MAYOR AGBLEZE, DESTINY AWLIMEY AND JEAN-CLAUDE KOKU AMENYAGLO vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION [2018]DLSC3298

MAYOR AGBLEZE, DESTINY AWLIMEY AND JEAN-CLAUDE KOKU AMENYAGLO vs. THE ATTORNEY G... [2018]DLSC3298

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	WRIT NO. NO. J1/28/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLSC3298

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS) JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KOTEY JSC.

ALBERT QUASHIGAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GODFRIED YEBOAH DAME DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM YVONNE BANNERMAN SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY ENID MARFUL-SAU ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

JUSTIN AMENUVOR WITH HIM MATTHEW APPIAH MIRACLE ATATSI AND HOPE AGBOADO FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLSC3298
																																						<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" >MAYOR AGBLEZE, DESTINY AWLIMEY AND JEAN-CLAUDE KOKU
AMENYAGLO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ELECTORAL COMMISSION<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. NO. J1/28/2018&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;DATE:&nbsp; 28TH NOVEMBER, 2018.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ALBERT
QUASHIGAH FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>GODFRIED
YEBOAH DAME, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM YVONNE BANNERMAN, SENIOR STATE
ATTORNEY, ENID MARFUL-SAU, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT. <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:&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>KOTEY, JSC:- <o:p></o:p>Introduction <o:p></o:p>By
a writ of summons issued on 12th September 2018, the plaintiffs invoked the
original jurisdiction of this court under articles 2(1) and 130(1)(a) of the
1992Constitution. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs in the action are Mayor Agbleze, Destiny Awlimey and Jean-Claude Koku
Amenyaoglo and the 1stDefendant is the Attorney-General while the 2nd Defendant
is the Electoral Commission. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs are seeking in t e r alia , a declaration that upon a true and
proper interpretation of articles 5, on the creation of new regions and article
42, on the right to vote, all persons in the affected regions are entitled to
be registered and to vote in a referendum on the creation of new regions
scheduled for 27th December 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Background <o:p></o:p>Following
various petitions to the President for new regions to be created out of the
Western, Volta, Brong-Ahafo and Northern regions, the President, in accordance
with article 5(2) of the Constitution, on 29th June 2017, referred the
petitions to the Council of State for advice. <o:p></o:p>On
15th August 2017, the Council of State advised the President to appoint a
Commission of Inquiry to “inquire into the need and to make recommendations on
all the factors involved in the creation of the new regions”. <o:p></o:p>Subsequently
on 12th October 2017, a Commission of Inquiry (Brobbey Commission) chaired by
Mr. Justice S. A. Brobbey was set up under The Commission of Inquiry into the
creation of New Regions Instrument, 2017 (C.1. 105) to “Inquire into the need
and to make recommendations on all the factors involved in the creation of the
new regions” in accordance with article 5(2) of the Constitution. <o:p></o:p>On
the 27th June 2018, the Brobbey Commission presented its report to the
President and recommended the creation of six (6) new regions out of the
Western, Volta, Northern and Brong-Ahafo regions. The six (6) proposed regions
are Western North, Oti, North East, Savanna, Ahafo and Brong East. <o:p></o:p>The
Brobbey Commission also recommended to the President the holding of a
referendum, specified the issues to be determined by the referendum and the
places where the referendum should be held. These places were limited to where
the new regions were proposed to be created. <o:p></o:p>The
President referred the recommendations of the Brobbey Commission to the 2nd
Defendant, pursuant to article 5(5) of the Constitution.The 2nd Defendant then
set 27th December 2018, for a referendum to be held in the places where the new
regions are proposed to be created.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs appear to be dissatisfied with the recommendation of the Brobbey
Commission and the decision of the 2nd Defendant to hold the referendum only in
the places where the proposed new regions are to be created. They contend that
this is unconstitutional and that on a true and proper interpretation of
Articles 5 and 41 of the Constitution, the referendum should be held in the
entirety of the existing regions from which the new regions are proposed to be
created. They also say that all qualified persons in these regions are entitled
to be registered and to vote in the referendum. This, in summary, prompted the
Plaintiff’s Writ before this court. <o:p></o:p>Reliefs Being Sought by the Plaintiffs
<o:p></o:p>By
their writ of summons, the Plaintiffs seek: <o:p></o:p>1. That on a true and proper
interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) and Article 5(4) of the Constitution,
1992, the decision by the Government to hold the Referendum to decide whether
or not new regions should be created out of four existing administrative
regions, only in the areas where there was substantial need and demand for the
creation of the new regions is unconstitutional, null and void as a result. <o:p></o:p>2. That on a true and proper
interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) &amp; (b) and clause 4 of the Constitution,
1992, the recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry for the Creation of New
Regions for the Referendum to create new Regions out of the existing regions to
be held only in the areas where there was substantial need and demand for the
creation of the new region is unconstitutional, null and void as a result. <o:p></o:p>