Monday, October 1, 2012

Nima rioters remanded in custody

September 21, 2012 THIRTEEN rival youth groups from two communities in Accra were today remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court for allegedly rioting and causing unlawful damage. The accused persons, who belonged to rival groups in Nima and Mamobi both suburbs in Accra, were picked up by a joint military and police patrol team on September 17, 2012 around 3:30 a.m. They are Bashiru Aminu, Sule Issah, Ibrahim Issah, Ishmael Awuni Cobbina, Rashid Mustapha, Yaazo Tutema, Ibrahim Yakubu, Mustapha Dauda, Issah Naari, Kabutey Ocansey, Karim Baroa, Danlard Mohammed and Mohammadu Abubakar. The 13 accused persons who were members of the two rival groups were alleged to have wielded deadly weapons, including machetes, locally manufactured guns and clubs. The two groups were said to have attended a party at a club at Adabraka on the night of September 16, 2012 where the confusion broke out between them. In the process, they caused riot, obstructed vehicular traffic, damaged the windscreens of two vehicles including one belonging to the the Ghana Police Service. They each pleaded not guilty to three counts of riot and causing unlawful damage and were remanded to reappear on October 4, 2012. According to the prosecution, on September 17, 2012, one of the complainants in the case, a taxi driver rushed to the Nima Divisional Police station and reported that his taxi cab had been attacked by a group of thugs who had blocked the main Nima/Mamobi road with stones and tables. The taxi driver also informed the police that the thugs had snatched his cellular phone and in the process smashed his vehicle’s windscreen. The patrol team rushed to the scene upon receipt of the information but they met stiff opposition from the angry youth who allegedly broke the windscreen of a police patrol vehicle with registration number GP 2239. On realising the seriousness of the unruly behaviour of the thugs, the police fired warning shots in a bid to disperse the crowd. To ensure that the unruly behaviour of the rival groups was brought under total control, a re-inforcement of military personnel was dispatched to the scene to restore law and order. The 13 accused persons were subsequently picked up and arraigned before the court after investigations. END.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Furore over 45 constituencies - NO WAY - Supreme Court refuses injunction

September 20, 2012 (Lead story) THE Supreme Court yesterday dismissed an application that sought to restrain Parliament from sitting on Constitutional Instrument 78 (CI 78) which seeks to create 45 constituencies for the 2012 general election. “Parliament is completely privileged from judicial intervention,” the presiding judge, Mr Justice Julius Ansah held and submitted that the state stood a greater chance of suffering an irreparable loss should Parliament be stopped from performing its statutory functions and in the end the applicant lost the substantive suit. The court held that the electoral process would be grounded to a halt “and the nation a whole would suffer” should the EC in the interim, be stopped from performing its statutory function and in the long run won the case. Citing legal authorities to justify the court’s ruling on a interlocutory injunction which prayed the court to restrain Parliament from contemplating on C.I. 78, the presiding judge held that “I, myself would be unable to grant the interlocutory injunction. It will be unjust and inconceivable to so.” A businessman, Mr Ransford France, had entreated the Supreme Court to restrain Parliament from considering C.I. 78 which has been laid and is expected to mature on October 3, 2012 until the final determination of a suit he had filed against the creation of the new constituencies. The applicant went to court on July 6, 2012 imploring the topmost court of the land to declare as unconstitutional and illegal the creation of 45 new constituencies by the Electoral Commission (EC). Also sued alongside the EC is the Attorney-General. According to Mr France, due process was not followed in the creation of the new constituencies. His substantive suit would be heard on October 4, 2012. Dismissing the motion, the court was of the view that it would have been improper for it to interfere in the work of Parliament, an independent body through an injunction. However, it quickly, reminded parties in the case that the mechanisms adopted by the EC in creating the C.I. 78 which were being challenged, could be annulled if the applicant eventually emerged victorious in the substantive case. “I hope parties would be present to do real legal battle on October 4, 2012,” Mr Justice Ansah intimated first legal hurdle on whether or not Parliament should be stopped from considering the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 C. I.78 will be cleared at the Supreme Court tomorrow (Wednesday, September 19, 2012). EC’s move to create the 45 new constituencies has received stiff opposition from the Minority in Parliament, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), former President J. E. A. Kufuor, a former Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo and several Ghanaians some of whom have filed various suits challenging the creation of the new constituencies. On September 12, 2012, lawyers for the parties in the case argued their cases for and against the motion for interlocutory injunction which is calling for Parliament to be restrained from considering the creation of the 45 new constituencies. A Supreme Court judge, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, had on that day questioned both sides if they could not reach a consensus on the matter but they both remained adamant. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghatey, moved the motion for interlocutory injunction while the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Dr Benjamin Kumbuor argued for the state. The EC was represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun. Mr Ghartey, submitted that C.I. 78 infringed on Articles 51 and 296 of the 1992 (c) Constitution because the EC failed to state the mode or manner in which it used its discretionary power to create the constituencies. He said serious issues were at stake because the constitution was being subverted by the defendants and until Parliament was restrained, grave harm would befall the applicant and other Ghanaians. Opposing the motion for interlocutory injunction, Dr Kumbuour said there was no clear indication that Parliament had committed an illegality adding that the laying of C.I. 78 was of public interest and was also time bound because there would be serious constitutional crisis if the time was not met. “If by January 8, 2013 the EC does not exercise its constitutional power we are likely to have no government in Parliament,” Dr Kumbuor maintained and said it was also not clear how much the applicant will be inconvenienced as against the national inconvenience that will be occasioned when Parliament was restrained. Justifying the EC’s action, Mr Quashie-Idun told the court that granting an injunction to Mr France would amount to “removing the EC from a moving train.” Counsel argued that in the event that the EC succeeded in the legal action, the lost time could not be regained continuing that the proper remedy for the applicant was to apply for judicial review in the event that he emerged victorious eventually. The leadership of Parliament and EC on August 14, 2012 agreed to withdraw CI 73 which was to establish 45 new constituencies on account of several fatal errors on the CI 73. It replaced the CI 73 which had matured after 21 sitting days with an amended one which was expected to mature in 21 Parliamentary sitting days. However, Parliament reconvened on September 3, 2012, withdrew C.I. 73 and replaced it with C.I. 77 which was eventually substituted with C. I. 78. In the substantive suit, the applicant is challenging the power of the EC to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying before Parliament, a constitutional instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. Counsel is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating new constituencies and or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it laid before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.

Challenge to new constituencies -Supreme Court rules today

September 19, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The first legal hurdle on whether or not Parliament should be stopped from considering the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 CI 78 is to be cleared at the Supreme Court today. A businessman, Mr Ransford France, is entreating the Supreme Court to restrain Parliament from considering CI 78 which has been laid and is expected to mature on October 3, 2012 until the final determination of a suit he has filed against the creation of the new constituencies. The applicant went to court on July 6, 2012, praying it to declare as unconstitutional and illegal the creation of 45 new constituencies by the Electoral Commission (EC). Also sued alongside the EC was the Attorney-General. According to Mr France, due process was not followed in the creation of the new constituencies. The EC’s move to create the 45 new constituencies has received stiff opposition from the Minority in Parliament, the Trades Union Congress(TUC), former President J. A. Kufuor, a former Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and several Ghanaians, some of whom have filed various suits challenging the creation of the new constituencies. On September 12, 2012, lawyers for the parties in the case argued their cases for and against the motion for interlocutory injunction calling for Parliament to be restrained from considering the creation of the 45 new constituencies. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, had, on that day, asked both sides if they could not reach a consensus on the matter, but they both remained adamant. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, moved the motion for interlocutory injunction, while the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, argued for the state. The EC was represented by Mr James Quarshie-Idun. Mr Ghartey submitted that CI 78 infringed on articles 51 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution because the EC failed to state the mode or manner in which it used its discretionary power to create the constituencies. He said serious issues were at stake because the Constitution was being subverted by the defendants and that until Parliament was restrained, grave harm would befall the applicant and other Ghanaians. Opposing the motion, Dr Kunbuor said there was no clear indication that Parliament had committed an illegality, adding that the laying of CI 78 was of public interest and was also time bound because there would be serious constitutional crisis if the time was not met. “If, by January 8, 2013, the EC does not exercise its constitutional power, we are likely to have no government in Parliament,” he maintained, and said it was also not clear how much the applicant would be inconvenienced, as against the national inconvenience that would be occasioned when Parliament was restrained. Justifying the EC’s action, Mr Quarshie-Idun told the court that granting an injunction would amount to “removing the EC from a moving train”. Counsel argued that in the event that the EC succeeded in the legal action, the lost time could not be regained, pointing out that the proper remedy for the applicant was to apply for judicial review in the event that he emerged victorious. The leadership of Parliament and the EC, on August 14, 2012, agreed to withdraw CI 73 which was to establish the 45 new constituencies on account of several errors in it. It replaced CI 73, which had matured after 21 sitting days, with an amended one which was expected to mature in 21 parliamentary sitting days. However, Parliament reconvened on September 3, 2012, withdrew CI 73 and replaced it with CI 77, which was eventually substituted with CI 78. In the substantive suit, the applicant is challenging the power of the EC to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying before Parliament a constitutional instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. He is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any CI creating new constituencies and or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2004 [CI 46] until it laid before Parliament a CI which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.

GCAA replaces instrument destroyed in plane crash

September 18, 2012 (Centre Spread) THE Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) has replaced the Instrument Landing System (ILS) which was destroyed by the Allied Air cargo aircraft which crashed at the El-wak stadium on June 2, 2012 at a cost of 1 million Euros. ILS facilities are a precise, highly accurate and dependable means of directing aircrafts to move towards the runway through the determination of aircraft position primarily by reference to instruments. In the interim, a short-range radio navigation system which enabled aircrafts to determine their position and stay on course by receiving radio signals is currently being used. The new ILS, which is currently undergoing trials and calibrations to ensure its accuracy, is expected to be commissioned by the end of the month. The Director-General of the GCAA, Air Commodore K. Mamphey, disclosed the amount involved to the Daily Graphic in a brief interview after the opening ceremony of a three-day workshop on air safety in Accra today. The GCAA is organizing the workshop in collaboration with the Ghana Airport Company Limited with the aim of focusing on practical measures to improve runway safety as well as providing greater awareness on the part of regulators, service providers, airlines and ground handlers as well as other aviation stakeholders. A total of 120 participants drawn from Ghana, Nigeria, Togo, Kenya, South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia among others are expected to deliberate on global and regional safety overview, operators accident analysis overview, state safety programme and runway incident analysis. Other topics to be tackled include landing on wet/contaminated runways and compliance with industry recommendations among many other subjects aimed at improving air safety on the continent. Briefing the participants, Air Commodore Mamphey, said the GCAA was in the process of adopting satellite navigation system as part of measures to further improve its air safety operations in the country. “Teamwork enhances safety, efficiency and promotes a reliable aviation industry. Hence issues of aviation safety must be a concern for all and we must be interested in supporting one another to reach this common goal especially as the jobs in the industry are interconnected,” Air Commodore Mamphey intimated. A speech read on behalf of the Minister of Transport, Alhaji Collins Dauda, urged African governments to create an enabling environment by providing the investment support to ensure that air transportation played its role in realizing the African dream of regional integration. He also gave the assurance that the government would continue to provide the needed support to the aviation industry to guarantee

'Expedite extradition of Gbagbo ally'

Friday, September 14, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) THE Osu District Magistrate Court on September 13, 2012 directed the state to expedite extradition processes for Justin Kone Katinan, a key ally of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo. The presiding Magistrate, Mr Aboagye Tandoh, declined to grant bail to Katinan and accordingly urged the prosecution to ensure that all was done to have the extradition process started on the next adjourned date being September 25, 2012. Refusing a bail application from counsel for Katinan, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor, the court held that there had not been an unreasonable delay to prompt it to grant Katinan bail. Katinan, who has been in the custody of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) since August 24, 2012 is wanted by the Ivorian authorities for allegedly committing financial crimes. The court was of the view that the prosecution had not caused any unreasonable delay to warrant the release of Katinan on bail. Earlier, a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah Obuobisa, told the court the extradition process was not completed because documents pertaining to the process needed to be translated from French into English. She opposed bail for Katinan and urged the court to take into account the fact that the case involved two countries and for that reason there had not been any unreasonable delay. Mr Sogbodjor on his part repeated his application for bail and argued that the prosecution was not taking steps to expedite the extradition process. He told journalists after the court’s sitting that he was disappointed in the state for failing to start the extradition process in court today. According to him the state could have begun the processes some weeks back and further pointed out that he will take other legal steps to guarantee the release of his client who according to him was being held wrongfully. Katinan, who has been living in Ghana as a refugee since April 2011 was arrested at the KIA following an arrest warrant issued by an Ivorian court on August 16, 2012 requesting him to be brought to Cote d’Ivoire to answer charges on 10 counts of robbery. The Human Rights Court on September 5, 2012 refused to order the release Katinan, on grounds that the state had justified why Mr Katinan should be held in lawful custody. Katinan was picked up by security forces following a request from the Ivorian government for him to be extradited to face prosecution for alleged economic crimes he committed during the recent post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire. His lawyer filed an ex-parte motion praying the court to order the BNI to produce his client in court. The application was granted resulting in the state producing Mr Katinan on August 29, 2012. Katinan has been registered as a refugee and has been living in Ghana under that status since April 13, 2011 till the day of his arrest. He is the second top official in Gbagbo's government to be arrested while living in exile. The first was the extradition of Moise Lida Kouassi, a former Defence Minister, who was picked up in Togo on June 6, 2012 and was extradited the same day. Mr Katinan fled to Ghana after the collapse of Laurent Gbagbo’s regime. He was alleged have committed economic crimes when he was a Budget Minister during three months of crisis and conflict that followed Gbagbo's refusal to cede power to his rival, Mr Alassane Ouattara, in December 2010.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Tango over creation of constituencies - COURT DECIDES SEPT 19... On mandate of Parliament to consider CI 78

Thursday, September 13, 2012 (Lead Story) THE Supreme Court will on September 19, 2012, decide whether or not to stop Parliament from considering the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 C. I.78 until the final determination of a suit filed against the creation of the new constituencies. It fixed the date after lawyers for the parties in the case had argued their cases for and against the motion for interlocutory injunction, which is calling for Parliament to be restrained from considering the creation of the additional 45 constituencies. Earlier, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, questioned, “can’t both sides decide on something until the next adjourned date?” in apparent move to bring both sides to reason. Both sides sat in their seats and remained mute in apparent resolve to leave the matter to the court to resolve. The applicant, Mr Ransford France, on July 6, 2012 sued the EC and the Attorney-General for the creation of the constituencies on the premise that due process was not followed. His lawyers also filed an application for interlocutory injunction praying the court to restrain Parliament from deliberating on the C.I. which was initially labelled C.I. 73, C.I. 77 and now C.I. 78. The move by the Electoral Commission (EC) to create the 45 constituencies has received stiff opposition from the Minority in Parliament, the Trades Union Congress (TUC), former President J. E. A. Kufuor, a former Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and other Ghanaians some of whom have filed various suits challenging the creation of the constituencies. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, led a team of lawyers to move the motion for the interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain Parliament. He argued that C.I. 78 infringed on Articles 51 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution because the EC failed to state the mode or manner in which it used its discretionary power to create the constituencies. Mr Ghartey told the court, that serious issues were at stake because the Constitution was being subverted by the defendants and until Parliament was restrained, grave harm would befall the applicant and other Ghanaians. The presiding judge then indulged Mr Ghartey to state how the Supreme Court could restrain Parliament to which Mr Ghartey cited authorities in his bid to prove his claim that the court had the power to bring Parliament to order. He said the court had the power to contain Parliament because the latter was answerable to the Constitution, adding that C.I. 73 was laid, replaced with C. I. 77 and finally C. I. 78 at a time a case was pending against the EC. “The Constitution is superior. The Electoral Commission is an independent body but subject to the 1992 Constitution,” he said, adding that hearing of the substantive case had been fixed for October 4, 2012 and accordingly prayed the court “for a very limited injunction”. Mr Ghartey prayed the court not to allow itself to be stampeded into believing that the election process would be derailed if Parliament was restrained. In his reply, a lawyer for the EC, Mr James Quashie-Idun, told the court that granting an injunction to the applicant would amount to “removing the EC from a moving train”. He said in the event that the EC succeeded in the legal action, the lost time could not be regained, continuing that the proper remedy for the applicant was to apply for judicial review in the event that he emerged victorious eventually. The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, associated himself with the EC’s argument and submitted further that there was no clear indication that Parliament had committed an illegality. He said the laying of C.I. 78 was of public interest and was also time bound because there would be serious constitutional crisis if the time was not met. “If by January 8, 2013 the EC does not exercise its constitutional power we are likely to have no government in Parliament,” Dr Kunbuor maintained, and said it was also not clear how much the applicant would be inconvenienced as against the national inconvenience that would be occasioned when Parliament was restrained. He reminded the applicant that Parliament had the power to annul a subsidiary legislation it approved and, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the applicant’s motion which, he said, had no merit. After the Attorney-General had argued his case, Mr Ghartey sprung to his feet and told the court to rescue the EC “from the train which is moving to crash”. His comments drew a bout of laughter from the parked courtroom. The leadership of Parliament and EC on August 14, 2012 agreed to withdraw C.I. 73 which was to establish 45 new constituencies on account of several fatal errors on the C.I. It replaced the C.I. 73 which had matured after 21 sitting days with an amended one which was expected to mature in 21 Parliamentary sitting days. However, Parliament reconvened on September 3, 2012, withdrew C.I. 73 and replaced it with C.I. 77 which was eventually substituted with C.I. 78. In the substantive suit, the applicant is challenging the power of the EC to go ahead with the creation of constituencies without first laying before Parliament a constitutional instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. Counsel is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating additional constituencies and/or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it lays before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.

8,000 JHS graduates to undergo apprenticeship

Thursday, September 13, 2012 (Page 48 Lead) THE Government will this year provide training to 8,000 Junior High School graduates across the country under the National Apprenticeship Programme (NAP). Beneficiaries will receive training in Information Communication Technology (ICT), building and construction, carpentry and joinery, garment making, cosmetology, electronics, auto mechanics, welding and fabrication. Consequently, the Minister of Education, Mr Lee Ocran, on behalf of President John Daramani Mahama, presented truckloads of tools needed for the project to Regional Ministers and their representatives at a short ceremony at the Ministry in Accra today. A total of 100 district assemblies were selected to benefit from the project which trained 5,000 youth last year. NAP is a scheme which seeks to impart skills to the youth particularly Junior High School graduates who for one reason or the other could not gain access to secondary education. The Council for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (COTVET) is providing the training with funding from the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund). A speech read on behalf of President Mahama by Mr Ocran directed that all technical and vocational institutions to receive accreditation from COTVET. He said those institutions were from now required to comply with COTVET’s regulations and standards in order to ensure trainees were properly equipped to meet the demands of a modern society. “Additionally, it will ensure that training institutions that do not meet the required standards are quickly put out of business,” the President said. He was of the view that providing high quality training which were standardized and regularized across the country will promote social mobility, enabling citizens to improve their economic situations through training and work among other advantages. The President urged the regional ministers to ensure that the tools were put to proper use for the benefit of the entire society. On his part, the Executive Director of COTVET, Dr Dan Baffour-Awuah, said the NAP had been on the drawing board since 2002 until September 2010 when it was implemented. He said the first batch of 5000 beneficiaries, who received training in 2011 were selected from 78 districts to receive training in garment making, cosmetology, electronics and construction. Dr Baffour-Awuah said the programme was extremely important for beneficiaries to receive life-long training from the programme.

