Can Abu Ramadan go to court again?His case is bogus.Thank you.
Can Abu Ramadan go to court again?His case is bogus.Thank you.
Kwame 7 years ago
Stateless persons who are citizens.
It is a fact that from where NPP and Abu Ramadan are standing on this issue the Supreme Court would have in effect declared some Ghanaians stateless, without pointing to the state they bel ... read full comment
Stateless persons who are citizens.
It is a fact that from where NPP and Abu Ramadan are standing on this issue the Supreme Court would have in effect declared some Ghanaians stateless, without pointing to the state they belong to. We stated that the Supreme Court in 2007 declaring that a law enacted should take retrospective effect in the matter between Ghana and Tsatsu Tsikata seriously abuse the right of Tsatsu Tsikata. I am of the view that if the Supreme Court in Ghana can not judge matter based on our own constitution and international treaties that we signed, then Ghanaians so affected by that abuse of the legal process have the right to appeal to the UN to come in and resolve the matter.
Calculus 7 years ago
What then happen to those who used the NHIA to register before 2008 and these people subsequently used the acquired voters ID to re-register in 2012? Should their names too be deleted as the npp and Abu want us to do?
Let's ... read full comment
What then happen to those who used the NHIA to register before 2008 and these people subsequently used the acquired voters ID to re-register in 2012? Should their names too be deleted as the npp and Abu want us to do?
Let's chase the elephant back into the forest for the 3rd time in a KPA-KPA-KPA way.
I choose JM for changing lives.
EBBY 7 years ago
This shit is becoming ridiculous. Can the supreme court spell out in plain Ghanaian language its intention for the order so that those dumb ones like me can understand? Different interpretations from different pocket lawyers ... read full comment
This shit is becoming ridiculous. Can the supreme court spell out in plain Ghanaian language its intention for the order so that those dumb ones like me can understand? Different interpretations from different pocket lawyers based on their partisan interests.
samson 7 years ago
Hey Man if you have difficulty understanding what has been written in this article, then I am afraid that you will NOT understand whatever the Supreme court says next. The language they use is always difficult.
Hey Man if you have difficulty understanding what has been written in this article, then I am afraid that you will NOT understand whatever the Supreme court says next. The language they use is always difficult.
Amma 7 years ago
The SC granted the plaintiffs three of their reliefs and gave two orders and that is the bottom line of the case not that quote the EC is hinging its ridiculous understanding on. The EC according to the SC has a constitutiona ... read full comment
The SC granted the plaintiffs three of their reliefs and gave two orders and that is the bottom line of the case not that quote the EC is hinging its ridiculous understanding on. The EC according to the SC has a constitutional duty to produce a reasonably credible and accurate register for elections, the current register is not reasonably credible or accurate due to the presence of ineligible registrants, that is it! The EC can twist and turn and the bottom line would be they might as well forget conducting the elections if the NHIS cards registrants would remain on register as any results from the register can easily be rendered reasonably inaccurate and incredible, simple as that. This is just damn right foolhardiness to nowhere.
samson 7 years ago
What you are ignoring is that at the time these people registered in 2012, the NHIS card was one of the legal documents required. Do you want to disenfranchise these people. The Supreme court in its wisdom has not interpreted ... read full comment
What you are ignoring is that at the time these people registered in 2012, the NHIS card was one of the legal documents required. Do you want to disenfranchise these people. The Supreme court in its wisdom has not interpreted the law wrongly as you are seeking to do with your 'that is it!' comment. The Court never takes such ridiculous positions in interpreting the law. The court was very careful what it decided and said. If you take down your political blinkers and take a deep breath and read the judgment again. you will get the exact meaning of they said. There is nothing foolhardy here my dear!!!
samson 7 years ago
Thanks for this enlightened write up. It explains it all. Hope the mischief makers, including so-called legal brains and a former attorney general will stop what they have set out to do. Such deliberate misinformation can lea ... read full comment
Thanks for this enlightened write up. It explains it all. Hope the mischief makers, including so-called legal brains and a former attorney general will stop what they have set out to do. Such deliberate misinformation can lead to disorder and violence and these people will be held accountable for their actions and pronouncements.
Kay 7 years ago
Interesting write-up- you said "For those bent on getting the names of persons... (must show) evidence to prove that the affected persons indeed registered with NHI cards."""
not so. they must rather prove that those peop ... read full comment
Interesting write-up- you said "For those bent on getting the names of persons... (must show) evidence to prove that the affected persons indeed registered with NHI cards."""
not so. they must rather prove that those people are not Ghanaians at all and so did not deserve to be on the register in the first place- with NHI cards or not.
as at the time those people were registering, it was legal. and no law can take retrospective effect.
only none Ghanaians (who the petitioners presume easily acquired NHI cards in order to register) can be expunged but try proving that.
ndc is gone 7 years ago
It is very simple. CI 91 says a citizen or EXHIBITION OFFCER can object to names of people on the register. The EC is the EXHIBITION OFFICER. The EC objects to the presence of all those who registered with NHIS cards! Display ... read full comment
It is very simple. CI 91 says a citizen or EXHIBITION OFFCER can object to names of people on the register. The EC is the EXHIBITION OFFICER. The EC objects to the presence of all those who registered with NHIS cards! Display the register. No need to follow the district - court etc because the highest court of the land has decreed. Period. Prove your citizenship
Kwobia 7 years ago
Thanks for clarifying.Some people (NPP) are determined to armtwist their way.Ghana belongs to all of us and not to one particular clan.
Thanks for clarifying.Some people (NPP) are determined to armtwist their way.Ghana belongs to all of us and not to one particular clan.
Can Abu Ramadan go to court again?His case is bogus.Thank you.
Stateless persons who are citizens.
It is a fact that from where NPP and Abu Ramadan are standing on this issue the Supreme Court would have in effect declared some Ghanaians stateless, without pointing to the state they bel ...
read full comment
What then happen to those who used the NHIA to register before 2008 and these people subsequently used the acquired voters ID to re-register in 2012? Should their names too be deleted as the npp and Abu want us to do?
Let's ...
read full comment
This shit is becoming ridiculous. Can the supreme court spell out in plain Ghanaian language its intention for the order so that those dumb ones like me can understand? Different interpretations from different pocket lawyers ...
read full comment
Hey Man if you have difficulty understanding what has been written in this article, then I am afraid that you will NOT understand whatever the Supreme court says next. The language they use is always difficult.
The SC granted the plaintiffs three of their reliefs and gave two orders and that is the bottom line of the case not that quote the EC is hinging its ridiculous understanding on. The EC according to the SC has a constitutiona ...
read full comment
What you are ignoring is that at the time these people registered in 2012, the NHIS card was one of the legal documents required. Do you want to disenfranchise these people. The Supreme court in its wisdom has not interpreted ...
read full comment
Thanks for this enlightened write up. It explains it all. Hope the mischief makers, including so-called legal brains and a former attorney general will stop what they have set out to do. Such deliberate misinformation can lea ...
read full comment
Interesting write-up- you said "For those bent on getting the names of persons... (must show) evidence to prove that the affected persons indeed registered with NHI cards."""
not so. they must rather prove that those peop ...
read full comment
It is very simple. CI 91 says a citizen or EXHIBITION OFFCER can object to names of people on the register. The EC is the EXHIBITION OFFICER. The EC objects to the presence of all those who registered with NHIS cards! Display ...
read full comment
Thanks for clarifying.Some people (NPP) are determined to armtwist their way.Ghana belongs to all of us and not to one particular clan.