Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By William Yaw Owusu
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
The Electoral Commission (EC) has been sued once again, this time
over the conduct of the special voting reserved for certain public officials,
security agencies and other people who have election-related assignments on
December 7.
The new court action against the EC is asking the electoral body to
declare the results of the special voting ahead of the main elections to allay
any fear of tampering with the ballots.
The plaintiffs, Dr. Kwame Amoako Tuffuor, Benjamin Arthur and Adreba Abrefa Damoa, argue that Section
23 of C.I. 94 - the law which regulates the conduct of the 2016 general
election - is inconsistent with Article 49 of the 1992 Constitution.
There is a flurry of suits against the EC over the conduct of this
year’s polls as many of the political parties which flag bearers were disqualified
from the crucial electoral contest have already gone to court to compel the
commission to reinstate their candidates.
Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom’s Progressive People’s Party (PPP) and Nana
Konadu Agyemang Rawlings’ National Democratic Party (NDP) are in court as well
as Dr. Edward Mahama’s People’s National Convention (PNC), while the likes of
Hassan Ayariga of APC and Dr. Henry Lartey of GCPP are threatening legal action
against the commission.
Again, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Thursday, October
27, in a case in which a former Director of Research at Parliament, Kwesi
Nyame-Tease Eshun, is seeking to compel the EC to allow candidates or their
agents to append their signatures on the constituency collation sheets and also
be given copies.
Special Vote
Count
In the instant suit, three individuals - Dr. Kwame Amoako Tuffuor,
Benjamin Arthur and Adreba Abrefa Damoa - want the court to compel the EC to
count ballots cast on the day of special voting as provided for by Regulation
23 of the Public Elections Regulations, 2016; CI.94 which is a part of public elections.
The plaintiffs, who cited the Attorney General as one of the
defendants, want a declaration that “upon a true and proper interpretation of
Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, the ballots to
be cast pursuant to Regulation 23(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9)
and (10) of the Public Elections Regulations, 2016; CI.94 by special voters in
the December, 2016 presidential and parliamentary elections, ought to be
counted and announced there and then on the date(s) of the special voting by
the presiding officers and the results at each polling station before
communicating same to the returning officer.”
They want a further declaration that “Regulation 23(11) of Public
Elections Regulations, 2016; CI.94 is inconsistent with Article 49 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.”
Public
Elections Regulations
The plaintiffs are requesting for a further order to strike down “Regulation
23(11) of Public Elections Regulations, 2016; CI.94 as being in contravention
of Article 49(2),(3)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, and
therefore unconstitutional,” as well as another
“order directed at 1st defendant to comply with the
provisions of Article 49(2), (3)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Republic
of Ghana in respect of special voting for the 2016 presidential and
parliamentary elections and any subsequent public election in the Republic of
Ghana.”
Special Voting
Day
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs aver that the EC has set
aside a day for special voters for the December elections to vote prior to the
day set aside as polling day as directed by Regulation 23(4) of C.I. 94. The
commission has received applications from voters intending to vote as special
voters and further set aside a date for them to vote before December 7.
“It is plaintiffs’ respectful contention that the ‘special voting’
procedure and provisions thereof are part of the ‘public election’ provided for
at Article 49 of the Constitution, in the following words and is therefore
subject to all constitutional injunctions relating to counting of votes,
recording of votes cast, signing by polling agents and announcement of the
results at the polling station before
communication of same to the returning officer.”
The plaintiffs posit, “All that Regulation 23(11) of C.I. 94 does is
that it places itself above Article 49 of the Constitution and tramples on its
provisions thereof with utmost impunity.”
EC
Communication
They claim that C.I. 94 is subject to the constitution and is
provided for in Article 1(2) and added that in the instant action, the conduct
of the EC in communicating its intention pursuant to CI 94 not to declare the
results of the special voting for the 2016 elections until polling day is
unconstitutional in the light of the provisions of Article 49 of the
Constitution.
High Stakes
The plaintiffs assert that the stakes in the December general
election “are too high to leave matters of the nature which form the basis of
this suit the way they are.” They point out, “The issue of special votes and
where they would be kept until polling day without any tampering with same before
same are added to the ballots cast on polling day for counting is likely to
trigger yet another election petition.”
“To brazenly let any provision of C.I. 94 regarding special voting
override Article 94 of the Constitution, in the name of an unprovable fear of
victimisation of special voters is to assert that in spite of the strides made
in over 20 years of constitutionalism, we still creep at the repercussions of
our legitimate democratic choices,” the plaintiffs argued, adding, “Security
officers vote for and against governments or opposition parties during
elections. No fetish should be made about this fact.”
No comments:
Post a Comment