Board, management of Merchant Bank must go - UNICOF

September 12, 2012 (Page 28) THE Union of Industry, Commerce and Finance Workers Union (UNICOF) of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) is calling for the immediate dissolution of the board and Management of Merchant Bank on grounds of incompetence and financial mismanagement. Describing the management and board as “incompetent and short-sighted”, the group has indicted the board and management for wrongfully dismissing its local Chairman, Rev. Jonas Koranteng-Smart, for performing his union duties and also refusing to heed the National Labour Commission’s (NLC) order to reinstate him. It has accordingly directed its members across the country to wear red bands, remain vigilant to signify their disapproval of affairs at the Merchant Bank and wait for further directives from the UNICOF leadership. Addressing a news conference in Accra today, the General Secretary of UNICOF, Mr Kofi Davoh, said the union had communicated its intention to embark on a strike action to the NLC and indicated that the date for the commencement of the strike action will be communicated in due course. He levelled several allegations against the board and management of the bank which included conflict of interest, cronyism, waste of funds and arbitrariness among others. According to Mr Davoh, the bank had rented several office spaces across the country with thousands of cedis but most of these buildings remained unoccupied until the leases expired and further pointed out “the bank acquired brand new cars for what it called direct sales and grounded them within two years of their acquisition.” Touching on the dismissal of the Chairman of the Professional and Management Staff Union (PMSU), Mr Davoh noted that “croynism is rife among the senior management team and even where a senior manager violates his professional code by overdrawing his account six times and which violation should be immediately lead to his dismissal as the regulation requires, he has been covered and a workers leader terminated for performing his legitimate duties”. The General Secretary also accused the management of conflict of interest and cited instances where some senior management personnel “instead of devoting all their attention to the bank are running similar and competitive organisation.” According to Mr Davoh, who together with other members of UNICOF looked visibly upset, the management had allegedly purchased a $1.250, 000.00 house for the Managing Director which remained unoccupied for the past two years. He also accused the board of virtually taking over the running of the company in order to accrue more sitting allowances adding “the board has eroded half the net worth they inherited as at December 2008 from GHC62,445,000.00 to GHC31,323,000.00 as at June 2012.” As a result of the foregoing, the UNICOF has declared its intention “to engage in a struggle not only to protect our trade union rights – which are also human rights but to protect the hen that lays the golden egg adding “the current management and board cannot under any guises be allowed to continue operating in the bank.” On his part, the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr Kofi Asamoah, told reporters after the news conference that the termination of the local Chairman’s appointment was in bad faith. “The termination was distasteful. The management must ensure the wrong is righted,” he maintained and explained that the TUC was working round the clock to ensure the reinstatement of Rev. Koranteng-Smart. Mr Asamoah urged employers to respect and tolerate union representatives since they were protected under the laws of the country. He also stated that the current agitations on the labour front must be addressed holistically by all stakeholders.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Banka chief granted bail

September 6, 2012 (Page 28) THE Chief of Banka in the Ashanti Akim South District of the Ashanti Region, Nana Osabarima Twiampomah III, who was alleged to have misappropriated $150,000 belonging to his subjects, was today granted GHC50,000 bail with a surety. The Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Charles Quist, also directed that the surety of the accused person must deposit title deeds worth $150,000. It also directed the accused person to sign a bond to indicate that he would not leave the jurisdiction until the final determination of the matter. Osabarima Twiampomah III was given the money in trust of the people of Banka by a mining company as part of its social responsibility but he allegedly diverted it for his personal use. Dissatisfied with his alleged action, his subjects reported him to the police resulting in his arrest. He was first arraigned before the court on August 29, 2012 and remanded in custody to reappear today. The chief was granted bail after his lawyer, Mr Emmanuel Bright Atokoh, prayed the court to grant him bail since he was a known member of the community and would avail himself for trial. Counsel gave the assurance that his client will not interfere with investigations when granted bail. A Chief State Attorney, Mr Matthew Amponsah, said the prosecution was not opposed to bail on condition that the accused person would be made to pay half of the misappropriated amount. Responding to Mr Amponsah’s suggestion, the defence counsel prayed the court not to use bail as a punitive measure. The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution were that in 2000, a Gulf Coast Resources Company Limited acquired a mining lease for a period of 10 years from the Mineral Commission to operate a gold mine at Banka. The mining lease expired in 2010 and upon expiration, the mining company applied to the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Natural Resources for the renewal of its mining lease. On the contrary, the Banka community, spearheaded by the accused person wrote a letter dated June 10, 2010 to the sector ministry challenging the renewal of the lease on grounds that the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd had failed to fulfill its corporate and social obligations to the Banka community for the past decade. Following this challenge, the management of the company entered into negotiations with the accused and the people of Banka and as a result, the company pledged to pay the Banka community $ 150,000 for its development activities if the accused person and the people of the Banka withdrew their petition against the renewal of their lease. The chief and his people obliged and accordingly withdrew their petition per letter dated January 13, 2011 authored on their behalf by the accused person and addressed to the Minister of Lands, Forestry and Natural Resources. As a result of the withdrawal of the petition, the mining lease of the company was renewed for another 10 years with effect from 2011. Upon renewal of the lease, the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd transferred its rights to another mining company, called Banka Gold Ltd. O and out of the proceeds from the transaction Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd paid the amount of 150,000 US dollars, to the accused for the people of Banka as promised earlier. According to the prosecution, the Managing Director of the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd, Mr Ebenezer Baah Asare-Quansah, stated in his statement to the police that the $150,000 was for the Banka community but not for the accused person’s personal use. The prosecution said the money into the accused person’s bank account on June 14, 2011 and he acknowledged receipt on the same day adding that the contents of the accused person’s receipt indicated that he had received the money on behalf of the elders and people of Banka. Although, the accused person had acknowledged receipt of the money, he failed to inform the people of Banka that he had received the $150,000. He also failed to release the money to the people of Banka but the beneficiaries got wind that the money had been paid to accused person and following after their frantic efforts to retrieve the money failed, they reported the accused person to the police.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Gbagbo aide denied bail

Thursday, September 6, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Human Rights Court on September 5, 2012 refused to order the release of a key ally of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, Justin Kone Katinan, who is currently in the custody of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI). According to the court, the state had justified why Mr Katinan should be held in lawful custody. “Although counsel for the applicant made brilliant submissions, I cannot pre-empt or prejudice the case. I cannot truncate the extradition process because such issues are not before me,” the presiding judge, Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, pointed out. Mr Katinan was picked by security forces at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, 2012 following a request from the Ivorian government for him to be extradited to face prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during the post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire. His lawyer filed an ex parte motion praying the court to order the BNI to produce his client in court. The application was granted resulting in the state producing Mr Katinan on August 31, 2012. The court, however, adjourned the case to yesterday to enable it to study an affidavit in opposition to documents filed by Mr Patrick Sogbodjor praying the court to release his client. Ruling on an application for habeas corpus filed on behalf of Mr Katinan, the presiding judge held that concerns raised by counsel could best be addressed during the extradition proceedings. Mr Sogbodjor then pleaded with the court to grant his client bail, but Mr Justice Essel-Mensah advised him to formally apply for bail. Earlier, Mr Sogbodjor argued that his client was being held unlawfully because the state had failed to follow the procedure set out in extradition processes. He further submitted that his client was a refugee who was seeking asylum in Ghana from persecution in Cote d’Ivoire, adding that a certificate proving he was an asylum seeker had been attached to the court documents. Mr Katinan has been registered as a refugee and has been living in Ghana under that status since April 13, 2011 till the day of his arrest. Quoting numerous laws and international treaties on refugee status, Mr Sogbodjor maintained that his client was entitled to full protection under the Refugee Act and reminded the court that Ghana had ratified the Geneva Convention on Refugees and it was, therefore, unfortunate his client was not being protected as expected. “Ghana is bound to follow laws to protect refugees from political persecution,” Mr Sogbodjor argued, and stated that in any case, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire had no agreement on extradition arrangements of their citizens when the need arose. He cited Togo, Nigeria and Benin as the only African countries Ghana had such arrangement with and accordingly prayed the court to discharge his client, since he was being held illegally. Responding to counsel’s arguments, a Chief State Attorney, Ms Merley Wood, informed the court that Mr Katinan was arrested with an international warrant dated August 16, 2012 for onward extradition to face 10 counts of robbery. She said the facts of the case stated among others that Mr Katinan and others committed financial crimes during the second round of voting in Cote d’Ivoire. According to her, Mr Katinan was being held lawfully and was billed to appear before the Osu District Magistrate Court (which remanded him last Tuesday) on September 6, 2012. Mrs Wood argued that Ghana had ratified the laws on extradition of persons within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). She also reminded the court that it was not the proper forum to discuss the details of the case because the extradition processes were yet to begin.

