Constitutional Challenges for NPP at the Supreme Court

Read Article

Comments (28)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (28)

KAB 11 years ago

Kofi, it appears you and Professor Kuruk are confused on the immunity of the president. Your analysis is largely misconceived. Article 57[4] and [5] do not grant the president immunity in regards to Election Petititions.
El ...
read full comment

Kofi, it appears you and Professor Kuruk are confused on the immunity of the president. Your analysis is largely misconceived. Article 57[4] and [5] do not grant the president immunity in regards to Election Petititions.
Election Petitions fall within the purview of prerogative writs. The Constitution clearly excepts prerogative writs from the so-called immunity. In modern terminology prerogative writ is termed judicial review. Any application to the court for a review of the legality of a decision by a public body is not a civil or criminal proceeding.
Article 57[4] and [5] grant the president immunity from civil or criminal proceedings. Election Petitions being judicial review application on the legality or constitutionality of Mahama's election is NOT a civil or criminal proceeding. If you are a lawyer you would know that. In view of that the constitutional instrument governing Presidential Election Petitions is NOT in conflict with the constitution or at all as you an professor Kuruk have attempted to assert here.
You also stated yesterday that Allotey erred in omitting Quo Warranto from his analysis of prerogative writs. Please be advised that Qou Warranto is obsolescent and no longer applicable, hence the omission.
Article 57[4] and [5] being inapplicable, the law requires that the person whose election is being challenged should be made the first respondent, hence the NPP's decision to make Mahama a respondent otherwise the petition fails on that basis.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of Article 57[4] and [5] has rendered your article completely flawed. You and Professor Kuruk appear to have very limited understanding of the constitution.
Sankofa 11 years ago

KAB, the immunity or otherwise of the President is not relevant to the rest of the article.

The article raises fundamental legal issues which suggest the petition is likely to fail. That is the crucial point.

KAB, the immunity or otherwise of the President is not relevant to the rest of the article.

The article raises fundamental legal issues which suggest the petition is likely to fail. That is the crucial point.
KAB 11 years ago

Regulation 30[2] of CI 75 states that the voter SHALL go through biometric verification. The operative word here SHALL makes it imperative or mandatory that the voter be biometrically verified.
If is established that indeed ...
read full comment

Regulation 30[2] of CI 75 states that the voter SHALL go through biometric verification. The operative word here SHALL makes it imperative or mandatory that the voter be biometrically verified.
If is established that indeed voters were not verified in accordance with CI75, they have failed to comply with a legal requirement. The general rule is that failure to comply with a legal requirement leads to invalidity or illegality. Their votes are therefore prima facie invalid.
This does not disenfranchise the citizens of Ghana. Regulation 30 [2] of CI 75 does not disenfranchise the voters on the basis that it did not prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. We all know that they voted, however in an illegal way. Any one who voted without being biometrically verified has exercised their constitutional right in an illegal way. In other words they have exercised their constitutional right in an unlawful manner. Any sound legal person will tell you that exercising your legal right unlawfully is in itself unlawful and illegal. Their votes are tainted with illegality and therefore invalid. CI 75 is not in conflict with the constitution. Mahama will only win the case if he can prove that no one voted without being biometrically verified as alleged by Nana Addo otherwise Nana wins.
Kofi Ata doesn't understand the law.
C.Y. ANDY-K 11 years ago

This is a private exchange I had and I am submitting it here as my views on this vexing NVNV fiasco.

When I first read of the declaration of NVNV a day before the elections by Dr Afari Gyan, I was speechless from the const ...
read full comment

This is a private exchange I had and I am submitting it here as my views on this vexing NVNV fiasco.

