EC files motion for more information on petition

January 16, 2013 (Page 22) THE Electoral Commission (EC) has filed a motion at the Supreme Court requesting petitioners challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 elections to furnish it with “further and better” particulars of polling stations alleged irregularities took place. A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, which had the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at 4,709 polling stations, favoured President John Dramani Mahama. According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. Joined to the petition is the winner of the 2012 presidential polls, President Mahama, while the EC, which conducted the elections, was sued as an entity. The EC had in a defence dated January 7, 2013 denied claims that Nana Addo Akufo- Addo, won the elections and also denied any irregularities and electoral malpractice, as well as working deliberately to unlawfully assist President Mahama, to win the presidential poll. It subsequently prayed the court to "order the petitioners to give particulars of the polling stations in which the violations, irregularities and malpractice are alleged to have occurred". As a follow up to its defence, the EC filed a motion today, January 15, 2013, demanding additional particulars on the polling stations, constituencies and regions the alleged irregularities took place. In his defence, the President denied the petitioners allegations and accused them of attempting to “subvert” the will of the people adding he won the elections freely and fairly in the full glare of the media, domestic and international election observers. He has also indicated his intention to call 4,800 witnesses to affirm his position that he won the elections on a clean note. The much awaited hearing of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) motion to join a petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential results, will commence at the Supreme Court in Accra today (Wednesday, January 16, 2013). The motion, which was originally billed to be moved by the NDC’s legal team on Thursday, January 10, 2013, had to be adjourned indefinitely because lawyers for the petitioners had objected to the composition of the panel. But the objection was withdrawn barely 24 hours after it had been raised in camera by one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison. Following the withdrawal of the objection, the registrar of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, January 14, 2013 served hearing notices on lawyers for the parties in the case. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo is leading the legal team for the petitioners while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC respectively. The EC will be represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun and other lawyers. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members are expected to hear the motion on whether or not the NDC should be allowed to join the petition.

Supreme Court hears joinder petition today

January 16, 2013 (Front page) BARRING any last-minute hitch, the much-awaited hearing of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) motion to join a petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential election will commence at the Supreme Court in Accra today, January 16, 2013. The motion, which had originally been billed to be moved by the NDC’s legal team on Thursday, January 10, 2013, had to be adjourned sine die because lawyers for the petitioners had objected to the composition of the panel. But the objection was withdrawn barely 24 hours after it had been raised in camera by one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison. Following the withdrawal of the objection, the registrar of the Supreme Court, on Monday, January 14, 2013, served hearing notices on lawyers for the parties in the case. A date for the hearing of the substantive petition will be fixed after the court has heard and determined whether or not to allow the NDC to join in its capacity as a political party. Unlike in the past when the Supreme Court was opened to the public, attendance at today’s proceedings will be strictly by invitation and under very heavy security. There will be a large number of security personnel to maintain law and order right from the streets through to the Supreme Court compound and the inner perimeter of the court building. Scanners will be placed at the lower and upper floors of the Supreme Court. People will be thoroughly searched, while cellular phones and other electronic gadgets will not be allowed to be used inside the courtroom. Only accredited journalists, lawyers, party functionaries and members of the public will be allowed entry into the courtroom. A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, is leading the legal team for the petitioners, while Mr Tony Lithur and Mr Tsatsu Tsikata are leading a number of lawyers to make a case for the President and the NDC, respectively. The EC will be represented by Mr James Quashie-Idun, its lead counsel. A nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, with Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, as panel members, is expected to hear the motion on whether or not the NDC should be allowed to join the petition. The petitioners — the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey — are arguing that the election results were doctored in favour of President Mahama. President Mahama and the EC are the respondents of the petition, which promises to be a landmark in the legal history of Ghana, as the President has indicated his preparedness to call 4,800 witnesses to affirm that he was elected on a clean sheet. The President is accusing the petitioners of making attempts to “subvert the will” of the people and argues that he was elected freely, fairly and in the full glare of the media, domestic and international election observers. The EC, for its part, has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that the results it declared were credible and accurate. Before a date could be set for the hearing of the substantive petition, the NDC filed a motion for joinder and argued that the President stood on its ticket to win the elections and, it was, therefore, imperative for the utmost court of the land to allow it to join the petition. However, Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the motion for joinder on the grounds that it is a ploy by the NDC to delay hearing of the petition. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) provides in part as follows: "The court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" for a speedy disposal of a presidential election petition. By virtue of provisions in the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74), the matter will be determined once and for all, since no provision is made for a review of the court’s decision, although the 1992 Constitution gives the court the mandate to review its own decisions. Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides: “The validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the results of the election in respect of which the petition is presented,” while Article 64(2) says: “A declaration by the Supreme Court that the election of the President is not valid shall be without prejudice to anything done by the President before the declaration.’’ Part VIII of the Supreme Court Rules — Challenge Of Election of President, Rule 68 — provides: “A petition presented pursuant to Clause (I) of Article 64 of the Constitution shall state (a) the full name and address of the petitioner and of his counsel, if any, which shall be an address for service; (b) the grounds for challenging the validity of the election; (c) a statement of the facts relied on to be verified by affidavit, and of the law in support of the petition; (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any; and by (e) such other matters as the court may determine.” Rule 69 also says: “The Attorney-General and any other person upon whom a petition is served may file with the registrar, within two days of the service, an answer to the petition which shall state (a) the grounds of opposition to the petition; (b) the facts relied upon, verified by affidavit; (c) the law in support of the answer in opposition to the petition; and (d) the number of witnesses to be called, if any.” Rule 71 says: “The court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of the petition, deliver its judgement and the registrar shall, within seven days of the delivery of the judgement, forward a copy of the judgement to the Electoral Commission.’’