Six Ablekuma Rioters Granted Bail

Wednesday, September 5, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) The Accra Circuit Court Tuesday granted bail totalling GH¢60,000 to six persons who allegedly caused chaos in a chieftaincy violence at Ablekuma on August 25, 2012. The six were first arraigned before the court on August 28, 2012 and remanded to reappear yesterday. The accused - Nii Adjin Kofi, 67, Asafoatse Abeka Abbey, 49, Mustapha Adjin Tetteh, 42, Nii Kotey Nartey, 58, Ebenezer Ayeh, 50, and Fatau Mohammed, 19 - were each granted bail in the sum of GH¢10,000 with two sureties each. Two chiefs - Nii Kweku Fosu III, 56, and Nii Larbie Mensah, 67 - who were also arraigned on August 28, 2012 were each granted bail in the sum of GH¢20,000 with two sureties each by the court presided over by Mr Francis Ofori. All the accused persons have pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy to commit crime, rioting with offensive weapons and rioting. A chieftaincy clash broke out at Ablekuma on August 25, 2012 and in the process, three persons lost their lives. Four others sustained various degrees of injury and are currently receiving medical treatment. Supporters of Nii Kweku Fosu and Nii Larbie Mensah, who are both claimants to the Ablekuma Stool, engaged in shooting and arson while the people were marking the Homowo festival. At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr Kofi Blagodzi, told the court that Nii Kweku Fosu failed to execute his bail bond before leaving for his home. He, therefore, prayed the court to order the accused person to properly execute his bail bond together with his sureties before the investigator in charge of the case. Mr Blagodzi prayed the court to remand the six accused persons for a week because investigations were ongoing to find out the persons responsible for the death of the three persons. However, Dr Josiah Aryeh, counsel for four of the accused persons, prayed the court to grant bail to his clients because the offences for which they were being held were bailable. In granting bail, Mr Ofori said there was no evidence before the court that the accused persons would commit any atrocities when granted bail. He said criminal jurisprudence dealt only with facts and not conjectures or speculations. He also directed the accused persons to report to the police on Wednesdays.

Gas in short supply

September 4, 2012 (Centre spread) THE country has been hit by severe shortage of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) with long queues at gas filling stations as domestic and commercial users make frantic efforts to secure the product. But the National Petroleum Authority (NPA) has given an assurance that the “pockets of shortage” will be over in the next few days. In an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, the Public Relations Manager of the NPA, Mr Yaro Kasambata, said the regular daily supply of 800 metric tonnes of LPG had been increased to 1,200 metric tonnes in order to meet the increasing public demand for LPG, reports Mabel Aku Baneseh. He attributed the pockets of LPG shortage to unavailability of enough infrastructure to supply LPG to meet the increasing market demand. He said a number of measures were being implemented to ensure the continuous uninterrupted supply of gas to the entire country. “For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ministry of Environment and Science have given the go-ahead for the implementation a project where LPG will be discharged from vessels at the Takoradi Harbour to bulk vehicles for onward delivery to the market,” Mr Kasambata said. As part of the decentralisation process to ensure regular gas supply to the market, Mr Kasambata said two oil companies namely Redfins Limited and Fueltrade Limited had built facilities to provide extra daily supply of LPG. For instance, Redfins is expected to supply 800 metric tonnes of LPG while Fueltrade is expected to provide a week’s storage of LPG. Mr Kasambata said Redfins was expected to deliver storage and loading facilities, adding that both companies would start operation in early November, 2012. He expressed the hope that the provision of these extra facilities would eventually bring an end to the perennial gas shortage in the country.

Supreme Court fixes Sept 12 - To hear injunction application

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 (Front page) THE Supreme Court will on September 12, 2012 hear the motion for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain Parliament from considering the Constitutional Instrument for the creation of 45 additional constituencies. Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Mr Ransford France, one of the applicants challenging the creation of the new constituencies, is expected to move the motion at the Supreme Court that day. Mr Dame told the Daily Graphic that he had received a hearing notice to that effect, dated September 3, 2012 and signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The move by the Electoral Commission (EC) to create the 45 new constituencies has received stiff opposition from some Ghanaians including Mr Ransford France, who is currently praying the Supreme Court to restrain Parliament from considering the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 CI 73 until the final determination of a suit he had filed against the creation of the new constituencies. In an affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction, Mr France said if the merits of his legal action challenging the creation of the new constituencies were upheld by the Supreme Court and “by that time, the EC has already advanced in its preparations for the conduct of the 2012 General Election taking into account the impugned CI 73, the electoral process could be thrown into chaos”. “I am solely motivated by the duty imposed on all Ghanaians in Article 2 (1) to defend the Constitution, 1992 and not any parochial personal interest,” the affidavit said, adding that “irreparable damage and grave injury would be caused to the people of Ghana if Parliament proceeded to consider the constitutional instrument laid before it and the act of the EC was eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.” The applicant was concerned about the fact that notwithstanding the institution of the instant action, the EC in blatant violation of well-established principles of and in utter disregard for the authority of the court laid CI 73 before Parliament. It said the Parliament of Ghana was feverishly making arrangements to ensure that the “impugned act of the EC i.e. the creation of new constituencies without a compliance of mandatory provisions of the Constitution, becomes law”. “In a remarkable haste to ensure that the challenged acts of the EC receives the force of law notwithstanding the pendency of the instant action, the Speaker of Parliament has recalled Parliament from recess to satisfy the constitutional requirement of twenty-one parliamentary sitting days by the last week of September, 2012 for the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 CI 73 to enter into force,” the affidavit in support pointed out. According to the applicant, should the impugned constitutional instrument enter into force before the instant action was heard, that act would undermine the rule of law, the 1992 Constitution and the power of the Judiciary in discharging its constitutional duty of determining disputes between all persons in Ghana once its jurisdiction was properly invoked. It said although the EC and Parliament were independent, they were not above the law but subject to the Constitution. It maintained that the heavy responsibility entrusted the EC under article 45 of the 1992 Constitution to ensure the exercise of the right to vote on the part of all citizens who have attained 18 years, imposed an even heavier obligation on it to ensure that it adhered strictly to the letter and spirit of the 1992 Constitution in the exercise of any discretionary power, especially involving the creation of new constituencies. Under the current circumstances, the applicant is entreating the Supreme Court to restrain the EC from engaging in the disputed act until the merits of the action have been determined. The EC has come under attack from the Minority in Parliament and other members of the public, some of whom have filed similar suits challenging the legality of the creation of new constituencies.

NPA contempt case adjourned

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) A contempt suit filed against the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Mr Alex Mould, over the imposition of petroleum levy has been adjourned to September 12, 2012. The applicant, Development Data, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), filed the contempt suit at the Fast Track High Court against the NPA and its Chief Executive for failing to remove the ex-refinery levy imposed on petroleum products. However, the case could not be heard at the Fast Track High Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, because the court did not sit. In the substantive application, the applicant is praying the Fast Track High Court to imprison the respondent for failing to adhere to the High Court and Court of Appeal orders to remove the ex-refinery levy imposed on petroleum products, as well as failing to account for all moneys accrued from the levy and pay the amount into the Consolidated Fund. However, counsel for the NPA, Dr Abdul Baasit Aziz Bamba, has denied any wrongdoing on the part of his client. He said the NPA had complied with the court order and published the accounts of moneys accrued on the levy. Counsel further argued that his client was not in contempt of court because the NPA had received Parliamentary approval on the petroleum pricing formula. Dr Bamba said there was no basis for the contempt suit, adding that the applicant did not follow due procedure in filing the contempt application. He has described the application as incompetent and defective and accordingly prayed the court to dismiss it. In March 2012, the Court of Appeal ordered the NPA to, with immediate effect, remove ex-refinery levy imposed on petroleum products. It further directed the NPA to account for all moneys accrued on the levy and pay the amount into the Consolidated Fund. The High Court, in November 28, 2011 ruled as illegal the ex-refinery levy which had been part of the petroleum price build-up. It accordingly ordered the NPA to scrap the levy and also ordered the NPA to refund all amounts accrued from the collection of the illegal levy to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the NPA filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal and filed an application for stay of execution of the lower court’s order pending the outcome of the substantive appeal.

Gbagbo's former Spokesperson back in custody

Saturday, September 1, 2012 (Page 3 Lead) OFFICERS of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) yesterday produced Justin Kone Katinan, a key ally of former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, at the Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court in Accra. This followed a court order issued last Tuesday, directing the BNI to produce Mr Katinan, who has been in custody since August 24, 2012. Mr Katinan was picked by security personnel at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) on August 24, following a request from the Ivorian government for him to be extradited to face prosecution for alleged economic crimes he committed during the recent post-election violence in Cote d’Ivoire. At the Human Rights Court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, Mr Katinan was seen clad in a dark suit and a pink neck tie. He sipped water occasionally. The court, presided over Mr Justice Kofi Essel-Mensah, said he had received an affidavit in opposition to the application for habeas corpus which prayed the court to order the BNI to produce Mr Katinan. The application, which was filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Mr Patrick Sogbodjor, is expected to be moved on September 5, 2012. The judge said he needed time to study the attached documents which were voluminous. Mr Sogbodjor indicated that he had also filed a response to the affidavit in opposition. The state was represented by a Chief State Attorney, Mrs Merley Wood, and a Principal State Attorney, Mrs Yvonne Attakorah-Obuobisa. On August 24, 2012, Mr Katinan was picked up together with Ms Lucie Bourchouymieux, an Ivorian lawyer, shortly on arrival from Johannesburg, South Africa. Ms Bourchouymieux was, however, released but Mr Katinan has since been detained at the Greater Accra Regional BNI Offices. A statement signed by a Deputy Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, said Mr Katinan’s arrest was based on a warrant issued by the Ivorian authorities on August 16, 2012. The statement said President John Dramani Mahama, in accordance with the Ghanaian Constitution, had since asked the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to study the extradition instruments and advise accordingly. According to Mr Sogbodjor, no reason had been assigned for the arrest and detention of his client. He said Mr Katinan had been registered as a refugee and had been living in Ghana under that status since April 13, 2011. Mr Katinan is the second top official in Gbagbo's government to be arrested while living in exile. The first was the arrest of Moise Lida Kouassi, a former Defence Minister, who was picked up in Togo on June 6, 2012 and was extradited the same day. Mr Katinan fled to Ghana after the collapse of Laurent Gbagbo’s regime. His arrest on Friday, August 24, 2012, in Ghana, was under an August 2011 warrant issued by the Ivorian authorities for alleged economic crimes he committed when he was a Budget Minister during three months of crisis and conflict that followed Gbagbo's refusal to cede power to his rival, Mr Alassane Ouattara.