When I first read of the declaration of NVNV a day before the elections by Dr Afari Gyan, I was speechless from the consternation I felt. I felt like my old Pol. Science lecturer was now losing a screw somewhere. I wanted to make some comments against that nonsense on Ghanaweb but when I logged into the comments section, I observed that the "Brotherhood of Nitwits", as a friend has tagged them, that dominate there [Ghanaweb] were already in full control and no sensible comment would get through anyway, and so didn't leave a comment. In any case, A. Gyan was already receiving a lot of flak from those opposed to the idea of NVNV under our backwater conditions.

First, the NVNV declaration was not a law but a so-called Understanding reached with the pol. parties, and thus not enforceable in any court, if it is shown to be at variance with the law or the Const. Akpalu vs the EC had set the precedence, so we need no long argument to expose the insanity of NVNV in a backward country like Ghana, and the inherent injustice implementing it stringently will imply, esp. when the Pink Sheet had anticipated such a problem with a column for those who cannot be BVD! After all, those who voted without BVD indeed registered biometrically as stipulated, and as the Chief Justice repeated the law as saying [in some release sometime back cut off from this post], so on what grounds can you defranchise them when the machines failed, and the alternative method/s on the sheet were used to identify them to the satisfaction of all agents present??? The CJ said nothing about their fate, and the quote below cannot be used to imply she said NVNV! That inference will be a logical fallacy of trying to derive "is" from "ought".

It is bloody nonsense to claim that if one is not BVD, then one might not be a citizen, and from there jump to the conclusion that one is not a citizen. The hypothetical syllogism for such a claims goes like this:

If you are not BVD, then you are not a citizen of Ghana.
Kofi Mensah was not BVD
Kofi Mensah is thus not a citizen of Ghana

It is similar to this one:

All Greeks are fast runners
Makarios is a Greek
Therefore Makarios is a fast runner.

Hmm! Except that on the physical examination of Makarios, he turns out to be a cripple from birth!

I think I should leave it at that FUE [or 6th form, as I was reminded] logic level.

It is clear some here cannot understand Kofi's solid arguments. They are the ones confused.

Andy-K
MR. FIGURE- OUT 11 years ago

Did you know that some registered voters were denied their universal adult suffrage simply because they did not have their voters picture identification cards with them? I know quiet a great number of voters who were also dis ...
read full comment

Did you know that some registered voters were denied their universal adult suffrage simply because they did not have their voters picture identification cards with them? I know quiet a great number of voters who were also disenfranchised because they could not produce their voter IDs' neither did the biometric system allow them to do same because of some bottlenecks. The EC together with the Inter Party Advisory Committee came to a consensus that no one would be allowed to vote without the biometric verification. So armed with this rule as the only tool that can ensure a successful voting, some voters did not even bother to travel to their pooling stations without their picture IDs' since that was not a passport to vote. So you could see that so many people who could not travel some 100km or more, back and forth, to get their picture IDs' were totally betrayed by the new rule, which was carved on the day of voting, that allow people to vote with picture identification in the event of failure of the biometric system. That alone is a good ground for the NPP to pray the supreme court to annul the elections in the affected areas. So, as layman, my argument here is that the supreme cannot simply throw the case out because the NVNV was not constitutional. The NVNV rule was a consensus that was reached by all stake holders and became binding on the 2012 elections. So for the EC flouting that rule would mean a lot other than its constitutionality. This matter brings to mind the out of court settlement of judgement debts. A judge cannot overturn an agreement settlement if all the parties involve consented. In the same way, no court on the land can decide a voting rules for the EC. It is only the EC that make its laws. The supreme court instead of throwing the case out would rather, at worse, advice Afari Gyan to go back and do right thing if it become convince that some rules were violated. In any case where in the constitution is it stated that a pooling agent, haven pen down his/her signature means a result cannot be challenged? But here we go with the EC accepting fraudulent results with pretense that such results were authenticated by pooling agents, as the electoral laws required. So here again you could see the mischief in the EC's stance. Afari Gyan was quick to announce results that was being challenge by sticking to the electoral rule and at the same time he broke the accepted rule that allow biometric verification as the only acceptable rule to vote. "Approbate and reprobate".
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