NDC joinder application - SUPREME COURT SITS TOMORROW

January 15, 2013 (Lead Story) THE Supreme Court has fixed Wednesday, January 16, 2013, to hear the application by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) seeking to join a petition contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential poll. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the court indefinitely adjourned the hearing of the application after lawyers for the petitioners objected to the composition of the nine-member panel presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba. Other members of the panel were Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. However, lawyers for the petitioners withdrew their opposition to the panel on Friday, January 11, 2013, barely 24-hours after they had raised the objection. Following the withdrawal, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr James Amoah, had since served hearing notices on lawyers for parties in the case. The hearing notice was dated January 14, 2013. One of the lawyers for President Mahama, Mr Tony Lithur, confirmed the serving of the hearing notice on him to appear on behalf of the President. A member of the legal team for the petitioners, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, also confirmed that his side had received a copy of the notice. The presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, are contesting the declaration of President Mahama as winner of the 2012 presidential poll. Also joined to the petition is the Electoral Commission (EC), which presided over the poll. The petitioners are accusing the EC of doctoring the results in favour of President Mahama, but the EC has denied the claims and described the election results as credible and accurate. Following the filing of the petition on December 28, 2012, the NDC filed a motion for joinder on the grounds that it was an interested party in the case because the President stood for the election on its ticket. But Nana Akufo-Addo has opposed the application, with the argument that the NDC’s move was a ploy to delay the trial. President Mahama, for his part, has filed his response, arguing that the petitioners were “seeking to subvert the Constitution and undermine the sovereign will of the people of Ghana by demanding from the court an order to annul the results of the exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution”. He said “the petitioners’ allegations are brazen attempts to find excuses for losing the 2012 presidential election” and, accordingly, demanded the petitioners to prove how the EC allegedly manipulated polling station results, which were declared in the full glare of the public, the media and both international and domestic election observers. He also indicated his intention to call a record 4,800 witnesses to affirm his position that he won the election on a clean sheet.

Election Petition - PRESIDENT MAHAMA FILES RESPONSE. Intends calling 4,800 witnesses

