Thank you sir you make a lot of sense. The truth though is that legislators and the judiciary prefer to use unnecessary technical words so that it becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. This ensures that the c ... read full comment
Thank you sir you make a lot of sense. The truth though is that legislators and the judiciary prefer to use unnecessary technical words so that it becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. This ensures that the citizens always have to look up to some legislator, lawyer, or judge to interpret what the constitution means. The constitution is supposed to be for all the citizens so why do we write in such a way that only a few really understands it? I fully agree with your position. Our constitution needs to be amended to ensure clarity and not the ambiguity that gives rise to unnecessary litigation. Thank you again sir.
william 10 years ago
Ebenezer, Ayekoo. The best I have read so far on the judgements.Dispationate, focussed, highly readable and educative. Gabby ochere darko, Ahoofe, etc, please read and be educated.
Ebenezer, Ayekoo. The best I have read so far on the judgements.Dispationate, focussed, highly readable and educative. Gabby ochere darko, Ahoofe, etc, please read and be educated.
william 10 years ago
sorry should read 'refreshing'!
sorry should read 'refreshing'!
MR ODI ASEMPA 10 years ago
MR BANFUL, YOU ALWAYS WRITE SHORT,LUCID.AND COHERENT ARTICLES.TROUBLE IS...WORDS ARE THE PRINCIPAL TOOL OF TRADE FOR LAWYERS,NEEDLESS TO SAY,THEY USE IT TO MAXIMUM EFFECT IN CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW.LORD MANSFIELD, ONCE SAID"IF ... read full comment
MR BANFUL, YOU ALWAYS WRITE SHORT,LUCID.AND COHERENT ARTICLES.TROUBLE IS...WORDS ARE THE PRINCIPAL TOOL OF TRADE FOR LAWYERS,NEEDLESS TO SAY,THEY USE IT TO MAXIMUM EFFECT IN CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW.LORD MANSFIELD, ONCE SAID"IF THAT BE THE LAW, I"LL GO HOME AND BURN MY BOOKS". TO WHICH LORD ASHBURTON,RETORTED NO "MY LORD,YOU"D BETTER GO HOME AND READ THEM"
Paul Amuna 10 years ago
Ebenezer, yours is one of the finest, clearest and most neutral intellectual pieces I have read on ghanaweb in general and on the analysis of the recent supreme court verdict on the 2012 presidential polls in particular.
I ... read full comment
Ebenezer, yours is one of the finest, clearest and most neutral intellectual pieces I have read on ghanaweb in general and on the analysis of the recent supreme court verdict on the 2012 presidential polls in particular.
I wish that the many law professors and other commentators would simply apply such intellectual rigor to their articles and leave their individual party sentiments behind them.
I have picked up on a number of points you have made for which I hope to comment later.
Thank you so much for such a beautiful piece. A real education. I hope many people will read this article.
Nii Ashitey 10 years ago
The writer sought to posit that the use of the word shall as a basis for annulling results of votes cast is unacceptable interpretation.It is obvious that the petition became political and some of the judges were suck in agai ... read full comment
The writer sought to posit that the use of the word shall as a basis for annulling results of votes cast is unacceptable interpretation.It is obvious that the petition became political and some of the judges were suck in against their oath of office.It beggars believe that the judges could fall behind a word to annul votes when the use of mandamus could have cured the non signatory duty imposed by the constitution and the slip rule could have been used to address the clerical errors that would have done more justice than to annul votes and disenfranchise voters for no fault other than that an officer did not sign something that had been counted openly and confirmed to be the true reflections of the results.
I think the wording of the constitution must be changed for clarity otherwise the mischief of wrongly using words for political purpose will continue.As for Prof.Kumado,I wonder whether he was comparing likes with likes or comparing apples with oranges.It was one the the most stupid questions posed by a law professor on a political platform.Sometimes you wonder whether some of these professors are on the wane academically.
I suppose when all had died down some of these political judges and professors will look back with regret at some of their utterance and decisions.
G. K. Berko 10 years ago
Don't be surprised or disappointed much, because many of the utterances by some of these Lawyers were made under the cloud of veiled Political sentiments rather than strict Academic or professional considerations.
Thanks ... read full comment
Don't be surprised or disappointed much, because many of the utterances by some of these Lawyers were made under the cloud of veiled Political sentiments rather than strict Academic or professional considerations.
Thanks a lot for touching on something that I also wondered about regarding the missing signatures. I wondered what hindered the expected signees(the Presiding Officers) of the missing signatures to testify as to why those signatures were omitted. Were they paid not to append their signatures? Or, they honestly forgot to sign them or just missed them in a pile? Either way, would the weight of voters' right to register their wishes not override the impact of the presence of signatures on the pink sheets? And why could the Supreme Court not require those signatures to be appended if the Presiding Officers did approve of the results from the tallying of the votes?
Long Live Ghana!!!
