Supreme Court to hear appeal against EC

June 28, 2008 (Page 31)

THE Supreme Court will on July 15, 2008 hear an appeal filed by the Electoral Commission (EC) which is seeking interpretation into a case brought against it by three members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) on the publication of the 2004 presidential results.
The court, presided over by Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, fixed the date after directing parties in the matter to serve the Attorney-General in order for him to respond appropriately to issues raised.
Other panel members are Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Dr Justice Date Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mrs Sophia Adinyira.
The plaintiffs, Mr Rojo Mettle-Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu (retd) and Mr Kofi Portuphy, all members of the NDC, have sued the EC at the Fast Track High Court in Accra claiming that the commission was bound by law to publish the full and complete results of the December 7, 2004 presidential election.
They claim that the EC failed to gazette the 2004 presidential election as required by the law.
However, the EC stated that the Fast Track High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and accordingly decided to take the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Consequently, the Supreme Court in 2006 ordered the Fast Track High Court to refer the matter to it for interpretation.
The Supreme Court’s order followed the decision of the trial judge at the Fast Track High Court to take evidence, look at disputed facts, re-look at the constitutional provisions being sought and then take a decision before referring the matter to the Supreme Court for hearing.
The Accra Fast Track High Court had since adjourned the case sine die, pending the outcome of the appeal at the Supreme Court.
The EC is seeking interpretation into the matter which resulted in the Supreme Court ordering the trial judge to refer the matter to it for interpretation.
The court, accordingly, reminded the defendant that it had the right to appeal if, at the end of the day, the court refused to make the referral being sought for.
It further reminded the defendant that it had the right to appeal against the court’s decision not to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
The court, on December 14, 2005, ordered the EC not to destroy any electoral material relating to the December 7, 2004 presidential election until the final determination of a suit brought against it by the three members of the NDC.
The court order followed a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In a statement of claim accompanying the writ, the plaintiffs prayed the court to declare as illegal the refusal or neglect of the EC to publish the results.
The plaintiffs further urged the court to give an order “compelling the defendant to publish the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004 in the Ghana Gazette or by any method permitted by law”.
The three further prayed the court to compel the EC to furnish them with the details of the total number of registered voters, total number of voters and total number of valid votes counted from the 21,005 polling stations, as well as the distribution of the valid votes cast among all the presidential candidates, the total number of rejected ballots, the percentage of valid votes for each presidential candidate, the voter turn out, among other reliefs.
According to the plaintiffs, they would contend that the failure of the defendant to publish the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004, together with the details of the results, was an infringement on the provisions of Article 45 of the 1992 Constitution and Section Two of Act 451 which imposed on the EC the duty of the conduct and supervision of all public elections and referenda in the country.
They contended that the EC had also infringed on the electoral laws of the country by failing to publish the results in detail.
The EC, on the other hand, stated that the two press conferences which declared the winner of the presidential election were based on the fact that more than 50 per cent of the total number of valid votes had been cast in favour of His Excellency John Agyekum Kufuor, adding, “And regarding the total votes in the remaining constituencies , even if all were cast in favour of the second-placed candidate, Professor J. E. A. Mills, there would have been no change in the result.”
The EC contended that it had performed its constitutional duty by publishing the Declaration of President-elect Instrument, 2004.
A statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendant by Lynes Quashie-Idun and Company, legal practitioners, described as misconceived the plaintiffs’ declaration that the EC had failed to perform its constitutional duty, adding that “the defendant contends that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (10) of the 1992 Constitution, any citizen who was aggrieved by, or dissatisfied with, the declaration contained in the Declaration of President-Elect Instrument, 2004 had 21 days within which to present a petition to the Supreme Court in challenge of the said declaration”.






.