You are here: HomeNews2016 11 06Article 484193

General News of Sunday, 6 November 2016

Source: citifmonline.com

EC doesn’t understand its own laws – Casely-Hayford

Financial analyst, Sydney Casely-Hayford, has said that the recent outcomes of the lawsuits challenging the Electoral Commission’s (EC) disqulification of presidential aspirants, indicate that the EC doesn’t seem to understand its own rules and regulations on elections.

The EC is currently fighting lawsuits from the Great Consolidated Popular Party (GCPP), the National Democratic Party (NDP), the Independent People’s Party (IPP) and the People’s National Convention (PNC), who are contesting its decision to disqualify their presidential aspirants for having errors on their nomination forms.

The parties are praying the court to compel the EC to allow them to correct the mistakes on their forms. So far, the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) and the All People’s Congress (APC), have secured High Couert rulings to that effect.

Speaking on The Big Issue, Mr. Casely-Hayford’s said, the EC’s failings stem from the fact it hastily put together the Constitutional Instrument (CI), overseeing the elections, and are now struggling to interpret it.

In his view, “the Electoral Commission, who actually crafted the Constitutional Instrument, CI 94… don’t even understand what they wrote and how they were going to be able to use itvto be able to streamline and bring some sanity into the presidential nominations and the parliamentary nominations.”

“They didn’t understand it because they are losing cases based on their own law which they drafted… they crafted a law that they themselves cannot defend in court because they have totally misunderstood what they were trying to achieve,” Mr. Casely-Hayford added.

Supreme Court appeal will provide definitive judgement

The EC recently decided to head to the Supreme Court to overturn the High Court judgment quashing the disqualification of the PPP’s Flagbearer, Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom.

The EC Chairperson, Charlotte Osei, has justified this decision saying a judgment from the Supreme Court would resolve the other lawsuits it is saddled with, following its disqualification of 12 presidential aspirants.

Mrs. Osei believes that the only point of contention in the disqualifications revolve around the definition of the nomination period.

Thus she said, “we have felt that because we have five candidates challenging… it is better for us to go and challenge this at the Supreme Court so that there is one definitive ruling that covers everyone.”