CONTROVERSY DEEPNS - Over new constituencies

Saturday, September 1, 2012 (Lead story) THE controversy surrounding the creation of 45 new constituencies has assumed another dimension. One of the opponents to the creation of the constituencies has filed an interlocutory injunction, praying the Supreme Court to restrain Parliament from considering the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 CI 73. However, the Majority Leader, Mr Cletus Avoka says that Parliament, as a constitutional body, cannot be restrained from executing its constitutionally mandated work although he concedes that the Supreme Court can declare an action by Parliament as unconstitutional. Parliament is currently on recess and is expected to be recalled on September 3, 2012 for an emergency sitting to consider CI 73, which has recorded only a day of maturity after it was laid on August 14, 2012. According to the applicant, Mr Ransford France, if the merits of the legal action challenging the creation of the new constituencies are upheld by the Supreme Court and “by that time, the EC has already advanced in its preparations for the conduct of the 2012 General Elections, taking into account the impugned CI 73, the electoral process could be thrown into chaos”. “I am solely motivated by the duty imposed on all Ghanaians in Article 2 (1) to defend the 1992 Constitution, and not any parochial personal interest,” the affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction said. It added, “Irreparable damage and grave injury will be caused to the people of Ghana if Parliament proceeds to consider the constitutional instrument laid before it and the act of the EC is eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.” Mr France, who has sued the EC and the Attorney-General over the laying of CI 73 in Parliament in his motion for interlocutory injunction, is praying the highest court of the land to order the (EC) from using CI 73 in its preparations for the conduct of the 2012 general election until the hearing and final determination of an action challenging the legality of CI 73. A legal practitioner, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, who filed the motion on behalf of the applicant, also pleaded with the court to grant further orders it deemed fit. The EC has come under attack from the Minority in Parliament and other members of the public, some of whom have filed similar suits challenging the legality of the creation of new constituencies. The leadership of Parliament and the Electoral Commission (EC) on August 14, 2012 agreed to withdraw CI 73 which was to establish 45 new constituencies on account of several fatal errors on the CI 73. The EC has since replaced the CI 73, which had matured after 21 sitting days with an amended one which was expected to mature in 21 Parliamentary sitting days. Mr Dame on July 6, 2012, filed a suit on behalf of an Accra-based businessman, Mr Ransford France, challenging the power of the Electoral Commission (EC) to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying before Parliament, a constitutional instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. Counsel is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any constitutional instrument creating new constituencies and or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [CI 46], until it laid before Parliament a constitutional instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC. However, the Supreme Court has not sat on the matter because judges are currently on legal vacation; that prompted Mr Dame to petition the Chief Justice to empanel judges during the vacation to hear the matter. Nonetheless, the Judicial Service responded and explained that it was impossible to immediately empanel Justices of the Supreme Court to hear the matter because majority of them were out of the jurisdiction on vacation while the remaining had indicated their intention to travel outside the jurisdiction in the first week of September, 2012. Following the Judicial Service’s response to Mr Dame’s appeal, the latter decided to file the injunction process at the Supreme Court in his bid to restrain Parliament from considering CI 73 on Monday, September 3, 2012. An affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction said the plaintiff was concerned about the fact that notwithstanding the institution of the instant action, the EC, in blatant violation of well-established principles of and in utter disregard for the authority of the court, laid before Parliament CI 73. “In a remarkable haste to ensure that the challenged acts of the EC receives the force of law notwithstanding the pendency of the instant action, the Speaker of Parliament has recalled Parliament from recess to satisfy the constitutional requirement of twenty-one parliamentary sitting days by the last week of September, 2012 for the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies Instrument), 2012 CI 73 to enter into force,” the affidavit pointed out. According to the affidavit, should the impugned constitutional instrument enter into force before the instant action is heard, that act will undermine the rule of law, the 1992 Constitution and the power of the Judiciary in discharging its constitutional duty of determining disputes between all persons in Ghana once its jurisdiction is properly invoked. Responding to the action by Mr France to prevent Parliament from sitting, Mr Avoka told the Daily Graphic that he was yet to be given any notice about the suit, writes Ato Dapatem. “I have not heard nor seen anything,” he said and explained that Parliament was resuming its sittings not because of one single activity but would consider bills, agreements and other equally important issues pertaining to the development of the country.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Petition on new constituencies cannot be heard till Oct

AUGUST 31, 2012 (Front Page) THE Judicial Service has explained that it is impossible to immediately empanel Justices of the Supreme Court during the legal vacation to hear a suit challenging the creation of 45 new constituencies. According to the service, almost all the Justices of the Supreme Court are out of the jurisdiction on legal vacation while the rest are scheduled to leave the jurisdiction by the first week of September. Reacting to a petition it received from Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, counsel for Mr Ransford France, the man challenging the creation of the new constituencies, the Judicial Service in a statement dated August 29, 2012 to the Daily Graphic said “we did indeed receive a petition from counsel for Ransford France on Monday, August 27, 2012 bearing the same date”. “Again, while the instant case of J1/24/2012 Ransford France vrs. Electoral Commission and Attorney-General is ripe for hearing, almost all the Justices of the Supreme Court are out of the jurisdiction on legal vacation. The rest are scheduled to leave the jurisdiction by the first week of September and return at the end of September,” the statement said. Under the circumstances, the statement, which was signed by the Judicial Secretary, Mr Alex B. Poku-Acheampong, stated that the earliest date within the legal vacation when the case could be heard was Thursday, October 4, 2012. The statement said another electoral case titled James Amarh Amartey vrs. Electoral Commission and Attorney-General would also be heard on October 4, 2012. According to the statement, “it is the determination of the Hon. Lady Chief Justice that all electoral cases are disposed of before the commencement of the 2012/2013 Legal Year”. It further pointed out that two other cases of an electoral nature would be heard on Friday, October 5, 2012. The legal year is expected to commence on October 9, 2012. Mr Dame had prayed the Chief Justice to empanel judges to hear his case in order to avoid chaos in the country as, according to him, the issue on the creation of new districts “had overwhelming public interest”. The other defendant in the case is the Attorney-General, who according to counsel had not filed a response to the suit as of yesterday. The EC for its part has put in a defence denying any wrongdoing. Responding to the Judicial Service’s statement, Mr Dame said he appreciated the necessity for the distinguished judges of the Supreme Court to have a holiday but pointed out that “my only difficulty is that, with the imminent recall of parliament from recess, injury may be occasioned the whole nation, since by the time the suit is heard, the CI73 which is being challenged would have entered into force”. The EC has come under attack from the Minority in Parliament and other members of the public, some of whom have filed similar suits challenging the legality of the creation of new constituencies. The leadership of Parliament and the Electoral Commission (EC) on August 14, 2012 agreed to withdraw CI 73 which was to establish 45 new constituencies on account of several errors on the CI. The EC replaced the CI 73 with an amended one which is expected to mature in 21 Parliamentary sitting days. Parliament is currently on recess and is expected to be recalled on September 3, 2012 for an emergency sitting on the matter. Mr Dame filed the suit on July 6, 2012 challenging the power of the EC to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying before Parliament, a Constitutional Instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. Counsel is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating new constituencies and/or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it laid before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.

Ablekuma rioters appear in court

AUGUST 29, 2012 (Page 3) EIGHT persons, including two chiefs, who allegedly caused chaos at Ablekuma last Saturday, were today arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court in Accra, following last Saturday’s chieftaincy violence at Ablekuma, a suburb of Accra. They pleaded not guilty to three counts of conspiracy to commit crime, rioting with offensive weapons, and rioting. The chiefs, Nii Kweku Fosu III, 56, and Nii Larbie Mensah, 67 were each granted bail in the sum of GHC20, 000 with two sureties each by the court presided over by Mr Francis Ofori while the six other accused persons namely Nii Adjin Kofi, 67, Asafoatse Abeka Abbey, 49, and secretary to Nii Larbi Mensah, Mustapha Adjin Tetteh, 42, Nii Kotey Nartey, 58, Ebenezer Ayeh, 50, and Fatau Mohammed, 19 were remanded to reappear on September 4, 2012. A chieftaincy clash broke out at Ablekuma on Saturday and in the process, three persons lost their lives. Four others sustained various degrees of injury and are currently receiving medical treatment. Supporters of Nii Kweku Fosu III and Nii Larbie Mensah, who are both claimants to the Ablekuma stool, engaged in shooting and arson last Saturday while marking the Homowo festival. Presenting the facts of the case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Mr Kofi Blagodzi, told the court that on August 25, 2012 at about 2:30 pm, the Greater Accra Police Command received several distress calls from residents of Ablekuma about indiscriminatory firing of gunshots by two rival chiefs and their followers at Ablekuma. The Command quickly dispatched a heavily armed Police team led by DSP Osei Agboya to proceed to Ablekuma to bring the situation under control. The police upon reaching Ablekuma, found two deceased persons identified as Wulomo Nii Tetteh Sarfo and Emmanuel Nartey with gunshot wounds near Nii Kweku Fosu’s palace. The entire palace was also vandalized with two vehicles parked in the compound burnt beyond repairs. Four persons who sustained gunshot wounds were also conveyed to the Police Hospital for treatment. The police retrieved 64 spent cartridges, one live catridge and 16 abandoned motorcycles suspected to belong to the culprits. Further investigations also disclosed that Nii Kweku Fosu III and Nii Larbie Mensah, 67 werer two rival chiefs all based at Ablekumah each claiming ownership of the Ablekuma township with their respective palaces and with their subjects. On August 25, 2012 all the accused persons decided to celebrate Homowo festival at Ablekuma at the same time using the same principal town route. Further investigation revealed the two chiefs who were well aware of the implications of their intended action, respectively hired the services of two armed thugs groups identified as “UN-Boys” headed by one Nii Ofori based at Sowutouwm and Djona Boys headed by one Moses also based at Djona , to assist them to celebrate the Homowo festival. The two rival factions eventually clashed at a spot called Ablekuma junction whilse sprinkling Kpokpoi. In the ensuing scuffle, Nii Kweku Fosu and his followers escaped to their palace but they were pursued by the other faction resulting in the exchange of fierce exchange of gunshots leading to instant death of two persons. One of the injured victims, Aventus Modestu, died on August 26, 12, at the Police Hospital. Earlier, Mr T. N. Ward Brew, counsel for Fosu, Abbey and Nartey told the court that Fosu was the substantive chief at Ablekuma in line of succession. According to counsel, his clients were the ones who were attacked adding he will lead evidence to prove his clients were the victims. He further maintained that it inappropriate for the police to accuse his clients of any offence. On his part, Dr Josiah Aryeh, counsel for Nii Larbie Mensah said the facts presented by the prosecution were contradictory to the real issues. He said he will lead evidence to prove the innocence of the accused person. Mr Blagodzi objected to the grant of bail but the court used its discretion and granted bail to the two rival chiefs.

