IN THE MATTER OF THE FOURTH REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION OF GHANA 1992 & ANOTHER vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2004]DLSC2394

IN THE MATTER OF THE FOURTH REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION OF GHANA 1992 & ANOTHER vs.... [2004]DLSC2394

Date	2004-03-05
Suit No.	J1/1/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLSC2394

ACQUAH CJ (PRESIDING

MISS AKUFFO J.S.C

BADDOO J.S.C

DR. TWUM J.S.C

PROF. KLUDZE J.S.C

MR. ASUMAH KYEREMEH FOR PLAINTIFF

MR. JAMES QUARSHIE IDUN (JR.) WITH ADUAMOAH OSEI FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

DR. SOMTIM TOBIGA FOR PNC

[2004]DLSC2394
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER OF THE FOURTH REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION OF
GHANA 1992 &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>J1/1/2004<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">

DATE: 5TH MARCH 2004.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
ASUMAH KYEREMEH FOR PLAINTIFF,<o:p></o:p>MR.
JAMES QUARSHIE IDUN (JR.) WITH ADUAMOAH OSEI FOR THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION<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">

DR.
SOMTIM TOBIGA FOR PNC<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>ACQUAH, CJ:<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff invokes the original jurisdiction of this court, for:—<o:p></o:p>"(c)
A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 47(1)(5)(6)
and 113 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992. The Electoral
Commission has the right to include the newly created constituencies in the
2004, Presidential and Parliamentary Elections contrary to the position being
held by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and other section/sections of
the public do contend otherwise and do support the position of the Electoral
Commission thereby creating controversy in respect of the articles 47 and 113
of the Constitution, 1992 (sic). <o:p></o:p>(d)
An order of perpetual injunction restraining any group of people, any Political
Party that purports to derail the effort of the Electoral Commission to include
the thirty (30) newly created constituencies in the 2004 General and
Parliamentary Elections to be held in December, 2004."<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff's writ was supported by a Statement of Case, and the written
submissions of his counsel. There was no affidavit by the plaintiff verifying
facts and particulars in his statement of case, as required by Rule 46(2) (a)
of C.I. 16. And although the plaintiff's action is pegged on the views of the
Electoral Commission (EC) and the NDC, neither the NDC nor the EC are made
parties to the action, nor even served with copies of the writ and the
supporting papers.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff's action undoubtedly stems from the hue and cry by sections of the
public in reaction to the EC's decision to feature the proposed 30 new
constituencies in the December 2004 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.
There were varied views. Some contended that the newly created constituencies
should not feature in the December 2004 General Elections but rather in the
2008 elections. There were still others who held that the election of candidates
to represent the 30 newly created constituencies in Parliament should take
place on 7th January 2005, when the alteration shall come into effect or soon
thereafter.<o:p></o:p>Now
having regard to the intense public controversy generated by the EC's decision,
we decided that notwithstanding whatever flaws in the plaintiff's action we
would go into the merits of his case. And in order to give opportunity to all
registered political parties and the EC to be heard, we directed the EC and all
registered political parties to be served with the plaintiff's writ and
accompanying papers, and permitted them to file a Statement of Case. We then
adjourned the suit to 25th February 2004 for hearing. On that day, our records
showed that the writ and the accompanying papers had been served on:<o:p></o:p>1.
New Patriotic Party (NPP)<o:p></o:p>2.
National Democratic Congress (NDC)<o:p></o:p>3.
Convention People's Party (CPP)<o:p></o:p>4.
Democratic People's Party (DPP)<o:p></o:p>5.
Egle Party (EP)<o:p></o:p>6.
People's National Convention (PNC), and<o:p></o:p>7.
Great Consolidated Popular Party (GCPP)<o:p></o:p>8.
The Electoral Commission (EC)<o:p></o:p>Of
these bodies, the following filed their respective Statement of Case:-<o:p></o:p>1.
The Electoral Commission<o:p></o:p>2.
DPP<o:p></o:p>3.
PNC, and<o:p></o:p>4.
GCPP<o:p></o:p>The
PNC in particular, filed a notice of preliminary objection seeking to dismiss
the plaintiff's action, together with a Statement of Case.<o:p></o:p>As
stated earlier, it is because of the tremendous public interest generated by
the decision of the EC that we decided to over look the flaws in the
plaintiff's ac</main>