament by Article 93 (2) of the constitution.”
No comments:
Post a Comment