AMIDU vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER [2002]DLSC1158

Date	2002-01-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC1158

EDWARD WIREDU CJ JSC

BAMFORD – ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

MARTIN AMIDU THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF.

ADUAMAH OSEI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2002]DLSC1158
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AMIDU<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 457<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 30 JANUARY 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MARTIN
AMIDU, THE PLAINTIFF, FOR HIMSELF.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ADUAMAH
OSEI FOR THE DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

EDWARD
WIREDU CJ, BAMFORD – ADDO, AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA, AKUFFO AND LAMPTEY JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Akuffo JSC. <o:p></o:p>On
7 December 2000 the first defendant conducted parliamentary elections
throughout the country. Subsequent to these elections, the results were
formally published in the Ghana Gazette No 1. This publication was dated Friday
5 January 2001. The plaintiff contends that Gazette No 1 (hereinafter referred
to as the Gazette was actually published on or about 16 January 2001 and thus,
the date printed thereon is retrospective and therefore unconstitutional and
unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiff issued the writ herein for declarations
of this court to the effect that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1)
On a true and proper interpretation of articles 2(1)(a) and (b), 51, 99 and 107
of the Constitution, 1992; sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Representation of the
People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) and paragraph 41(1) and (2) of the Public
Elections Regulations, 1996 (CI 15), no person may procure, facilitate or cause
any Gazette on parliamentary elections results to be published with a retrospective
date. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2)
The conduct of the defendants in causing to be published and publishing Gazette
No 1 with a retrospective date is in contravention with and inconsistent with
the Constitution, 1992. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3)
Therefore Gazette No 1 is in contravention of and inconsistent with the
Constitution, 1992 and as such null, void and of no effect whatsoever.”<o:p></o:p>In
support of his claims, the plaintiff asserted that, between 9 and 15 January
2001, he, at various times, made inquiries from the Legislative and Drafting
Division of the Attorney-General’s Office as well as the offices of the second
defendant and was informed that the notice of results and declarations to be
published in the Gazette were being verified and corrected. Consequently, he
raised an objection with the defendants when, on 17 January 2001, he obtained a
copy of the Gazette and noticed that the publication date stated thereon was 5
January 2001.<o:p></o:p>The
first defendant, in its written submissions, contended that the plaintiff had
failed to demonstrate the manner in which any of the constitutional articles
upon which he relies have been contravened or how the reliefs claimed properly
arise from those articles. The first defendant, therefore, submitted that the
action must be dismissed in limine. Since this submission raises an issue of
law which goes to the root of the plaintiff’s action, I will deal with it
first, for if no provision of the Constitution, 1992 has been contravened, the
result will be that our jurisdiction under article 2 of the Constitution, 1992
has not been properly invoked.<o:p></o:p>