Monday, January 14, 2013 (Lead Story) PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama has filed his response to a petition by three personalities of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) challenging his election as President in the December 7, 2012 presidential election and indicated his intention to call 4,800 witnesses to state his case. In a 15-page response, President Mahama has accused the presidential candidate of the NPP, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, who are contesting his election of “seeking to subvert the Constitution and undermine the sovereign will of the people of Ghana by demanding from the Honourable Court an order annulling the results of the exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution”. The President, in a response filed at the Registry of the Supreme Court at 3 p.m. on Saturday, January 12, 2013, said he “shall require from the petitioners particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions where pink sheets from different polling stations allegedly had the same serial numbers and the votes allegedly affected in each case”. “The petitioners’ allegations are brazen attempts to find excuses for losing the 2012 presidential election,” he said. The response filed on behalf of the President by his lawyer, Mr Tony Lithur, said, “The whole petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.” An affidavit in verification deposed to on behalf of the President by Mr Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, the Campaign Co-ordinator of the President’s 2012 campaign team, said the President “demands from the petitioners particulars of names of persons who allegedly illegally padded and/or unlawfully reduced the votes, the polling stations, constituencies and regions where the alleged acts occurred and the votes affected in each such polling station, constituency and region”. The affidavit further demanded from the petitioners particulars of the alleged over-voting, the names of polling stations, constituencies and regions in which the alleged over-voting occurred, as well as the “amount of alleged over-voting in each case”. According to the response, it was acknowledged by all observers, domestic as well as international, that the conduct of the elections had been generally free and fair, as well as transparent. It further stated that the argument that “there were some veiled reasons” for the difference between 13,917,366 and the final number of registered voters smacked of utmost “bad faith”. Responding to claims by the petitioners that the EC delayed in furnishing the NPP with the final voters register, it said “the NDC received both registers at the same time as the NPP and all other political parties”. “Therefore, whatever disadvantages may have been attendant upon the alleged late delivery of the electoral register affected all the other political parties equally,” it said. In reply to claims by the petitioners that the results declared for the presidential election exceeded those declared for the parliamentary elections by 127,210 votes, the President said to the best of his knowledge and belief, “a common register was used for both the presidential and parliamentary elections” and, accordingly described the petitioners’ allegations as “clearly false and disingenuous”. On allegations of voters being allowed to vote without verification, the President demanded from the petitioners “names of the polling stations involved in the alleged practice of voting without biometric fingerprint verification and the number of persons who allegedly voted in each such polling station without biometric fingerprint verification, as well as the constituencies and regions under which such polling stations fall”. In any case, the President stated that “quite apart from fingerprint verification, there are other methods of verification permissible under the law. Failure (if at all) by eligible voters to undergo fingerprint verification, through no fault of theirs, can, therefore, not form the basis for depriving such voters their fundamental rights under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution”. The President denied allegations that some persons who had not undergone biometric registration were allowed to vote. Rather, he argued that to the best of his knowledge and information, only voters who had undergone biometric registration voted during the elections. He further demanded from the petitioners “particulars, among others, of the polling stations at which persons who had not undergone biometric registration allegedly voted and the number of voters involved in each polling station, constituency and region”. The affidavit in support said Nana Akufo-Addo ought to have had polling and/or counting agents at the various polling stations who were part of the prescribed voter identification processes prior to voting. “The said polling and/or counting agents, having participated in that process and having, after public and transparent counting and/or collation, certified the results of the polling stations and/or constituencies by signing without protest the polling returns, had thereby represented to the whole world that the declared results accurately reflected the outcome of the election in the respective polling stations and/or constituencies,” he said. He expected the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions in which “different results were strangely recorded on the declaration forms in respect of polling stations bearing the same polling station codes”, as well as the number of votes allegedly affected at each polling station. Making further requests, the President said he expected the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations, constituencies and regions in which the allegations of the absence of signatures of EC officers occurred, together with the recorded votes at each polling station, constituency and region. Responding to the petitioners call for the annulment of votes from 4,709 polling stations, the President said such demand “constitutes an attempt to undermine the fundamental rights of Ghanaians under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution and should be rejected by the Honourable Court as completely lacking any basis in law and/or fact”. He further urged the petitioners to provide particulars of the exact nature of the alleged irregularities and/or malpractices, the names of the 4,709 polling stations in which they occurred, as well as the number of affected voters in each polling station. According to the President, the results of the election were publicly declared at the various polling stations and constituencies and were matters of public knowledge, adding that “the results were the product of painstaking, public and transparent sorting and counting and/or collation (and sometimes re-counting) at the various polling stations and collation centres, with the full participation of petitioners’ accredited polling and/or counting agents and those of other contesting political parties who certified such results by appending signatures to the declaration forms”. On allegations that all irregularities and electoral malpractice were a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy to unlawfully assist the President to win the elections, the President denied that assertion and stated that he demanded from the petitioners “particulars of the alleged ploy or contrivance, the manner in which they were executed and the names of persons involved therein”. He said the attack on Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) for allegedly harbouring him and intercepting faxed results of the elections was “one of the many instances of wanton violence and destruction by NPP supporters which characterised the election and the period after the declaration of the results” and further challenged them to prove the allegations. “Respondent is also unaware of the manner in which results properly certified by the duly accredited representatives of all the contesting candidates at their respective collation centres were tampered with and shall demand from the petitioners particulars of how such a result could be achieved,” the affidavit pointed out. It, however, stated that those “allegations are, anyhow, not relevant to the outcome of the present petition and first respondent intends to apply for the said paragraphs to be struck out as scandalous and an attempt to prejudice a fair trial and an abuse of the court’s process”. The President further intends to cite reported cases, including Tehn Addy v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 589; Apaloo v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 253; Election of the First President, In Re: Appiah v Attorney-General [1969] 2G&G 530; Tuffuor v Attorney-General (1980) GLR 637; Fenuku v John Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 and Re Agyepong (Decd): Poku v Abosi and Another [1982-83] 2GLR 475 to maintain his innocence. The President also plans to rely on the 1992 Constitution and other statutes, including: The Presidential Elections Act, 1992, PNDCL 285; The Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012, (CI 72); The Public Elections Regulations, 2012, CI 75; The Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) and The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and seven reported legal cases to affirm his position that he was the truly elected candidate in the December 7, 2012 presidential election.