Chief remanded - For stealing $150,000 belonging to subjects

AUGUST 30, 2012 (Page 3) FOR allegedly stealing $150,000 belonging to his subjects, the Chief of Banka in the Ashanti Region was today remanded in custody by the Fast Track High Court. Osabarima Twiampomah III was given the money in trust of the people of Banka by a mining company as part of its social responsibility but he allegedly diverted it for his personal use. The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist, took the quantum of money involved, refused him bail and remanded him till September 5, 2012. Lawyer for the accused person, Mr Emmanuel Apokoh, prayed the court to grant his client bail because the $150,000 was part payment for a total amount of 530,000 which was expected to be paid to the community. According to counsel, the $150,000 was for his client’s personal use to facilitate his work as well as part of what he termed as “drink money.” However, a Chief State Attorney, Mr Matthew Amponsah opposed the grant of bail and argued that the accused person had no reputation to protect after denying his people means of development. He also pointed out that the chief might not avail himself for trial when granted bail. The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution were that in 2000, a Gulf Coast Resources Company Limited acquired a mining lease for a period of 10 years from the Mineral Commission to operate a gold mine at Banka. The mining lease expired in 2010 and upon expiration, the mining company applied to the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Natural Resources for the renewal of its mining lease. Conversely, the Banka community, spearheaded by the accused person wrote a letter dated June 10, 2010 to the sector ministry challenging the renewal of the lease on grounds that the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd had failed to fulfill its corporate and social obligations to the Banka community for the past decade. Following this challenge, the management of the company entered into negotiations with the accused and the people of Banka and as a result, the company pledged to pay the Banka community $ 150,000 for its development activities if the accused person and the people of the Banka withdrew their petition against the renewal of their lease. The chief and his people obliged and accordingly withdrew their petition per letter dated January 13, 2011 authored on their behalf by the accused person and addressed to the Minister of Lands, Forestry and Natural Resources. As a result of the withdrawal of the petition, the mining lease of the company was renewed for another 10 years with effect from 2011. Upon renewal of the lease, the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd transferred its rights to another mining company, called Banka Gold Ltd. O and out of the proceeds from the transaction Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd paid the amount of 150,000 US dollars, to the accused for the people of Banka as promised earlier. According to the prosecution, the Mnanaging Director of the Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd, Mr Ebenezer Baah Asare-Quansah, stated in his statement to the police that the $150,000 was for the Banka community but not for the accused person’s personal use. The prosecution said the money into the accused person’s bank account on June 14, 2011 and he acknowledged receipt on the same day. It said the contents of the accused person’s receipt indicated that he had received the money on behalf of the elders and people of Banka. Although the accused person had acknowledged receipt of the money, he failed to inform the people of Banka that he had received the $150,000. He also failed to release the money to the people of Banka but the beneficiaries got wind that the money had been paid to accused person. After a long wait and not receiving any form of communication from the accused person on the payment of the said amount, the elders of Banka approached him on several occasions but the accused person told them that the money had not been paid to him. Not satisfied, the elders reported the matter to the police and the accused was subsequently arrested. In his statement to the police, the accused acknowledged receipt of the money but maintained the money was paid to him personally for his personal use to defray legal expenses which he incurred while he was pursuing the matter with Gulf Coast Resources Company Ltd. The prosecution said it will lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

Judges asked ot assert independence in December 2012 electoral disputes

AUGUST 29, 2012 (Centre Spread) THE Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, has directed judges to assert their independence in adjudicating electoral disputes in the December 2012 general election. “As the Judicial branch of government, we are always under close public scrutiny. As we carry out our constitutional responsibilities in this election year, we will be judged by the public. I, therefore, urge you to assert your independence and be guided only by the evidence tendered before you and the applicable constitutional, statutory and decisional laws of the land.” Speaking at the opening ceremony of a one-day training programme on election adjudication process for justices of the High Court and Circuit Court judges in Ghana, Mrs Justice Wood said “I trust that you will not under any circumstances succumb to extra judicial influences. As has always been the case, I pledge you my fullest support in this regard.” The participants who were drawn from across the country were taken through rules and regulations set out in the revised manual on election adjudication to build their capacity in order to efficiently deliberate and resolve electoral disputes that might arise before, during and after the 2012 polls. Topics treated included overview and objectives of the programme, parliamentary election disputes, discussion on election offences and general discussions on electoral laws of the country. The resources persons included Dr Bimpong Buta, a member of the Electoral Manual Committee; Mr Justice Jones Dotse, a Justice of the Supreme Court and Board Chairman of the Judicial Training Institute (JTI); Mr Justice S. Marful-Sau, a Court of Appeal Judge and Director of JTI, and Professor Kofi Kumado, a law lecturer. According to the Chief Justice, electoral justice was the medium for preserving, protecting, defending and enjoying electoral rights, adding “it offers opportunity to aggrieved persons those who believe their electoral rights have been compromised or violated in one way or the other to file complaints criminal or civil and obtain a fair, just and expeditious adjudication.” She further reminded the judges that the electoral justice system of which they were the lead actors represented the ultimate guarantee of free, fair and genuine elections and thus placed on them the onerous responsibility of ensuring that the entire electoral process conformed to Ghana’s legal framework. Mrs Justice Wood said the hallmark of any credible justice system was the timeliness with which criminal complaints and disputes were disposed of, judgments and decisions fully enforced. “In this regard, the timeliness, the transparency, objectivity, integrity, impartiality, firmness, diligence and professionalism with which electoral complaints and disputes are fully, effectually and finally resolved in order to place the final seal of legitimacy on the entire process is very important,” she said. She further reminded the judges that they had a constitutional duty to dispose of electoral cases expeditiously to avoid the accompanying mistrust and suspicion that went with delayed justice. The Chief Justice commended the judges for taking time off their recess “to respond to the call of national duty.” For his part, Mr Justice Dotse advised the participants to be mindful of their comments, adding “let your opinion be in your mind and state it in your judgment.”

Case against creation of constituencies - EMPANEL JUDGES NOW - Lawyer appeals to CJ

AUGUST 28, 2012 (Lead story) A lawyer to one of the persons challenging the creation of 45 constituencies has petitioned the Chief Justice to empanel justices of the Supreme Court to hear the merit of the case during the legal vacation. Failure to do so, according to Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, would create avoidable chaos in the country, as according to him, the issue on the creation of new districts “has overwhelming public interest”. The other defendant in the case is the Attorney-General, who according to counsel had not filed a response to the suit as of yesterday. The EC for its part, has put in a defence denying any wrongdoing. The EC has come under attack from the Minority in Parliament and other members of the public, some of whom have filed similar suits challenging the legality of the creation of new constituencies. A similar suit which was instituted by an Accra-based businessman, Mr James Amarh Amartey, is also challenging the legality in the intention of the EC to create 45 additional constituencies. A suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff by his lawyer, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, contends that L.I. 1983 of 2010, which created new electoral areas and laid before Parliament by the Minister of Local Government and through which the new constituencies have been created, should be declared an absolute nullity. According to the plaintiff, the outcome of the December 7, 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary elections would be rendered invalid if L.I. 1983 of 2010, was not deleted. The leadership of Parliament and the Electoral Commission (EC) on August 14, 2012 agreed to withdraw CI 73 which was to establish 45 new constituencies on account of several fatal errors on the CI. The EC has replaced the CI 73 which had matured after 21 sitting days with an amended version which was expected to mature in 21 Parliamentary sitting days. Parliament is currently on recess and is expected to be recalled on September 3, 2012 for an emergency sitting on the matter. The new CI 73 has recorded only a day of maturity since Parliament is currently on recess. Mr Dame on July 6, 2012 filed a suit on behalf of an Accra-based businessman, Mr Ransford France, challenging the power of the Electoral Commission (EC) to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying before Parliament, a constitutional instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. Counsel is praying the court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating new constituencies and or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it laid before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC. However, the matter has not been listed for hearing because the courts are on legal vacation until October, 2012. “Whilst recognising the absolute imperative for a legal vacation by the Superior Courts of Judicature, we wish to respectfully indicate that the suit, the subject matter of this letter, is one with overwhelming public interest to the extent that the outcome of same would affect the electoral process in the Republic of Ghana this year,” the petition dated August 27, 2012, a copy of which is available to the Daily Graphic, pointed out. “The plaintiff in filing his action, was motivated by the duty imposed on all Ghanaians to uphold and defend the Constitution through legal action, and in this context, ensuring a due compliance by the Electoral Commission with mandatory provisions of the Constitution in the upcoming Presidential and Parliamentary elections,” it continued. “It is in the light of this that we respectfully pray Your Ladyship to exercise your powers under Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 ( C. I. 16) to empanel the Supreme Court to hear the merits of the Plaintiff’s action in the legal vacation,” the petition continued. Rule 1 of C. I. 16 provides as follows: “The sessions of the Supreme Court shall be held during term and at any other times directed by the Chief Justice”. “In view of all of the above, we respectfully pray you to exercise your powers under Rule 1 of C. I. 16 to empanel a court to hear the merits of plaintiff’s action,” counsel prayed. According to counsel, his plea to the Chief Justice had become necessary by the fact that failure to empanel a court to sit on the case will not only render the plaintiff’s action moot or nugatory but will also encourage further unconstitutional conduct on the part of the EC. Counsel continued, “It is pertinent to note that the Electoral Commission notwithstanding the pendency of the action, is continuing with the constitutional infractions complained of in the suit. If the suit is heard in regular term, chaos would undoubtedly result from non-adjudication thereof and that will not be in the interest of the nation.” Mr Dame maintained that the Electoral Commission would already have succeeded in creating the new constituencies and also well advanced in its preparations for the conduct of the elections if the Chief Justice did not empanel the Supreme Court during the vacation to hear the case. In the substantive suit, Mr France is seeking a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 23, 51 and 296 (c) of the Constitution, the EC in the exercise of its functions and discretionary power in creating new constituencies, is required to make by Constitutional Instrument, regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution or any other law to govern the exercise of its discretionary power. He is praying the court to compel the EC, as required by Articles 51 and 296 (c) of the 1992 Constitution, to come up with a Constitutional Instrument which is consistent with the Constitution or any other law, regulations to govern the exercise of its discretionary power to create new constituencies including in particular, the specification of the formula and mechanism to be used in the creation of new constituencies, among other reliefs.