KB, you are right that the word "shall" is strong enough to be interpreted as a requirement without which a vote could be null and void. However, I made the point that CI 75 did not prescribe any sanction if a vote did not go ...
read full comment

KB, you are right that the word "shall" is strong enough to be interpreted as a requirement without which a vote could be null and void. However, I made the point that CI 75 did not prescribe any sanction if a vote did not go through the biometric verification process so for sanction to be introduced after the election is problematic. Again, looking at the quantum of the figure as provided by NPP coupled with the fact the voter genuinely believed at the time of the voting that s/he was allowed to do so, could s/he be punished for the mistakes of the agent of EC or a party? Would such sanction be reasonable, proportionate and in the spirit of the Constitution as well as does it serve any constitutional objective, etc.? So I did not reach my conclusion in isolation but gave reasons why in my views such decision will be in conflict with the right to vote enshrined in the constitution.
Opanin 11 years ago

The sanction for no verification t the polling station was to deny the voter, the right to vote. Kofi the rule was selectively applied. On Friday 7 Dec 2012, many voters were turned away when they could not be verified due to ...
read full comment

The sanction for no verification t the polling station was to deny the voter, the right to vote. Kofi the rule was selectively applied. On Friday 7 Dec 2012, many voters were turned away when they could not be verified due to the malfunction of the biometric machines. On Saturday all voters who could not be verified were allowed to vote. The EC will be made to explain this in the Supreme Court especially when those who were allowed to vote without BV were in the three northern and the Volta region.
John Dek 11 years ago

You assume that biometric verification only means putting you finger on the verification machine which is not necessarily the case as biometric registration is a whole process. Assuming without admitting that you are right, a ...
read full comment

You assume that biometric verification only means putting you finger on the verification machine which is not necessarily the case as biometric registration is a whole process. Assuming without admitting that you are right, article 49 of the constitution provides the manner in which results must be validly determined and declared at a polling station and this clause must supercede CI 75. So if all the so-called illegality occurred and the reps of NPP were present and accepted the polls and appended their signatures and the EC annouced the those results how can they come back and cry foul
Opanin 11 years ago

The article surely opens up our minds as to the constitutionality or otherwise of the 'No Verification, No Vote'(NVNV) rule. Granted that what the writer is saying is true, that the voters who were NOT verified biometrically ...
read full comment

The article surely opens up our minds as to the constitutionality or otherwise of the 'No Verification, No Vote'(NVNV) rule. Granted that what the writer is saying is true, that the voters who were NOT verified biometrically cannot be disenfranchised because of gross 'administrative' deficiencies on the part of the EC.

The problem the EC and perhaps Mahama will have if they rely on the unconstitutionality of the NVNV as explained in the article is that IN MANY CONSTITUENCIES (which were deemed to be Nana Akufo Addo's stronghold), many voters were turned away because the biometric machine could not identify them. Voting without verification became widespread on the second day, 8 December, 2012 when Mahama himself, an interested party in the elections, came on tv and on radio to 'command' that voters not verified be allowed to vote. The EC used the Constitutional Instrument to 'disenfranchise' many Ghanaians on 7 December 2012. Why should the same EC ignore the rules and allow voters not verified biometrically vote on the 8 of December 2012. And majority of those votes favoured Mahama. If all the voters they turned away because they could not be biometrically verified had been allowed to vote, based on the legal argument being put forward now, the results as declared by the EC would have been different. I am sure the Supreme Court will seek clarification from the EC why many voters in Ashanti, Central and Eastern Regions were turned out on 7 December 2012 because the machine could not verify them but voters in Volta, Upper East and Upper West Regions were allowed to vote on 8 Dec 2012 even though the biometric machine failed to identify them.
Ko 11 years ago

Kab, you claim that election petitions are are sought of judicial reliefs because they derive their authority from the prerogative writs.I think that is where you got things wrong.Lets assume for once that election petitions ...
read full comment