NPP withdraws opposition to panel membership

January 12, 2013 (Front page) LAWYERS for petitioners challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 elections have withdrawn their objection to the composition of a Supreme Court panel billed to hear the National Democratic Congress (NDC’s) application for joinder to the petition. A letter dated January 11, 2013 and bearing the signature of a lawyer from Akufo-Addo, Prempeh and co. and addressed to the Registrar of the Supreme Court said the petitioners did not intend to pursue their motion objecting to the composition of the panel in order for the case to be expeditiously tried. The letter accordingly urged the Registrar of the Supreme Court to fix a date for the motion for joinder to be heard “at the earliest date”. The petitioners namely, Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey filed a petition contesting the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 polls but the NDC filed a motion to join on grounds that the President stood for the elections on its ticket. However, when the matter for joinder was called on Thursday, one of the lawyers of the petitioners, Mr Philip Addison indicated that the intention of the petitioners to raise an objection in camera but the lawyers for the NDC and President Mahama, Messrs Tsatsu Tsikata and Tony Lithur objected and insisted the issue be raised in open court. The nine-member panel presided over by Mr Justice Atuguba, with Mr Justice Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members finally heard the issue in chambers in the presence of all parties in the case including the Electoral Commission (EC) which has also been sued. The court then adjourned the case indefinitely to enable the petitioners to file a formal motion. Lawyers for the NPP did not disclose the name of the panel member they objected to but a member of the NDC legal team, Nana Ato Dadzie, revealed the identity of the Supreme Court judge the petitioners were opposed to. According to Nana Dadzie, lawyers for the petitioners challenging the 2012 Presidential elections were of the view that Mr Justice Atuguba should be exempted because he was a cousin to Dr Raymond Atuguba, the newly appointed Executive Secretary to President John Dramani Mahama. In the substantive matter, the petitioners are claiming irregularities recorded during the elections, favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, the EC, has denied any wrongdoing arguing that the results it declared were credible and accurate.

Hearing of electoral petition - NPP OBJECTS TO PANEL

January 11, 2013 (Lead story) HEARING of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) application to join a suit challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the 2012 Presidential polls was yesterday adjourned indefinetly. Legal brains of both parties had met to ‘knock legal horns’ for and against NDC’s application to join the case but that could not come on as counsel for the petitioners had an issue with the composition of the panel. The matter was adjourned to enable lawyers for the petitioners to file a formal application stating why they objected to the composition of the nine-member panel. The petitioners in the case are the Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, Aside from President John Dramani Mahama, who is the first respondent in the matter, the Electoral Commission (EC), has also been drawn in as the second respondent. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. But the EC says the results were accurate and fair. Following the filing of the petition, the NDC applied through its General Secretary, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, to be made party to the petition because it was indisputable that as the party which sponsored President Mahama to stand on its platform and on whose platform he stood, “the applicant herein has a vital interest in this petition and deserves to be joined as respondent and be heard in this petition.” At exactly 10 a.m, the nine-member panel entered the packed courtroom which was filled by a large number of legal practitioners, party functionaries of both the NDC and the NPP as well as independent members of the public. Soon after lawyers representing the interested parties in the case had announced themselves, Mr Phillip Addison, a member of the NPP legal team prayed the court to allow the legal representation from all the sides to approach the Bench to enable his side raise a preliminary issue in camera as a sign of respect. However, the lead lawyer for the NDC, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, objected to Mr Addison’s call and explained that the petition had been made public and it was only fair that all issues raised in court were done publicly. Leaning on Rule 69 C of the new Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 74) to buttress his point, Mr Tsikata said the rule clearly stated that matters of such nature shall take place in open court. That, according to counsel, would not give room to peddling of rumours and speculations, adding that the petitioners had made several statements on the case in public and it was, therefore, inappropriate for them to seek to raise an issue in camera. Counsel for the President, Mr Tony Lithur held that the issue was “too serious to be held behind closed doors.” A large number of legal brains and party functionaries were present in court. Nana Akufo-Addo and Dr Bawumia sat alongside Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, the President was absent. Ms Gloria Akuffo, former Deputy Attorney-General led a nine-member NPP legal team while Mr Tsikata led a three-member NDC team with Mr Quashie-Idun leading a three-member legal team for the EC. The nine-member court was made up of Mr Justice William Atuguba (Presing), Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Meanwhile, the NDC has filed a supplementary affidavit to its motion to join the petition. The affidavit which was filed today (January 9, 203) at 9:45 said “a denial of the applicant the opportunity to be joined so as to be heard in respect of this election petition would be a denial of the constitutional rights of the applicant.” But Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the NDC’s application for joinder on grounds that the move was aimed at delaying the trial.

