BETWEEN KWADJOGA ADRA vs. THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS & 5 OTHERS [2015]DLSC6392

Date	2015-07-15
Suit No.	WRIT NO. J1/13/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC6392

AKUFFO (MS) JSC (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE BONNIE JSC

AKOTO - BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

ALEXANDER KWAMINA AFENYO-MARKIN ESQ. (WITH) HIM KORKOR OKUTU) FOR THE PLAINTIFF

SAMUEL M. CODJOE ESQ. (WITH HIM THEOPHILUS KPORVIE AND EDWARD DARKWA) FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

SEAN POKU ESQ (WITH HIM KWAKU A. NSIAH- ASARE) FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS

THOMAS GEORGE QUARCOO ESQ. FOR THE 4TH DEFENDANT

JAMES QUASHIE-IDUN (WITH HIM ANTHONY DABI) FOR THE 5TH DEFENDANT

HON. DOMINIC AYINE (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) WITH HIM WILLIAM

KPOBI (CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE 6TH DEFENDANT

[2015]DLSC6392
																																						<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" >BETWEEN KWADJOGA ADRA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS &amp; 5 OTHERS<o:p></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">

WRIT NO. J1/13/2014&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 15TH JULY
2015<o:p></o:p>

HON.
DOMINIC AYINE (DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL) WITH HIM WILLIAM KPOBI (CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY) FOR THE 6TH DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are fairly simple and generally uncontroverted. <o:p></o:p>The
2ndDefendant is an employee of the Ghana Highway Authority (GHA), a member of
the ruling NDC party and he was registered to contest as constituency chairman.
<o:p></o:p>The
3rd Defendant is an administrative officer with the Ghana Education
Service(GES), specifically, with Swedru High School, a member of the ruling
NDC, and had registered to contest for the position of the constituency
secretary. <o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the plaintiff that by virtue of the provisions of Article
94(3)(b) the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are not qualified to [sic] members of
parliament and, since they are not qualified to be members of parliament, by
virtue of Article 55(8) they do not qualify to contest for the positions they
are seeking for, that is, constituency chairman and secretary respectively. <o:p></o:p>Plaintiff’s
submission is based on the premise that both second and third Defendants are
civil servants. <o:p></o:p>The
reliefs the plaintiff seeks are as follows: <o:p></o:p>i)
A declaration that: <o:p></o:p>a).
…. the inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by the 1st Defendant to the list
of candidates contesting in the constituency elections is inconsistent with
Articles 55 and 94 clause (3) (b) of the 1992 Constitution. <o:p></o:p>b).On
the true and proper interpretation of Articles 55(8) 94 clause (3) (b) of the
Constitution, and section 68(2) of the Civil Service Act, 1993 PNDCL 327 the
2nd and 3rd Defendants being Civil Servants are precluded from participating in
active politics to the extent of vying for executive positions in the upcoming
constituency elections of 1st Defendant because they are not eligible as
Members of Parliament and for that matter cannot hold any executive office in
any political party. <o:p></o:p>c).That
on the true and proper interpretation of the definition of Civil Service as
defined under the Civil Service Act 1993 (PNDCL 327) the 4th Defendant is
part&nbsp; of the Civil Service&nbsp; and as such, its members are precluded from
participating in active politics.&nbsp;
Therefore the permission granted to the 2nd Defendant to enable him
contest as a candidate in the constituency elections of the 1st Defendant is
null and void and of no effect as its sins against Article 94 clause (3) (b). <o:p></o:p>d).That
as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are precluded from participating in active
politics by virtue of them being civil servants, the 5thDefendant contravened
the Constitution when it included their names in the list of persons qualified
to contest for executive positions in the 1stDefendant. The inclusion of the
2nd and 3rd Defendant by the 5thDefendant as candidates vying for executive
positions in the 1stDefendant,particularly sins against Articles 55, 94 clause
(3)(b) and section 68(2) of the Civil Service Act (1993) PNDCL 327. <o:p></o:p>The
gravamen of the plaintiff’s action is that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are civil
servants and their inclusion in the list of candidates contesting in the
constituency assembly elections is inconsistent with Articles 55(8) and
94(3)(b) of the 1992 Constitution, since they are by the said Articles
precluded from active politics. His contention is that since the Defendants are
employees of the GES and the GHA respectively, they are civil servants and as
such not eligible or qualified to engage in active political activities.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Article
55(8) of the Constitution provides as follow; <o:p></o:p>