Kab, you claim that election petitions are are sought of judicial reliefs because they derive their authority from the prerogative writs.I think that is where you got things wrong.Lets assume for once that election petitions are judicial reliefs,if they are then the sc would not be able to make a decision on the relief the npp is seeking but to refer the matter back to the ec for a decision which could end up with the same result. Administrative law or judicial relief is usually against the state or its organs and the state is cited on behalf of the president who is represented by its institutional representatives or the attorney general.
Bomfaboy 11 years ago

Thanks for enlightening the prof and Ata. I hope you also comment on their assertion that the No verification No Vote is unconstitutional. Mr Atta allerges that since the constitution is clear that a person of 18 years is en ...
read full comment

Thanks for enlightening the prof and Ata. I hope you also comment on their assertion that the No verification No Vote is unconstitutional. Mr Atta allerges that since the constitution is clear that a person of 18 years is entitledo vote and ther ore cannot be disenfranchised by a verification process. My problem with that is, if that is completely accurate, why do we need an electoral commission,? why do we have to spend money and time, to compile a voters register? Why did we as a nation provide money and resources and train personel to acquire the verification machines, to be used in the elections? No body was prevented from voting, who had one through the verification. Where the machines malfunctioned, there was agreement to postponed it to the next day, which was agreed to and voting continued. So why was it necessary for the president and some EC officials allow some people yo vote without verification? Why will the EC abuse it's own rules within the laws governing the elections? People register, and for some reasons, may not be available to vote either through illness or death or travel. So if there is no biometric verification, an unscrupulous EC official and a cheating government will be able to create ID cards that may finds it's way on the register after the fact, and some people may present that to vote. If the constitution makes room for laws to be passed to govern elections, then there can be no argument about it's applicability here. Please educate me. Thanks.
KAB 11 years ago

check my comment 'Kofi Ata's analysis is Flawed'. check it above. They don't know the law.

check my comment 'Kofi Ata's analysis is Flawed'. check it above. They don't know the law.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

KAB, thank you for your comment but the article was not about presidential immunity. That was the subject of part one. Your comment should therefore have been for the part one.

I can assure you that Prof and myself are no ...
read full comment

KAB, thank you for your comment but the article was not about presidential immunity. That was the subject of part one. Your comment should therefore have been for the part one.

I can assure you that Prof and myself are not confused. Though I am not a lawyer, I am not naive when it comes to the application and interpretation of the law (both primary and secondary legislation) having studied International Humanitarian Law, done Employment Casework, including representation and served as Employment Tribunal Member in the UK. Of course, I accept that my views are not the absolute interpretation and application because another person will take the opposite view and reach different interpretation and application. That is precisely why I said the final decision rests with the Justices.
Coler Mc 11 years ago

Bogus thesis you are putting out there. The constitution you talk of was thrust on us by bigots when we wanted them off our backs. If you agreed that our democracy should grow and over the years, we have been trying to improv ...
read full comment

Bogus thesis you are putting out there. The constitution you talk of was thrust on us by bigots when we wanted them off our backs. If you agreed that our democracy should grow and over the years, we have been trying to improve on our electoral process, what the heck do you mean that the law passed by parliament to regulate the voting should take a back burner because the Constitution says so. I think the constitution says every adult of 18 years should not be disenfranchised. Thousands of our compatriots, were not even registered because an act of parliament said so. Please come again with a counter argument what the supreme court should do with those who were not captured on the electoral register because of Mr Afari Gyan's so so. Give us some space and stop this muddling of the waters was
Ko 11 years ago

In all legislation and constitutional interpretation intent of the framers form a very important aspect of its understanding.It is clear that the constitution is the embodiment of our rights and the constitutional instrument ...
read full comment

In all legislation and constitutional interpretation intent of the framers form a very important aspect of its understanding.It is clear that the constitution is the embodiment of our rights and the constitutional instrument which gave effect to the no verification no vote authority is subordinate to the Constitution. Therefore if there is
conflict between the two,the Constitution prevails.I don’t think the no verification argument would stand a chance when pitted against the constitution which will make the relief sought even more difficult.Looking at your argument i can clearly see how the whole petition had been described as weak in law,weak on facts,weak in arithmetic and totally flawed in logic.
Wiafe 11 years ago

Kofi, this is a good piece. Am sure the NPP supporters will come out against you.

