SDA Election Day change should trigger broader constitutional amendment

The Seventh Day Adventist Church is calling for a change in the date of the general election in Ghana from December 7 to the first or second Tuesday in November.

Their reason for this is that this year's election day falls on a Sabbath day, which is Saturday, and their religious beliefs prohibit them from working on that day. They believe that if the date remains unchanged, it will lead to the disenfranchisement of their members, which is a violation of their religious liberties as guaranteed in the 1992 Constitution.

They stated that in the 1996 general election, about 95 per cent of their members were unable to vote because the elections were held on a Saturday. 

Therefore, they suggested changing the voting day to the first or second Tuesday in November, which would promote inclusive democracy. 

This is because that day would not conflict with any religious day in Ghana and will also align with the calls made by other state institutions such as the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Constitutional Review Commission. 

They recommended this change to ensure that if there were multiple presidential run-offs, it would not disrupt the presidential transition. Additionally, they argued that maintaining the date on December 7 would not be helpful since their churches and schools were used as polling stations and some of their members would be serving as polling officials.

Legitimate call

I would like to state that the call made by the group is legitimate. This is because every citizen has the constitutional right to worship, practice religion, and freely express their beliefs. Therefore, they are only exercising the rights granted to them by the Constitution, and they should be encouraged to do so.

Moreover, they are using the proper channels to address their concerns, which is commendable. They claim they have already petitioned the Presidency and Parliament in 2021, and the EC in 2023. Now, they are taking steps to petition the Attorney General. 

It is also worth noting that members of the SDA are being responsible for taking measures to prevent the recurrence of voter disenfranchisement. In the 1996 general election, about 95 per cent of their members were disenfranchised. Therefore, it is crucial to address their concerns before it's too late. However, the EC should not entertain their concerns and act in a reactionary manner else others may overwhelm them with issues that would distract them from their core mandate of conducting transparent, free and fair elections.

Additionally, since their church and school premises are used as polling stations, it is essential to come up with collective solutions to address this important issue.

Solutions

One possible solution to ensure that members of the SDA are not disenfranchised is through a constitutional amendment. However, considering that several important issues in the Constitution require attention, it may not be wise to rush into changing it solely to allow members of the SDA to vote. 

Instead, this could be an opportunity to present a strong case to address the most critical issues that require amendments, such as the excessive power of the President in relation to Parliament, Gender and Affirmative Action, National Planning, Natural Resource Governance, the Council of State, and Article 71 Office Holders. 

Another option is to include members of the SDA in the early voters' list. However, this raises the question of whether the state is willing to bear the associated costs. Even if the state is willing, what happens to the members of the SDA who will serve as polling officials, and what about their church and school premises that serve as polling stations on December 7? 
The good news is that although politics and religion are sensitive topics for people, members of the SDA are not compelling their members not to vote in the upcoming December general election. 

The writer is a Political Scientist