G. K. Berko 10 years ago
The majority Justices must have considered the intent of the Law when deciding against annulment of the votes represented on the Pink Sheets without signatures of Presiding Officers.
The intent of the Law requiring the Pr ... read full comment
The majority Justices must have considered the intent of the Law when deciding against annulment of the votes represented on the Pink Sheets without signatures of Presiding Officers.
The intent of the Law requiring the Presiding Officers' signatures was not to deny the voters their rights to have their votes counted, but to ensure the approval of the voting process as it occurred, including the counting. We should understand that there could be bad Laws enacted by the Parliament, sometimes motivated more by pure political sensitivities than any moral or legal precepts. In such circumstances, the SC has the mandate to point that out or act to avert any dangerous suppression of Citizen's rights.
So, we should not be too fastidious in our expectation that the votes on those Pink Sheets without signatures ought to have been thrown out.
However, I think to ensure that the Presiding Officers did not find anything wrong with those Pink Sheets, the Presiding Officers whose signatures were missing should have been subpoenaed to testify and explain the omission of their signatures.
I would strongly admonish the Opposition to live by the verdict and not insist on sheer literal interpretation of the Law when it best suits their ultimate hope. Because such precedence could easily and quickly come back to haunt them.
Long Live Ghana!!!
KThe investigator 10 years ago
If the use of shall in the constitution has any strong and effective interpretation then it could have been followed by a penalty for failing to append their signatures to the pink sheets. Thanks for this wonderful piece. Thi ... read full comment
If the use of shall in the constitution has any strong and effective interpretation then it could have been followed by a penalty for failing to append their signatures to the pink sheets. Thanks for this wonderful piece. This pink sheet drama was just an after-thought when the petitioners realized that vote rigging and fraud charges were not holding any water. May be those justices who sought to annul votes in areas where pink sheets were signed redirected the petitioners to use it as a last resort to win legal favor from them as sympathizers.
KThe investigator 10 years ago
Correction: where those pink sheets were ''not"'signed.
Correction: where those pink sheets were ''not"'signed.
Adjoa B 10 years ago
I am on the same wavelength with you.
I am on the same wavelength with you.
Master Kwaku 10 years ago
Shall is SHALL is SHALL is SHALL in LAW and it is NOT "will,may, may be or any of that blat, blat, blat, blat!" Stop throwing dust into our eyes.
Shall is SHALL is SHALL is SHALL in LAW and it is NOT "will,may, may be or any of that blat, blat, blat, blat!" Stop throwing dust into our eyes.
Master Kwaku 10 years ago
Apparently what happened seems to have favoured your expectation. Get a life and stop being hypocritical!!!
Apparently what happened seems to have favoured your expectation. Get a life and stop being hypocritical!!!
Thank you sir you make a lot of sense. The truth though is that legislators and the judiciary prefer to use unnecessary technical words so that it becomes difficult for ordinary citizens to understand. This ensures that the c ...
read full comment
Ebenezer, Ayekoo. The best I have read so far on the judgements.Dispationate, focussed, highly readable and educative. Gabby ochere darko, Ahoofe, etc, please read and be educated.
sorry should read 'refreshing'!
MR BANFUL, YOU ALWAYS WRITE SHORT,LUCID.AND COHERENT ARTICLES.TROUBLE IS...WORDS ARE THE PRINCIPAL TOOL OF TRADE FOR LAWYERS,NEEDLESS TO SAY,THEY USE IT TO MAXIMUM EFFECT IN CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW.LORD MANSFIELD, ONCE SAID"IF ...
read full comment
Ebenezer, yours is one of the finest, clearest and most neutral intellectual pieces I have read on ghanaweb in general and on the analysis of the recent supreme court verdict on the 2012 presidential polls in particular.
I ...
read full comment
The writer sought to posit that the use of the word shall as a basis for annulling results of votes cast is unacceptable interpretation.It is obvious that the petition became political and some of the judges were suck in agai ...
read full comment
Don't be surprised or disappointed much, because many of the utterances by some of these Lawyers were made under the cloud of veiled Political sentiments rather than strict Academic or professional considerations.
Thanks ...
read full comment
The majority Justices must have considered the intent of the Law when deciding against annulment of the votes represented on the Pink Sheets without signatures of Presiding Officers.
The intent of the Law requiring the Pr ...
read full comment
If the use of shall in the constitution has any strong and effective interpretation then it could have been followed by a penalty for failing to append their signatures to the pink sheets. Thanks for this wonderful piece. Thi ...
read full comment
Correction: where those pink sheets were ''not"'signed.
I am on the same wavelength with you.
Shall is SHALL is SHALL is SHALL in LAW and it is NOT "will,may, may be or any of that blat, blat, blat, blat!" Stop throwing dust into our eyes.
Apparently what happened seems to have favoured your expectation. Get a life and stop being hypocritical!!!