But you're right on the biometric system. The biometric system does not grant a Ghanaian the right to vote.

Furthermore, the EC and the ...
read full comment

Kofi, this is a good piece. Am sure the NPP supporters will come out against you.

But you're right on the biometric system. The biometric system does not grant a Ghanaian the right to vote.

Furthermore, the EC and the political parties have no right to determine who has the right in Ghana to vote.

The problem is that there a lot of Ghanaians who think political parties are consitutional agents. But political parties are voluntary organizations and a Ghanaian citizen does not have to be a member of a political party to exercise their right to vote.

So how can the EC and political parties dienfranchise my vote--just because of some self-serving handshake?
Kwadwoe 11 years ago

What then will stand a chance? Is it the other forms of verification? Were they also not promulgated by CI's? I'm even more confused with these assertions you're making.
I get the feeling you want to tell me every Ghanaian ...
read full comment

What then will stand a chance? Is it the other forms of verification? Were they also not promulgated by CI's? I'm even more confused with these assertions you're making.
I get the feeling you want to tell me every Ghanaian of sound mind etc as stipulated by the constitution should be allowed to vote without going through the mechanism laid for voting by the CI.
Kwadwo 11 years ago

You are actually arguing that that the Court should let the no verification votes stand because of equipment failure. Did the EC not halt voting when the biometric verication machine were not functioning in other precincts? W ...
read full comment

You are actually arguing that that the Court should let the no verification votes stand because of equipment failure. Did the EC not halt voting when the biometric verication machine were not functioning in other precincts? Why was the same directive not given to those precincts at issue to stop voting so as to bring uniformity and equal application of the rules to all voters? Remember, Courts abhor administrative agencies for not applying their rules uniformly. Equal protection under the law is also an important principle, and the election officials cannot change the rules for convenience to benefit select voters.
Wiafe 11 years ago

It is not possible to have glitch-free machines. In Ghana, it takes one so many days or weeks to get a drivers license or to get a business permit.--so how do you expect the EC to run a glitch free election?

It is not possible to have glitch-free machines. In Ghana, it takes one so many days or weeks to get a drivers license or to get a business permit.--so how do you expect the EC to run a glitch free election?
The Saint 11 years ago

I believe this is the part Ndc supporters found themselves vulnerable about losing the case. Mahama even intruded on the EC to allow people who cannot be verified to vote on Friday when voting was still going on and NPP can e ...
read full comment

I believe this is the part Ndc supporters found themselves vulnerable about losing the case. Mahama even intruded on the EC to allow people who cannot be verified to vote on Friday when voting was still going on and NPP can even use that evidence against him for interferring with the EC authority which influenced the EC to allow people to vote without verification. Mahama as a President at the time the voting was going on interferred in the voting process by telling the EC to allow people to vote who could not be verified.
DAY 2 OF THE ELECTIONS 11 years ago

KOFI,
I FOLLWED YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE AS PECT OF THE CI75 FOR ELECTION 2012.

YOU CONSPICIOUSLY EITHER LEFT OUT OR FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AS TO WHY THERE WAS A SECOND DAY OF VOTING.

PLEASE ...
read full comment

KOFI,
I FOLLWED YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE NO VERIFICATION NO VOTE AS PECT OF THE CI75 FOR ELECTION 2012.

YOU CONSPICIOUSLY EITHER LEFT OUT OR FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AS TO WHY THERE WAS A SECOND DAY OF VOTING.

PLEASE ADDRESS THIS AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR ANALYSIS IN YOUR NEXT ARTICLE. THANKS
GOAHEAD 11 years ago

EXCELLENT, NPP ARE SORE LOSERS.

EXCELLENT, NPP ARE SORE LOSERS.
FORTURE TELLER 11 years ago

PLEASE LET US FIND OUT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE FINAL VOTES WOULD BE IN SUCH AREAS AS THE BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION WERE VIOLETED TO BE. DID THE VIOLATION RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN VOTER TURNOUT IN THOSE AREAS, SAY OVER 80% ...
read full comment

PLEASE LET US FIND OUT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE FINAL VOTES WOULD BE IN SUCH AREAS AS THE BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION WERE VIOLETED TO BE. DID THE VIOLATION RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN VOTER TURNOUT IN THOSE AREAS, SAY OVER 80% VOTER TURN OUT IN THOSE AREAS? IF THEY WERE NULLIFIED WHAT WILL BE THE PERCENTAGE TURNOUT? WILL IT BE BELOW 70%. IF ALL THESE WERE DONE IT WILL GIVE A CLEARER INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THOSE VOTES IN JOHN MAHAMAS STRONG HOLDS WERE DELIBERATELY PADDED OR NOT TO FAOUR HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU NULLIFY THESE VOTES IN THE STRONG HOLDS OF JOHN MAHAMA AND THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE VOTERS TURNOUT BECOMES SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE OVERALL VOTER TURNOUT IN ALL OTHER VOTING CENTERS, THEN THERE IS AN INDICATION THE NULLIFICATION WILL BE MOST UNFAIR.
MIFTAHU 11 years ago

Fine argument.photo cards are enough to verify a voter.the petitioners are not complaining of multiple voting.

Fine argument.photo cards are enough to verify a voter.the petitioners are not complaining of multiple voting.
ASANTE 11 years ago

The Constitution merely provides the framework for laws to be formulated and enhanced in a sovereign state. It does not have a strangle-hold on agreed ground rules for effective functioning of institutions, legislative instru ...
read full comment

The Constitution merely provides the framework for laws to be formulated and enhanced in a sovereign state. It does not have a strangle-hold on agreed ground rules for effective functioning of institutions, legislative instruments and other methodologies that eventually give birth to laws that promote the spirit in which the constitution was drawn. Therefore, the key word to look for in these ground rules is CONSISTENCY with the Constitution and the spirit behind its draft.

Biometric Verification was introduced to strengthen citizens’ right to vote, by eliminating discrepancies that attended the truthfulness of registered voters’ identity, when other methods of verification were used in the past. Hence, Constitutional Instrument 75 (CI 75) Regulation 30 (2), which provides that ‘a voter shall go through Biometric Verification Process’ is very much consistent with Article 42 of the Constitution, which states that ‘Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda’

Article 42 did not envisage the problems associated with ensuring only citizens of the ripe age get the chance to express their democratic right through the ballot box. The same article did not make provision to deal with ballot box rigging, because it presumed the integrity of Electoral officials would prove dependable; and that rules of engagement would be formulated by the authority to ensure free and fair election or referendum prevail at any given time.

CI 75 does the job of filling the gap that Article 42 opened up, when it merely showed who had the right to vote but not how that right is to be protected. Historically, other verification methods have been susceptible to abuse, so the Biometric Verification Process had been wheeled into the election process to halt such abuse. Therefore CI 75 is an enhancement of Article 42 and does not stand diametrically opposite to it as you implied in your article.

To ensure fairness in the electoral process, all political parties and the Electoral Commission agreed on a No Biometric Verification, No Vote rule before the election. This is also consistent with Article 42 because the Biometric Verification ensures the sound delivery of the provision under the said article. Remember the right to vote under Article 42, does not mean the right to abuse the system.

