[2010]DLSC2567 • March 23, 2010 • Supreme Court •
CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &CIVIL LIBERTIES (CHURCIL) vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
The consolidated cases concern constitutional questions on the right of prisoners, including remand and convicted prisoners, to vote in public elections and referenda under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution. CHURCIL challenged the Electoral Commission's refusal to register remand prisoners for voting, citing Section 75 of the Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284), which disqualifies prisoners from being treated as residents for voter registration purposes. The second suit by Ahumah Ocansey extended the challenge to all prisoners and all future elections. The Electoral Commission had denied prisoners the right to vote based on existing electoral laws and logistical challenges.
read moreWOOD (MRS), CJ: These two consolidated cases raise important constitutional questions pertaining to the right of prisoners to vote in public elections and referenda, pursuant to article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, as do other citizens of the Republic, save those below the age of eighteen years, and persons of unsound mind. SUIT NUMBERED J1/ 5/ 2008-(THE CHURCIL CASE) In the suit numbered J1/5/2008, instituted by The Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL), pursuant to article 2 (1) of the Constitution, this court is being invited to determine the question in relation to persons being held in prisons and who are usually referred to as remand prisoners. These are persons who have been arraigned before court on criminal charges, are awaiting trial, but are being kept in prison custody, i. e. legal custody, on court orders. Incidentally, not all remand prisoners are detained in prisons Contrary to the law; some spend their period of detention in police cells. CHU...