WOYOME SUCCUMBS - Agrees to appear before PAC

AUGUST 25, 2012 (Lead story) TWO days after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decided to write to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to produce Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome to appear before it, the businessman has expressed his willingness to do so on his own accord. According to his lawyers, Mr Woyome would, however, not be willing to divulge information that would be prejudicial to the same subject matter currently pending before the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Reacting to a decision by the Chairman of the PAC to the IGP to arrest Woyome for failing to appear before the PAC on Thursday, to answer questions on the GH¢51.2 judgement debt, one of the lawyers for Woyome, Mr Musah Ahmed, explained that the defence team was not seeking to undermine the dignity and authority of the PAC as enshrined in the Constitution. “We are, however, willing to appear to lay grounds for postponement,” he said. Mr Ahmed said Woyome’s legal team fundamentally believed that once the issues were pending before the superior courts in the country, “it is our considered opinion that the committee will be doing justice to our client by deferring the invitation to our client for purposes of him giving evidence before the committee in respect of pending matter currently before the courts.” “I honestly doubt if the committee can proceed to ask our client questions without delving into the issues before the superior courts,” Mr Ahmed said. He said “under the circumstance, the interest of justice will be better served if the committee agrees with us by adjourning its proceedings until the final determination of the subject matter by the courts”. Last Thursday, Mr Woyome was summoned to appear before the PAC but he was unable to do so. “We received the summons to appear before the committee an hour before the time we were expected to appear before the PAC and under such short notice, there was no way we could have made it,” Mr Ahmed said in an interview. Meanwhile, a formal letter from lawyers of Woyome to the Clerk of the PAC of Parliament dated August 23, 2012 said “we have just been informed by the news media that your committee has summoned our client, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, under the hand of the Clerk of the Committee, to appear before it at 12 noon today”. “Kindly be apprised that we have acted for our client in this matter throughout and have exchanged correspondence with your committee but find it strange that you did not send us with at least a copy of the said summons to enable us to advise our client. Further enquiries from our client also drew a blank with the answer that he has not been personally served with any such summons,” the letter stated. It continued, “We have also verified from Messrs Peasah-Boadu & Co who confirmed that they received some correspondence from Parliament House around 11 am today. We would have thought that such summons, being significantly different from that of an invitation, will be served on our client personally and not by substitution.” “Be that as it may we do not think our client was given ample notice to enable him to prepare and appear before the committee in obedience to the summons,” adding that “we hope you will take the necessary steps to do what is consistent with the due process as required by law.” Mr Ahmed said although his client was willing to appear before the PAC, “we would not want our client to be subjected to questions, the effect of which will prejudice the outcome of the court case”. Meanwhile, the First Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr Doe Adjaho, has overruled the decision by the Chairman of the PAC to write to the IGP to produce Woyome to appear before the committee, writes Emmanuel Adu-Gyamera. Mr Adjaho contends that the PAC Chairman lacks the powers to cause the arrest of persons who refuse to appear before the committee. Quoting Order 151 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, Mr Adjaho said it was only the Speaker of Parliament who had the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of an individual who failed to appear before a committee of the House. Meanwhile members of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) on the PAC of Parliament are accusing Mr Kan-Dapaah of taking arbitrary decisions. The Member of Parliament for Yapei and a committee member, Amadu Seidu, said Mr Kan-Dapaah could not arrogate to himself the power to ask the IGP to drag Woyome before the committee without consulting the other committee members. Mr Amadu Seidu said he was expecting the chairman to call a meeting of members to decide what line of action to take after Woyome failed to appear for the third time, even after he was subpoenaed. "The chairman is not the committee, the committee is not the chairman,” he stated. However, Mr Kan-Dapaah has reacted strongly to comments by the First Deputy Speaker that he did not follow due procedure in ordering the arrest of Mr Woyome. Mr Kan-Dapaah told the Daily Graphic that even though he gave the order, he knew that the proper thing to do under that circumstance was to pass it through the Speaker. “I have forwarded the letter to the Speaker’s Office, since I know that that is how it should be done.” He said he was aware that the Speaker was not in the country and in that circumstance the mantle would fell on the First Deputy Speaker, Mr Adjaho. Mr Kan-Dapaah added that the committee had done its part and it would be up to the Speaker and her deputies to either instruct the IGP to issue a warrant to drag Mr Woyome before the committee or not.

Kennedy Agyapong trial - State prosecutors fail to turn up

AUGUST 24, 2012 (Page 3) STATE prosecutors today failed to turn up at the trial of the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong who has been accused of pitting Ashantis against Gas and Ewes. The MP, his wife, lawyer, Atta Akyea and sympathisers got to the court premises before 9:00 a.m. but the prosecution had not shown up as at 10:40 a.m. When the case was called after 10:40 a.m., Mr Akyea rose to his feet and informed the court that it was obvious the prosecution would not show up. He prayed the court to permit the MP to travel outside the country for medical examination which the court obliged. The trial judge, Mr Ebenezer Osei Darko adjourned the case to October 16, 2012. The MP has since April 17, 2012 being trundled between the Adjabeng District Magistrate Court where the magistrate declined jurisdiction; the Human Rights Court which granted him bail; the Fast Track High Court, which was billed to commence his trial and the Supreme Court where the prosecution had prayed it to quash proceedings at the Fast Track High Court. He was first put before the Circuit Court presided over by Mr Ebenezer Osei Darko on July 19, 2012 On July 4, 2012, the Supreme Court threw out the state’s application which prayed it to quash proceedings at the lower court hearing the MP’s case because according to the state, the court lacked jurisdiction. However, in a unanimous decision, the highest court of the land ruled that the action filed by the Attorney-General (A-G) was “unnecessary and extremely odd” because the law empowered the A-G to file a nolle prosequi to discontinue the processes at the lower court. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the state filed a nolle prosequi on July 6, 2012 to discontinue proceedings against the MP before the court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist. Contrasting the commotion which erupted following his arrest on April 16, 2012, the MP was today arraigned on a low key at the Circuit Court charged with two counts of provocation of riot and offensive conduct. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted self recognisance bail after one of his lawyers, Mr. Frank Davis, had prayed the court to grant him bail because he was a man of repute, owned businesses and would comply with the bail terms. Mr. Davis also denied the prosecution’s assertion that the MP incited a particular group against the other. Counsel argued further that his client was not capable of declaring war and stressed that the MP did not own mass ammunition to do that. According to the lawyer, the MP would not cause war in his own country. A Principal State Attorney, Mr. Anthony Rexford Wiredu did not oppose bail and further pointed out that the accused person had so far conducted himself creditably. He explained that the MP appeared before the court on his own volition after he had been notified by the prosecution.