It's Atuguba, NDC reveals

January 11, 2013 (Front Page) One of the lawyers for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Nana Ato Dadzie, has revealed the identity of the Supreme Court judge who is opposed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP ) to sit on the Supreme Court hearing the motion for joinder to the petition challenging the results of the December 7 presidential poll. According to Nana Dadzie, lawyers for the petitioners challenging the 2012 presidential election were of the view that Mr Justice William Atuguba should be exempted because he was a cousin of Dr Raymond Atuguba, the newly appointed Executive Secretary to President John Dramani Mahama. The leadership and lawyers for the NPP were tight-lipped on naming the judge they were opposed to, but in a press briefing immediately after the court sitting, Nana Dadzie told journalists that the NPP legal team had indicated during a meeting with the judges, in the presence of other lawyers in the case, that they expected Mr Justice Atuguba to recuse himself because of the likelihood of bias. Flanked by Dr Dominic Ayine and Mr Victor K. Adawudu, both members of the NDC legal team, Nana Dadzie told reporters that some members of the NPP had, prior to the hearing of the motion for joinder, gone on a private radio station to state the name of the judge they were opposed to. He said the matter was of grave interest to the public and it was, therefore, unfortunate for the NPP to treat the case in such a manner. However, the lead counsel for the NPP, Ms Gloria Akuffo, denied the notion that the NPP was out there to harm the stability of the country. She argued that it was because the party believed in the rule of law that its leadership was pursuing the matter in court. She was, however, tight-lipped when asked to give the name of the judge her clients were opposed to. The petitioners — Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the NPP’s presidential candidate in the December 2012 elections; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey — claim irregularities recorded during the election favoured the President Mahama, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, the EC, which has also been joined to the petition, has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the results it declared were credible and accurate. Meanwhile, the court has adjourned hearing on the NDC’s application for joinder sine die to enable lawyers for the petitioners to put their objection in writing. Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed to the application for joinder on grounds that it was calculated to delay the case.

Atuguba laments

January 11, 2013 (Front page) A Supreme Court judge, Justice William Atuguba, has taken a swipe at persons he perceived to be casting doubt about the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. “This country is solid but is breaking down because principles are being chopped down,” he said, adding, “This is not good.” “We have a strong and solid independent Judiciary in this country which must be preserved,” Justice Atuguba said, in apparent response to a challenge to his being a member of the panel constituted by the Chief Justice, Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, to hear the NDC’s motion for joinder to the petition challenging the declaration of President John Mahama as winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential election. “If we perceive the Judiciary not to be independent, we will be gambling with the destiny of this country,” the president of the nine-member panel stated after he and his colleagues had emerged from their chambers following a meeting with lawyers representing the parties in the case. Looking visibly unhappy, Justice Atuguba said he did not want to be part of a group that gambled with the destiny of the country and turned to his colleagues, indicating, “I do not think my colleagues want to be part of it.” The other panel members did not flinch, while lawyers and other observers listened quietly as Justice Atuguba spoke while making gestures with both hands. But in a quick rebuttal, the lead counsel for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Ms Gloria Akuffo, told newsmen that the NPP was interested in the stability of the country and that accounted for its decision to contest the election results in court and not through crude methods. “We came to court to strengthen Ghana’s democracy and stability,” she explained, adding that “the NPP is committed to protecting the security of the country and will, therefore, not do anything to compromise the country’s interest.” Ms Akuffo, who is a former Deputy Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, maintained the NPP’s belief in the Judiciary and the rule of the law in the country. The parties in the case are the Electoral Commission (EC), the National Democratic Congress (NDC), President Mahama, and the leadership of the NPP which is challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential election. The petitioners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the NPP; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the Chairman of the NPP, argue that the election results were doctored in favour of President Mahama. The other members of the panel were Justice Julius Ansah, Justice Sophia Adinyira, Justice Rose Owusu, Justice Jones Dotse, Justice AnninYeboah, Justice P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo. Many had anticipated that the hearing of the first leg of the application challenging the election results at the Supreme Court would be chaotic but that was not so. Heavy security was mounted at the outer perimeter of the court, within the Supreme Court building and some yards to the courtroom. Scanners were placed at the lower and upper floors of the court, while supporters of both the NPP and the NDC were visibly absent. Only accredited journalists, lawyers, party functionaries and members of the public were allowed entry into the courtroom.

