THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION 6, ACCRA EX-PARTE; DR. ZENATOR A. RAWLINGS, HON. NII ARMAH ASHITTEY AND NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS [2016]DLSC2821

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, GENERAL JURISDICTION 6, ACCRA EX-PARTE; DR. ZEN... [2016]DLSC2821

Date	2016-07-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/19/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC2821

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BENIN JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

GODWIN KUDZO TAMEKLO ESQ (WITH HIM MRS. SANJA MORRISON MAHAMA THEOPHILUS DONKOR AND REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH) FOR THE APPLICANT.

GARY NIMAKO MARFO ESQ. FOR THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.

MAAME SAMA BARTON-ODURO ESQ. FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY.

[2016]DLSC2821
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH COURT, GENERAL
JURISDICTION 6, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE; DR. ZENATOR A.
RAWLINGS, HON. NII ARMAH ASHITTEY AND NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/19/2016&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 18TH JULY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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;&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;
<o:p></o:p>GODWIN
KUDZO TAMEKLO ESQ (WITH HIM MRS. SANJA MORRISON MAHAMA, THEOPHILUS DONKOR AND
REINDORF TWUMASI ANKRAH) FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>GARY
NIMAKO MARFO ESQ.&nbsp; FOR THE 1ST
INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

MAAME
SAMA BARTON-ODURO ESQ.&nbsp; FOR THE 2ND
INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), ANIN YEBOAH JSC, BENIN JSC, APPAU JSC, AND PWAMANG 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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MAJORITY OPINION<o:p></o:p>BENIN, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The
original matter that brought the parties herein before this court was an
application invoking our supervisory jurisdiction for an order of certiorari to
quash some decisions of the High Court, Accra. The incumbent Member of
Parliament for the Klottey Korle constituency, who is the 1st
interested party herein, lost the opportunity to contest for the seat
again on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2016
general elections because he was defeated in the party primaries by the applicant
herein. The 1st interested party took an action at the High Court to
nullify the election of the applicant on ground that she was not a registered
voter when she took part in the party primaries and was thus unqualified. During
the pendency of the action before the High Court, certain decisions were taken
by the said court which the applicant brought before this court to quash. Hence
the title to the case as stated above. It was when the court was deciding that
application that it concluded that a question of interpretation of Article
94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution had arisen from the proceedings before the
High Court. The court decided to take the issue suo motu since the High Court
had failed to make the reference. The question raised by the court for
interpretation is this:<o:p></o:p>When
can it be properly said that a Ghanaian citizen is by reason of non-registration
as a voter not qualified to be a Member of Parliament within article 94(1)(a)
of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana?<o:p></o:p>The
question invites the court to interpret this provision in order to bring out clearly
the scope and intent of this particular provision of the Constitution, in
particular when the eligibility criteria become applicable to a parliamentary
election. All the parties have proffered what in their view is the correct
interpretation to be placed on this provision. We would sum up briefly, but to
the point, the arguments put across by each party. However, we noticed that the
applicant and the 2nd interested party have several points of convergence
so we intend to put their arguments together and consider same vis-à-vis those
of the 1st interested party. <o:p></o:p>The
applicant’s Counsel expressed the competing positions in these words:<o:p></o:p>“The
kernel of the plaintiff/interested party’s (1st interested party
herein) claim is that on the true and proper interpretation of Article 94(1)(a)
of the 1992 Constitution, the 2nd defendant (applicant herein) was
not qualified to contest as parliamentary candidate of the 1st
defendant (2nd interested party herein) at the time of the
parliamentary primaries of the 1st defendant…….On the contrary, it
is the case of the applicant that…(she) was duly qualified and eligible to
stand for the position of parliamentary candidate of the 1st
defendant (2nd interested party herein) at the time of the primaries
and that the requirement of being a registered voter must be met within the
meaning of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution at the time when
nominations are opened or invited by the Electoral Commission pursuant to
Public Elections Regulation 2016 (C.I.91).” &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the 2nd i</main>