Wednesday, February 25, 2009 (Page 3 Lead)
THE Supreme Court will, on April 8, 2009, decide whether or not to quash the ruling of the Sunyani High Court which upheld a petition that sought to restrain the declaration of the winner of the Asutifi South parliamentary election held on December 7, 2008.
The High Court had, on January 6, 2009, ruled that an application for injunction filed by the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP’s) parliamentary candidate for Asutifi South in the election, Mr Yiadom Boakye-Boateng, seeking to restrain the Electoral Commission (EC) from declaring the winner of the Asutifi South election had been properly laid before it.
Mr Collins Dauda, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate and the EC had filed a motion praying the High Court to dismiss the petition, since it had not been properly laid before it on the grounds that it should have been filed 21 days after and not before the declaration of the winner of the election.
Following the court’s decision to dismiss Mr Dauda’s opposition to the petition, he filed an application for an order of certiorari praying the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the High Court to hear the petition which sought to restrain the EC from embarking on its constitutional mandate.
At its sitting in Accra yesterday, the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, fixed April 8, 2009 as the date for ruling on the matter, after the parties had argued their cases.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice Date-Bah, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu and Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie.
Mr Samuel Codjoe, counsel for Mr Dauda, who is now the Minister of Lands, Forestry and Mines, argued that the High Court judge erred and exceeded his jurisdiction when, on his own, he amended Section 18 (2) of PNDC Law 284 by ruling that the payment of a deposit was not necessary for a petition to be heard.
Section 18 (2) of PNDC Law 284 states that “the presentation of an election petition under subsection (1) shall not be valid unless, within the time specified in subsection (1), the petitioner gives ¢20,000 as security for costs”.
Section 18 (1) of the law states that “an election petition shall be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the publication in the Gazette of the result of the election to which it relates, except that a petition questioning an election on an allegation of corrupt practices and specifically alleging a payment of money or to have been made by the person whose election is questioned or to have been made on his behalf to his knowledge, may be presented within twenty-one days after the date of the alleged payment”.
According to counsel for Mr Dauda, the ruling by the court was improper and ought to be quashed by the highest court of the land.
Mr Codjoe said Mr Boakye-Boateng should have waited for the election results to be published in the Gazette before commencing the action at the court, as contained in Section 18 (1) of PNDC Law 284.
Opposing the application, counsel for the respondent, Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd), told the court that the law allowed his counsel to be heard before the 21-day period, especially when there was an allegation of corrupt practice.
According to him, the NPP’s polling agent was the first to sign the results but that paper disappeared.
The court queried him as to whether the petition had been properly laid in conformity with Section 18 (1) of PNDC Law 284 which said a person must be elected before a petition could be filed.
Captain Effah-Dartey argued that it had been properly laid, but one of the panel members, Mrs Justice Owusu, asked him whether or not he was interpreting the law to suit his client’s interests.
Counsel stood his grounds.
Replying, counsel for the EC, Mr James Quarshie-Idun, told the court that the EC filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s ruling, as well as an application for stay of proceedings at the High Court.
He said the position of the EC was that it should be allowed to complete its work before petitions were filed.
According to him, the Court of Appeal had since adjourned the case sine die awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.
A Principal State-Attorney, Ms Sylvia Edusu, who represented the Attorney-General on behalf of the EC, said the Attorney-General was not opposed to the application for an order of certiorari to quash the lower court’s ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment