ABU RAMADAN, EVANS NIMAKO AND KWASI DANSO ACHEAMPONG vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2014]DLSC4407

ABU RAMADAN, EVANS NIMAKO AND KWASI DANSO ACHEAMPONG vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION A... [2014]DLSC4407

Date	2014-07-30
Suit No.	CONSOLIDATED WRITS NOS.: J1/11/2014 AND J1/9/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4407

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

BENNIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO WITH HIM GARY NIMAKO MARFO AND MISS

OFOSUWAA AMAGYEI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

JAMES QUARSHIE IDUN WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

WILLIAM KPOBI (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT.

[2014]DLSC4407
																																						<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" >ABU RAMADAN, EVANS NIMAKO AND KWASI DANSO ACHEAMPONG
<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[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">

CONSOLIDATED
WRITS NOS.: J1/11/2014 AND J1/9/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
30TH JULY, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA ASANTE BEDIATUO WITH
HIM GARY NIMAKO MARFO AND MISS OFOSUWAA AMAGYEI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>JAMES QUARSHIE IDUN WITH
HIM ANTHONY DABI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.<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>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">

</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">

REASONS
FOR THE DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div>WOOD (MRS) CJ:- <o:p></o:p>A
clearly unambiguous constitutional provision which underscores the supremacy of
the 1992 Constitution is the Article 1(2). It provides:<o:p></o:p>“1(2)
This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to
be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of
the inconsistency, be void.”<o:p></o:p>A
further safeguard to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy is embodied in
the articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which vest the Supreme
Court with original jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of
legislations and to declare as void any law which is found to be inconsistent
or in conflict with any of its provisions.<o:p></o:p>Two
cases, namely, Republic v Yebbi &amp; Avalifo [2000] SCGLR 149 and Ghana Bar
Association v Attorney–General [2003-2004]1SCGLR 250, outline the ambit of this
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>Article
2 (1) of the 1992 Constitution provides:<o:p></o:p>“A
person who alleges that-<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
an
enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any
other enactment ;or <o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
any
act or omission of any person is inconsistent with, or in contravention of a
provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a
declaration to that effect.”<o:p></o:p>Again,
article 130 states:<o:p></o:p>130.(1)
Subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the enforcement of the
Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms as provided in article 33 of this
Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in –</main>