Justice George K. Acquah, a Supreme Court Judge, has called for an amendment of Ghana's Electoral Laws to provide a forum for people wishing to challenge eligibility of candidates to do so before the polling day.

He noted that it was proper and prudent to give an opportunity to whoever desired to challenge the eligibility of a Parliamentary or Presidential candidate before polls were cast to save the nation the pain and cost that would arise out of a bye-election.

It is estimated that each of the six recent by-elections cost the taxpayer not less than 100 million cedis, a figure the Electoral Commission (EC) described as "moderate" when compared to the amount of money spent on elections and by-elections in the West Africa Sub-Region.

Justice Acquah, who was speaking at a Roundtable Discussion organized by the Electoral Commission (EC) and KAB Governance Consult on Election Dispute and Adjudication, proposed that the period within which nominations for Parliamentary and Presidential candidates were received and closed should be extended to accommodate pre-election challenges.

Registered political parties, lawyers, academia and the media attended the discussion aimed at initiating a national debate on finding acceptable and agreeable terms for election disputes and adjudication.

Justice Acquah said: "There should be a Pre-Election Eligibility Adjudication Committee (PEEAC) made up of either a district magistrate or a three-member panel chaired by a magistrate or a lawyer of not less than three years standing."

He suggested among other things that within three days from the day of posting the list of contesting candidates, whoever had an objection to the eligibility of a candidate should lodge same with the returning officer, who should notify the candidate concerned and place the objection before the Adjudicating Committee for hearing within seven days from the end of the objection period.

"Where the PEEAC upholds an appeal to a Pre-Election Adjudication Review Officer (PEEARO) who shall be a High Court Judge or a lawyer of not less than 10 years standing. The decision of the PEEARO shall be final," Justice Acquah said.

Justice Acquah said it was regrettable that as the situation stood now, there was no justifiable forum for someone, who desired to challenge the eligibility of a Parliamentary or Presidential candidate before the polling day could do so except perhaps to lay his complaint before the Returning Officer, "who may not be bold enough to entertain the complaint".

Nothing was also said in Regulation 7 (3) of the Constitutional Instrument (CI) 15 about what the Returning Officer should do after declaring someone unqualified or what the Attorney General should do with invalid returns and the candidate too had not be given a forum to challenge the Returning Officer's decision.

"Thus the above regulations are defective ... if the elections are to be perceived to be free and fair."

He argued that since: "The Attorney General is a member of the ruling government and, therefore, may not be accepted by the other political parties to be capable of being impartial in such situations, especially if the rejected candidate happens to be one of the opposing parties.

"If there is no adjudicating forum to challenge the eligibility of a candidate before the polls, except in an election petition, then whenever such eligibility actions succeed in an election petition, the whole electoral process has to be repeated through a by-election to elect a new candidate."

He noted that the money involved in conducting such by-election alone made it imperative for the electoral law to provide a justifiable forum to resolve eligibility challenges before elections.

"As the law stands, it is even doubtful whether the courts including the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain before the polls actions challenging the eligibility of a candidate."

He cited the Ekwam versus Pianim and the National Patriotic Party versus the National Democratic Congress cases in 1996-1997 and 2000, respectively, as major examples.

Other subjects discussed were the time for holding general election, registration of voters and the cancellation of the certificates of registration of political parties.

On the time for holding general election, Justice Acquah said there was the need to have some time lapse of about a month, between the final election and the time for the assumption of power by the incoming government.

Article 113 (1) gives Parliament a four year term while 113 (2) empower Parliament, at any time when this country is actually engaged in war, to pass a resolution by not less than two-thirds of its members, extending this up to four years period for not more than 12 months at a time.

In the case of a President, article 63 (2) provides that the Presidential elections shall be held so as to begin where a President is in office, not earlier than four months nor later than one month before his term of office expires; and in any case within three months after the office of President becomes vacant.

Justice Acquah noted that whereas Parliamentary elections were to be held 30 days before January 7 of the last session of the outgoing Parliament that of a President should be held not earlier than September 7 and not later than December 7 of the last year of the outgoing President.

"In the face of this, it appears Parliamentary elections cannot be held earlier than September 7 of the last year, whereas the latest date for the holding of Presidential elections should be December 7," he said.

Justice Acquah argued for article 112 (4) to be amended, so that both the Presidential and Parliamentary elections were held on the same day and the 30 days to read 60 days, so that both elections could be held within the second week of November of the last term of the President and Parliament.

"Such an early election would afford sufficient time for the incoming elected President to prepare properly to take over," he said.

Justice Acquah said under section 27 of Act 574, the High Court may order the EC to cancel the registration of a political party, which contravened the provisions of Act 574, explaining that it was deficient since no provision has been made for the defaulting party to be heard before the order of cancellation was made.

He said in each of the sections, the mere default in complying with requirements therein was sufficient to enable the EC or the High Court, to cancel a party's registration certificate.

Justice Acquah described the exercise of such cancellation as unfair and arbitrary since the defaulting party would not have been given the opportunity of a hearing.

He said where the EC's decision was made to appear like a High Court decision, it could only be appealed against at the Court of Appeal, hence the need to ensure that the Commission's decision to cancel was arrived at after a sufficient hearing.

Justice Acquah asked: "What becomes of MPs whose certificate of registration is cancelled? Do they continue to be Members of Parliament? And if so, as what?"

He condemned the time frame in determining election disputes, describing it as "inordinate" and a major problem in adjudicating electoral disputes.

"The 1996 Ayawaso West-Wougon Constituency electoral dispute in the courts, at a time when the life of that Parliament had expired was a sad indictment on the performance of the Judiciary.

"And the Wulensi Parliamentary Dispute, which took two years to dispose of is no better if one considers that the life-span of the Parliament in respect of which the dispute relates is four years".