Creation of new constituencies under threat

AUGUST 24, 2012 (Front page) AN Accra-based businessman, Mr James Amarh Amartey, has dragged the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Attorney-General to the Supreme Court challenging the legality in in the intention of the EC to create 45 additional constituencies. The plaintiff contends that L.I. 1983 of 2010, which created new districts and laid before Parliament by the Minister of Local Government and through which the new constituencies have been created should be declared an absolute nullity. According to the plaintiff, the outcome of the December 7, 2012 Presidential and Parliamentary elections would be rendered invalid if L.I. 1983 of 2010 was not deleted. The plaintiff, is therefore, praying the court to declare that the Representation of People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument 2012, C.I. 73 seeking to create 45 new constituencies, thereby increasing the existing constituencies from 230 to 275, currently lying in Parliament and yet to come into force as null and void. He is through his lawyer, Mr Ayikoi Otoo invoking the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to declare that the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas And Designation of Units" Instrument, L.I.1983 of 2010, laid in Parliament by the Minister responsible for Local Government, and which came into force after twenty-one (21) days from the day it was gazetted, was made by the Minister responsible for Local Government, in contravention of Article 45(b) of the Constitution 1992. Article 45 (b) of the 1992 gives the EC the mandate to demarcate electoral boundaries for both national and local government elections. That function according to the plaintiff has been usurped by the Minister of Local Government and for that reason the plaintiff is further praying the court to rule that the said Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument L.I. 1983 of 2010 by the Minister of Local Government as null and void and of no legal effect. The plaintiff is arguing that the Electoral Areas unconstitutionally created by the Minister responsible for Local Government was equally null and void and of no legal effect. “National Elections (Presidential & Parliamentary), scheduled for December 7, 2012 would have to be conducted based upon C.I. 73 which has incorporated in it the Electoral Areas contained in the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument L.I. 1983 of 2010. That L.I. is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect,” a statement of claim pointed out. . The background as provided by the plaintiff was that on October 19, 2010, the then Hon. Minister of Local Government laid before Parliament after Cabinet approval, the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument L.I. 1983. It said Pursuant to Order 77 of the Standing Orders of Parliament of Ghana, the Hon. Speaker of Parliament referred the said Instrument to the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation and “in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(7) of the Constitution 1992, the said L.I. 1983 after 21 sitting days after being so laid came into force and became known as L.I. 1983 of 2010.” “ Following legal suits challenging the authority of Parliament to amend the said L.I. 1983 of 2010, some of the Electoral Areas so created by the said L.I. 1983 of 2010, were declared null and void and of no legal effect notably: Okane and 4 Ors v Electoral Commission and Attorney- General, [2011] SCGLR 1136; Opremreh v Electoral Commission of Ghana & Attorney- General [2011] SCGLR 1159; Charles Mate Kole & Another Vrs The Electoral Commission, The Attorney-Cerieral And Nene Teye Titriku I, Akuse-Amedeka Citizens Association in Writ No.Jl/4/2011 - Unreported Judgment dated June 13, 2012.” The Plaintiff contends that under Article 45(b) of the Constitution 1992, the creation of Electoral Boundaries was vested in the Electoral Commission and not in the Minister responsible for Local Government. “ The Minister responsible for Local Government in creating the district electoral areas under L.I. 1983 of 2010, purported to have derived his authority from subsections (3) and (4) of section 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Act 462). Accordingly, the plaintiff argues that the act of the Minister for Local Government therefore in usurping the constitutional function of the Electoral Commission in the creation of Electoral boundaries or Areas with the laying in Parliament of the Local Government (Creation of New District Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument L.1. 1983 of 2010 was an act inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 45 (b) of the Constitution 1992 and therefore, makes the said L.1. 1983 of 2010, invalid.

Contempt case against EC withdrawn

AUGUST 17, 2012 (Page 20) A contempt of court suit brought against the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan and six others has been withdrawn. Dr Afari-Gyan and the other six respondents namely Amadu Sulley, Kwadwo Sarfo Kantanka, Mrs Pauline Adobea, Ebenezer Aggrey Fynn, Mrs Rebecca Kabuki Adjafo and Mrs Sa-Adatu Maida, all commissioners of the EC were present in court. Mr Ayikoi Otoo, who instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr Richard Odum Bortier and Mr Daniel Quaye, announced the withdrawal at the Fast Track High Court’s sitting in Accra today. The plaintiffs, who are both residents of Nungua in Accra, had prayed the court to imprison the seven for contempt of court because they had in spite of a pending court action against the creation of new constituencies gone ahead to lay a paper before Parliament in further pursuit of their agenda to create the new constituencies. However, Mr Ayikoi explained that the discontinuing of the case was necessitated by the EC’s withdrawal of erroneous version of CI 73 for the creation of additional 45 constituencies. The EC withdrew CI 73 and replaced it with a corrected version after the House rejected the previous version on grounds that it contained many errors and inconsistencies. With the laying of the corrected version, prospective candidates of the various political parties who are preparing to secure the mandate to contest for the new seats will have to wait for another 21 parliamentary sitting days. Counsel for the respondents, Mr James Quashie-Idun disagreed with Mr Otoo’s stance and suggested it would have served a better purpose if parties in the case waited for the outcome of a ruling which was billed to be delivered at another High Court. The presiding judge, Mr Edward Amoako-Asante accordingly struck out the application as having been withdrawn and declined to award cost. Following the withdrawal of the suit by the applicants, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Edward Amoako-Asante accordingly struck out the contempt application which had prayed the court to imprison the respondents. Meanwhile, another Fast Track High Court presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta has declined jurisdiction over a suit which prayed it order the EC to public CI setting forth the basis, processes and methodology by which it creates, reviews or alters the constituencies of Ghana having regard to the provisions in the Constitution. It advised the plaintiffs, Bortier and Quaye to go to the Constituency Boundary Dispute Settlement Tribunal, a specialized court which has been designated to hear boundary related disputes. The EC had prayed the court to stay proceedings and refer the matter which was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr Otoo to the Supreme Court for interpretation. According to the EC, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs needed constitutional interpretation which was the sole preserve of the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the court held a different view and stated that the issues raised by the plaintiffs did not border on constitutional interpretation. The plaintiffs had also prayed the court to order the EC to take into account the mandatory provisions of Article 47 (3) of the 1992 Constitution in any future demarcation, review or alteration of boundaries of any constituency in Ghana so as to ensure fair representation as enshrined in the Constitution. They had also urged the court to declare that the EC’s principle that every district must have a constituency was not warranted by either the Constitution or any other law as well as restrain the EC from demarcating, reviewing or altering boundaries of the constituencies in future unless due process was followed.

Contempt suit against EC adjourned

AUGUST 15, 2012 (Page 19) A contempt of court suit brought against the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC), Dr Kwadwo Afari Gyan and six others has been adjourned to Thursday, August 16, 2012. Two residents of Nungua in Accra, Mr Richard Odum Bortier and Mr Daniel Quaye, are praying the Fast Track High Court to imprison the seven for contempt of court because they had in spite of a pending court action against the creation of new constituencies had gone ahead to lay a paper before Parliament in further pursuit of their agenda to create the new constituencies. The other respondents are Amadu Sulley, Kwadwo Sarfo Kantanka, Mrs Pauline Adobea, Ebenezer Aggrey Fynn, Mrs Rebecca Kabuki Adjafo and Mrs Sa-Adatu Maida, all commissioners of the EC. At the Fast Track High Court’s sitting in Accra today, it emerged that Mrs Adjafo and Maida were absent because they had not been served and that prompted the presiding judge, Mr Justice Edward Amoako-Asante to adjourn the case to enable them to be served. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr Ayikoi Otoo while the EC was represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun. An affidavit deposed by Mr Bortier, said although he and the other plaintiff had filed a writ on May 28, 2012, seeking to stop the EC from going ahead with the creation of the constituencies, because due process was not followed, the EC has laid the Constitutional Instrument for the new constituencies before Parliament. According to the plaintiffs, after they had duly served the EC, the EC caused its Solicitors, Lynes Quashie-Idun & Co. to enter a Conditional Appearance and that it was “an indication beyond all reasonable doubt that the Commission and the Commissioners had, had notice of the Writ and Statement of Claim and were ready to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.” “Thereafter, the EC proceeded to file a Motion praying the “Honourable Court to stay proceedings and refer the Suit to the Supreme Court.” Another High Court, presided over by Mr Justice K. A. Ofori-Atta is expected to rule on the application to refer the matter to the Supreme Court on Thursday, July 16, 2012. The affidavit said “the Writ, Statement of Claim, Entry of Appearance, Motion to Stay Proceedings together with its Affidavit were all pending before this Honourable Court, when I heard that the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (the 1st Respondent herein) had evinced an intention to go ahead with the demarcation of new constituencies which he fully knew would affect the subject-matter of litigation.” “Our Lawyer, therefore, caused a letter to be sent to all the Commissioners of the Electoral Commission, warning them that once they had become aware of the pendency of the Action before the Court, any conduct on their part, which is likely to prejudice a fair hearing of the case or interfere with the due administration of justice would amount to contempt for which those interested in wrong would be shown that the law is irresistible,” it pointed out and attached copies of the letters as exhibits. It said nothing was heard from the EC until sometime on or about the July 17, 2012, when it appeared on the Order Paper in Parliament that, a Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) dealing with the creation of new constituencies entitled “Representation of People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument 2012” had been prepared by the EC. “I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the Constitutional Instrument now numbered 76 of 2012 is the act of the Electoral Commission being a Subsidiary Legislation and not a Bill since Subsidiary Legislation are made by persons and authorities to whom Parliament had delegated its Legislative functions”, it said. “Thus, Constitutional Instrument No.76 was made by the Electoral Commission and it is therefore the Electoral Commission which could be held liable for the laying of the said Instrument during the pendency of the Suit No.HP9/2012 and not Parliament” the affidavit in support continued. According to the plaintiffs, the conduct of the respondents in laying of the Constitutional Instrument No.76 of 2012 in Parliament on July 17, 2012 more than nearly 3 months after the writ had been pending to the knowledge of the respondents and after their counsel had warned them of the possible citing for contempt, “have tended to bring the administration of the law into disrespect or disregard and to interfere with the cause of justice or prejudice, ourselves and our witnesses.” It said although the respondents were aware of the other relief seeking an order to restrain the EC from altering or creating new constituencies, except it had followed due process,” it had through the seven respondents proceeded to create new constituencies with abandoned nonchalance which conduct is aimed at prejudicing and interfering with the administration of justice.” “They intend to obstruct the work of the Court and deserve nothing short of imprisonment which course alone in the circumstances can purge their contemptuous behaviour,” the affidavit added. Consequently, the plaintiffs are inviting the court to demonstrate to the respondents that the law was irresistible “and that those in leadership position who decide to execute leadership by show of brinkmanship should be shown that the Courts do not possess feet of clay.”