NDC files supplementary affidavit

January 10, 2013 (Front Page) The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has filed a supplementary affidavit to its motion to join a petition by Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, his running mate, and Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the National Chairman of the NPP, challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the December 2012 presidential election. The supplementary affidavit, which was filed at 9:45 a.m. yesterday and deposed to on behalf of the General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, said, "A denial of the applicant the opportunity to be joined so as to be heard in respect of this election would be a denial of the constitutional rights of the applicant." According to the supplementary affidavit, the NDC had represented its interest, that of its presidential candidate and parliamentary candidates "in the deliberations of the Electoral Commission (EC) with all political parties and candidates in connection with the elections" and, for that reason, the party had the right to be joined to the petition. President Mahama has been hinged to a petition challenging the results of the December 2012 presidential election, which petition has Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Bawumia and Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey as petitioners. Also attached to the petition is the EC. According to the petitioners, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. However, domestic election observers and international observers have described the elections as generally free and fair. The supplementary affidavit further pointed out that President Mahama was selected as a presidential candidate on the ticket of the NDC after the death of Professor John Evans Atta Mills and subsequently stood on the ticket of the party in the December 2012 elections. It said the NDC "deployed throughout all the polling stations agents to represent the interests of its candidates in both presidential and parliamentary elections". It stated that it was indisputable that as the party which selected President Mahama to stand on its platform and on whose platform he stood, "the applicant herein has a vital interest in this petition and deserves to be joined as respondent and be heard in this petition". An affidavit in support of the substantive motion for joinder deposed on behalf of the NDC said the NDC as a party on whose ticket the President contested the elections "has a direct interest and a stake in the matter and will be affected by any decision of this honourable court". "As a party which will be directly affected by the decision, the NDC is entitled to be joined as a party and be heard in respect of the petition and seek to be joined by the motion herein," it pointed out. It said the NDC was a political party registered under the laws of Ghana and had, since the inception of the Fourth Republic, nominated and sponsored candidates for both parliamentary and presidential elections. But Nana Akufo-Addo is opposed the NDC's application for joinder on the grounds that the move was aimed at delaying the trial. Hearing of the motion for joinder been fixed for today. The Chairman of the EC Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President Mahama winner of the polls with 50.70 while his closest contender Akufo-Addo, placed second with 47.74 per cent. The petitioners are disputing the results of the election but the EC maintains that the results it declared were credible and accurate.