Citizens who failed to go through the Biometric Verification Process are no different from citizens who failed to register. This does not mean that the right of such citizens have been stolen from them! It simply means that on this occasion they cannot exercise that right because they failed the criteria that every citizen is subjected to in order to express their democratic right.

NPP can spring a surprise in Court, if they can demonstrate that the rule change by EC in some constituencies materially altered the outcome of the election result. The taste of the pudding would be whether the different verification methods used in other places can stand the test of scrutiny.
Ko 11 years ago

Very well said and the analysis sounds good but what happens when the measures in place to safe guard the integrity of the election breaks down through no fault of eligible citizens.That is where rights and legitimate expecta ...
read full comment

Very well said and the analysis sounds good but what happens when the measures in place to safe guard the integrity of the election breaks down through no fault of eligible citizens.That is where rights and legitimate expectations intervenes as a matter of natural justice.The original understanding anticipated these problems and created a space on the card for eligible voters who for no fault of theirs could not go through the metric verification system.The right to vote as a guarantee under the Constitution is paramount and any attempt to disenfranchise would go against the spirit and letter of the constitution.The courts have the prudential rights to ignore secondary legislation for sake of justice and propriety.
Observer 11 years ago

Kofi, your article seems to suggest that the only way we can ensure that the tenets of the constitution are held high above all others is for the entire elections to be run all over again. I say this because there are other v ...
read full comment

Kofi, your article seems to suggest that the only way we can ensure that the tenets of the constitution are held high above all others is for the entire elections to be run all over again. I say this because there are other voters who were also denied their constitutional rights because the EC had ruled that 'No Verification, No Vote' and they failed the biometric verification process and so were not allowed to cast their vote!.
As a non-legal person, I believe the constitutional instruments and all such bylaws seek to clarify sections of the constitution, but not oppose it. The constitution made provision for mass sufferage, and as part of the voting process, the EC came out with the 'No Verification, No Vote' clause. The whole voting process on polling day involved a prospective voter joining the queue, submitting his (her) voter's card for manual and biometric verification, being issued with a ballot paper, making his (her) selection, casting the vote and leaving the polling boot. By you simple reasoning, why should 250,000 voters go through this ardous process and have their votes rejected for no fault of their? That, too, must be unconstitutional, accordinng to Kofi Ata! Why do you think, the same way as I did on the day, that President Ma'ma was wrong to have suggested that people should be allowed to vote where the verification machines were not working? After all, he was still the President of Ghana on polls day, and he had to step in and defend the rights of his citizens at all times.
If we are to succeed in Ghana, we must try to uphold the law at all times, because it is the same law that seeks to offer us the best protection at all times. If the law on the day said 'No Verification No vote', and the EC had taken much pains to explain this to the understanding and acceptance of all parties concerned, there was no way any section of the community should go against that on the pretext of protecting the constitutional rights of some people, forgetting that the law was being applied to the letter at other polling stations!
Those of you legal savvy people have ridden on the ignorance of the rest of us for far too long. I hope the SC are going to stick to truth and justice, rather than use the usual legal technicalities which make no sense to us mortals.
Pastor Cudjoe 11 years ago

Let us accept defeat and stop destroying our beautiful party built by people with their hard earned money, energy and blood.
The truth is that nobody among the descening and well experience SCJs will rule in this case for NP ...
read full comment

Let us accept defeat and stop destroying our beautiful party built by people with their hard earned money, energy and blood.
The truth is that nobody among the descening and well experience SCJs will rule in this case for NPP and make this country chaotic only because Nana Addo did not become a president. After all, we all knew that Nana Addo was not going to win because he did not have any vision except free SHS and did not even know the difference between preventive and curative health interventions. Oh God, how could sale himself better against well informed Mahams. Pls lets be objective. Execuse me.

Constitutional Challenges for NPP at the Supreme Court

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (28)

Read Comments Comments (28)