Zanetor gets boost for parliamentary ambition
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate for Klottey Korley, Dr Zanetor Agyeman Rawlings, was yesterday given the green light by the Supreme Court to contest the seat in the upcoming general election.
Advertisement
The court, in a 4-1 majority decision, held that the constitutional provision that enjoins one to be a registered voter before contesting as a Member of Parliament (MP) takes effect when the Electoral Commission (EC) opens nominations for people to contest public elections.
The judgement by the court, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, was an interpretation of Article 94 Clause 1 (a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 94 Clause 1 (a) states: "Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament unless; (a) he is a citizen of Ghana, has attained the age of twenty-one years and is a registered voter."
The interpretation became necessary following a suit challenging Dr Rawlings’s candidature.
Decision
The majority decision, read by Mr Justice A.A. Benin, asserted that it was only the EC that had power to conduct public elections and so one could only be disqualified from such elections when the EC had set the process in motion.
“The eligibility criteria come into force only when a public election for MP has been declared by the EC,’’ the court said.
Apart from Mr Justice Benin, the other members of the panel on the majority side were Mr Justice Yaw Appau, Mr Justice Gabriel Pwamang and Mr Justice William Atuguba.
Other Trending Stories
Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, however, dissented to the majority decision.
High Court ordered
In view of the interpretation, the apex court ordered the High Court hearing the suit against Dr Rawlings to determine the case based on the interpretation that it had given.
“The High Court is ordered to determine the case on the premise of the answer given by this court,’’ it ordered.
Background
The suit against Dr Rawlings was filed by Nii Armah Ashitey, the incumbent MP for the constituency, at the High Court.
According to him, she was not a registered voter when she was elected as the parliamentary nominee.
He claimed that her election violated the NDC’s constitution and, therefore, it was null, void and of no effect.
His legal team is seeking the court to declare her election null and void and order a rerun between him and another contender in the election, Nii John Coleman.
Dr Rawlings, however, filed an application for certiorari at the Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the bone of contention was a constitutional provision which required an interpretation from the highest court of the land.
On May 19, 2016, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Atuguba, in a 4-1 majority decision, upheld Dr Rawlings’s application and stayed proceedings of the case at the High Court on the grounds that the court erred in law by interpreting Article 94 Clause 1(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Not satisfied with the decision, Nii Ashitey filed an application for review of the ruling.
The court on June 16, 2016, however, struck out the application after Nii Ashitey’s legal team withdrew it.
Issue determined
The court, therefore, set out to determine whether the said provision becomes operational during the primary of the political parties to elect a candidate or when the EC opens nominations for interested persons to file their papers to contest.
Advertisement
Legal argument
In its legal submissions, Dr Rawlings’s legal team claimed that she was duly elected because the constitutional provision ought to be met when the EC opens nominations, pursuant to CI 91, the regulation that guides public elections in the country.
It also argued that it would be absurd and discriminatory for the said article to be operational at the primary level of political parties, as independent candidates were also allowed to contest public elections.
On the other hand, Nii Ashitey was of the view that Article 94 Clause 1 (a) took effect at the primary level of political parties and not when the EC opens nominations.
He further argued that a candidate-elect ought to be battle ready and, therefore, Dr Rawlings needed to be fully qualified.
Advertisement
His legal team explained that she ought to be ready to contest the seat even during bye-elections in the event that he passed away.
Court view
The court, in its view, rejected Nii Ashitey’s argument and said the internal affairs of political parties had no effect on the Constitution.
It said a political party could choose to elect someone as its candidate-elect and use someone else to contest bye-elections.
The court further held that Nii Ashitey’s legal team failed to make any meaningful contribution in its argument, as it still claimed that the said provision did not need any interpretation.
Advertisement
“This was unfortunate because the court had firmly set the constitutional provision down for interpretation,’’ it held.