Nana Akufo-Addo, others suit against presidential results - EC FILES DEFENCE

January 9, 2013 (Lead Story) The Electoral Commission (EC) has denied claims that the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo, won the elections. In its defence to a petition challenging the declaration of John Dramani Mahama as the winner of the December 2012 presidential election, the EC maintained that "the petition is without merit" and, accordingly, prayed the Supreme Court to "dismiss it". The EC also denied any irregularities and electoral malpractice, as well as working deliberately to unlawfully assist President Mahama to win the presidential poll and subsequently prayed the court to "order the petitioners to give particulars of the polling stations in which the violations, irregularities and malpractice are alleged to have occurred". Touching on the allegation of allowing voters to vote without verification, the EC urged the court to "order the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations in which voting without verification is alleged by them to have taken place". A petition to the Supreme Court, dated December 28, 2012, which had the presidential candIdate of the NPP, Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, as petitioners stated, among other things, that irregularities recorded at some polling stations favoured the National Democratic Congress (NDC). According to the petitioners, 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the outcome of the presidential election. Joined to the petition was the winner of the 2012 presidential poll, President Mahama, while the EC, which conducted the elections, was sued as an entity. President Mahama has entered appearance through his lawyers. In a statement of defence filed on behalf of the EC by Lynes Quashie-Idun and Co at 3: 15 p.m. on January 7, 2013, a few hours after the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, had sworn in Mr Mahama as President of Ghana, the EC denied the claims by the petitioners that it deliberately denied Nana Akufo-Addo victory. Responding to the petitioners' claim for the deduction of 1,342,845 votes from the total valid votes cast and the subsequent claim that those deductions were in favour of Nana Akufo-Addo, the statement urged the Supreme Court to "reject the proposed deductions, since neither the formula nor the justification for them has been presented by the petitioners; nor has any indication been given by the petitioners as to how the figures were arrived at". On allegations that the votes earned by Nana Akufo- Addo were "unlawfully reduced", while votes for President Mahama were "illegally padded" with the sole purpose of procuring victory for President Mahama, the statement replied by praying the court to "order the petitioners to provide particulars of the polling stations in which the alleged reduction and padding took place". It stated that the EC declined to halt the declaration of results on December 9, 2012 because the NPP hierarchy which had prayed it to halt the declaration in the presence of members of the National Peace Council had been provided with either inaccurate or wrong data by its polling agents. The statement prayed the Supreme Court to reject the petitioners' allegations, since they were based on wrong and inaccurate information. It, however, conceded that "the figure of 14,158,890 registered voters stated in the declaration of results was an error occasioned by picking the wrong figure. The number of registered voters which should have been picked was 14,031,793" and which was duly posted on the EC's website. "In this context, it is important to emphasise that this error has no bearing whatsoever on the total votes cast in the election and, consequently, the valid votes obtained by each candidate. The error would only affect the voter turnout percentage and change it from 79.43 per cent to 80.15 per cent," it explained. On the petitioners' claim of late submission of the voters register to the NPP, it denied that allegation and said "the NPP and the NDC, being the two parties with candidates in all constituencies in Ghana, were the first to receive the formal voters register from the EC as of November 21, 2012, one week after the Interparty Advisory Committee (IPAC) meeting held on November 14, 2012". The statement denied the petitioners' claims that the total number of registered voters in the presidential election exceeded that of registered voters for the parliamentary election by 127,210 and held that the same register had been used for both the presidential and the parliamentary elections. It said in a mischievous attempt to buttress baseless accusations made to the media, the petitioners deliberately used an erroneous figure of 14,158,880, instead of 10,995,262, as the total number of votes cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates, among others. The statement, accordingly, prayed the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitioners' allegations, since they were without merit.

Akufo-Addo opposes NDC joinder to petition

January 7, 2013 (Page 13) THE Presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is opposed to the request by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to be joined in a petition challenging the results of the 2012 polls. According to him, the move by the NDC was “calculated to delay” the action challenging the 2012 presidential polls which President John Dramani Mahama emerged the winner with 50.70 per cent. The application by the NDC to join the petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani as winner of the December 2012 elections will be heard on Thursday, January 10, 2013. However, in an application opposing the NDC’s request filed on Saturday, January 5, 2013, Nana Akufo-Addo said the NDC’s application would defeat the object of the new Supreme Court rules which was aimed at securing an expeditious trial in a petition challenging the results of a presidential election. The Supreme Court rule states that hearing of a petition against a Presidential election shall be done on a daily basis including public holidays. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74) provides in part as follows: "the Court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays" when hearing a presidential election petition. The New Patriotic Party (NPP) is at the Supreme Court contesting the Electoral Commission’s (EC’s) declaration of President Mahama as the winner in the 2012 Presidential elections. The Electoral Commission (EC) has been joined to the petition which has Nana Akufo-Addo, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, running mate of the NPP presidential candidate and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey, Chairman of the NPP as plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. The affidavit in support of the motion for joinder deposed on behalf of the NDC by its General Secretary, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, said the NDC as a party on whose ticket the President contested the elections “has a direct interest and a stake in the matter and will be affected by any decision of this honourable court.” “As a party which will be directly affected by the decision, the NDC is entitled to be joined as a party and be heard in respect of the petition and seek to be joined by the motion herein,” the affidavit in support pointed out. But an affidavit opposing NDC’s application for joinder, deposed by Nana Akufo-Addo said the NDC was an unnecessary party to the determination of the issues in controversy. This, according to the affidavit, was because President Mahama had already been joined to the petition and there was, therefore, no need to join the NDC to the petition. It premised its argument on the reason that it was President Mahama and not the NDC that was declared winner in the polls stressing “the NDC was not a candidate in the elections.” The Chairman of the EC, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012 declared President Mahama winner of the polls with 50.70 per cent while his closest contender, Nana Akuffo Addo placed second with 47.74 per cent. The declaration was gazetted by the Declaration of President-elect Instrument 2012 (CI 80) on December 11, 2012.

