CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &CIVIL LIBERTIES (CHURCIL) vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION [2010]DLSC2567

CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &CIVIL LIBERTIES (CHURCIL) vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND... [2010]DLSC2567

Date	2010-03-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. JI/4/2008 & JI/5/2008
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2567

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

AHUMAH OCANSEY PLAINTIFF IN PERSON IN THE 1ST SUIT.

KOJO GRAHAM FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE 2ND SUIT.

SAMUEL N. TETTEH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST

DEFENDANT IN THE 2ND SUIT.

JAMES QUARSHIE-IDUN FOR THE DEFENDANT IN THE 1ST SUIT AND 2ND DEFENDANT IN THE 2ND SUIT.

[2010]DLSC2567
																																						<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" >CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
&amp;CIVIL LIBERTIES (CHURCIL)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION [SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. JI/4/2008 &amp; JI/5/2008&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;
DATE: 23RD MARCH, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AHUMAH OCANSEY, PLAINTIFF
IN PERSON IN THE 1ST SUIT.<o:p></o:p>KOJO GRAHAM FOR THE
PLAINTIFF IN THE 2ND SUIT.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL N. TETTEH, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN THE 2ND SUIT.<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">

JAMES
QUARSHIE-IDUN FOR THE DEFENDANT IN THE 1ST SUIT AND 2ND
DEFENDANT IN THE 2ND SUIT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

WOOD
(MRS) CJ (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>WOOD (MRS), CJ:<o:p></o:p>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. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT NUMBERED J1/ 5/
2008-(THE CHURCIL CASE) <o:p></o:p>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.&nbsp; Incidentally, not all remand prisoners
are detained in prisons Contrary to the law; some spend their period of
detention in police cells.&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CHURCIL
is an advocacy- based organisation, dedicated to the promotion of human rights
and the protection of civil liberties through a number of activities including
public interest litigation. CHURCIL’s action was triggered by the decision of
the Electoral Commission (E C), to preclude remand prisoners from exercising
their electoral franchise in the then upcoming December 2008 elections, in full
recognition of their voting rights under article 42 of the Constitution, unless
otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction to allow them to do so.
The Commission had persistently refused to heed to the calls of human rights
activists and organisations to respect the voting rights of remand prisoners on
the basis that the electoral laws of Ghana, particularly s. 7 (5) of The
Representation of The People Law, 1992, P. N. D. C. L.284 (PNDCL 284),
disqualify prisons as places of residence for purposes of voter registration, a
pre-requisite to voting, thus effectively disenfranchising remand prisoners. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
this court’s decision in NPP v A-G (CIBA case) [1996-97] SCGLR 729, the word
“person” appearing in article 2 (1) of Constitution, encapsulates natural and
artificial or corporate persons. CHURCIL declares its corporate status as a
not- for- profit civil society organisation and as plaintiff prays for the
following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo3;
 tab-stops:list .5in">“A declaration that section 7(5) of the
 Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) is inconsistent with,
 and in contravention of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, and that
 consequently, to the extent of such inconsistency the said PNDCL 284 is
 void;<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo3;
 tab-stops:list .5in">A declaration that section 7(5) of the
 Representation of the People Law (PNDCL 284) is null and/or void because
 the enactment was made in excess of the powers conferred on Parliament by
 section 93(2) of the 1992 Constitution, or any other head of legislative
 power;<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo3;
 tab-stops:list .5in">A declaration that section 7(5) when read
 together with section 8 of PNDCL 284 is inconsistent with and in
 contravention of article 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution and that
 consequently, to the extent of such inconsistency the said PNDCL 284 is
 void.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo3;
 </main>