Supreme Court sets date for NDC application

January 4, 2013 (Front page) The Supreme Court will, on Thursday, January 10, 2013, hear an application by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join a petition challenging the declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential election. A member of the NDC’s legal and communications team, Victor K. Adawudu, told graphic.com.gh in Accra Thursday that the Registry of the Supreme Court had communicated the date to the party. He indicated the party’s readiness to fully justify why it had to be joined to the suit. The New Patriotic Party (NPP) is at the Supreme Court challenging the Electoral Commission’s (EC’s) declaration of President Mahama as winner of the presidential election. The President-elect has been joined to the petition, which has the presidential candidate of the NPP in the 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, as plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink results sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. An affidavit in support of the motion for joinder deposed on behalf of the NDC by its General Secretary, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketia, said the NDC, as the party on whose ticket the President contested the elections, “has a direct interest and a stake in the matter and will be affected by any decision of this honourable court”. “As a party which will be directly affected by the decision, the NDC is entitled to be joined as a party and be heard in respect of the petition and seek to be joined by the motion herein,” it pointed out. It said the NDC was a political party registered under the laws of Ghana and had, since the inception of the Fourth Republic, nominated and sponsored candidates for both parliamentary and presidential elections. On December 9, 2012, the EC declared the NDC’s candidate, Mr Mahama, winner of the elections and, therefore, President-elect of Ghana. The declaration was gazetted by the Declaration of President-elect Instrument 2012 (CI 80) on December 11, 2012.

MAHAMA, EC ENTER APPEARANCE - In petition against presidential results

January 4, 2013 (Lead story) THE President, Mr John Dramani Mahama, has entered appearance in the petition instituted by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) at the Supreme Court challenging his being declared winner of the December 7, 2012 presidential election. The Electoral Commission (EC), which is also a party in the petition, entered appearance through its lawyers on Wednesday, while lawyers for President Mahama filed an appearance on his behalf yesterday. Ghana’s biggest opposition party, the NPP, filed a petition challenging the results of the December 7, 2012 presidential election at the Supreme Court on December 28, 2012. The plaintiffs in the suit are the NPP’s presidential candidate, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey. One of the lawyers for the petitioners, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, confirmed receipt of the EC’s conditional appearance to the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, while Mr Tony Lithur, a member of the NDC legal team, also established that the President entered appearance yesterday afternoon. According to Mr Dame, Lynes, Quashie-Idun and Co entered appearance on behalf of the EC and explained that the EC had seven days, as per the Supreme Court rules (CI 74), to file a defence. The President’s legal team has indicated its readiness to defend him, arguing that claims by the petitioners were erroneous. According to the plaintiffs, irregularities recorded during the elections favoured the NDC, noting that 24,000 of the pink result sheets from some polling stations indicated that those irregularities were enough to affect the results. The Chairman of the EC, Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, on December 9, 2012, declared President Mahama winner of the polls with 50.70 per cent of the votes cast, while his closest contender, Nana Akufo-Addo, placed second with 47.74 per cent.

Bernard Mornah challenges C.I. 74

January 3, 2013 (Front Page) The General Secretary of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Bernard Anbataayela Mornah, is challenging the new Supreme Court rule which states that the hearing of a petition against a presidential election shall be done on a daily basis, including public holidays. Rule 69 C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) provides in part as follows: "The court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays", when hearing a presidential election petition. However, the plaintiff, who brought the action in his personal capacity as a citizen of Ghana, argues that the courts may not open for business until the President issues an Executive Instrument (EI) permitting same to happen. The Attorney-General is the defendant in the suit, which was filed on December 30, 2012. A writ seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed on Mr Mornah’s behalf by his counsel, Dr Raymond Atuguba, argues that “The Public Holidays Act, 2001 (Act 601) provides by implication in its sections 4, 5, and 6 that the courts of law may not open for business unless the President issues an Executive Instrument permitting same to happen.” “Indeed, it is an offence to hold court on a public holiday without such an EI and those who engage in such an act may be arrested, tried and punished in accordance with Act 601,” the statement of case accompanying the writ pointed out. The plaintiff is, accordingly, seeking a “declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 133, 157, 93(2) and 11 of the 1992 Constitution, Rule 71B and a part of Rule 69C (5) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) are unconstitutional and must be declared null and void and of no effect”. He is further praying the highest court of the land to grant any consequential orders it might deem necessary. According to the plaintiff, he noticed in December 2012 that Rule 71B, a portion of Rule 69C (5) and a portion of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) did not appear to be consistent with some provisions of the 1992 Constitution and sought legal advice on same. A date will be fixed for hearing after the Attorney-General has been duly served and he files his response. Mr Mornah’s suit comes at a time the New Patriotic Party (NPP) has filed a petition challenging the December 2012 presidential election results at the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the suit are the presidential candidate of the NPP in the 2012 elections, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, and the National Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.