The Supreme Court has refused the application filed by a private citizen, Fafali Nyonator for an order of injunction to restrain the President from appointing a new Electoral Commissioner.
According to the Applicant, the overriding purpose for filing the the Application for Injunction is to assist in efforts to entrench the rule of law and to seek legal remedies to what she has referred to as patent violations of the Constitution.
The application followed the Applicant’s suit seeking a declaration that the determination of a prima facie case by the Chief Justice for the removal from office of the EC is inconsistent with Article 130 (a) of the Constitution.
According to Counsel for the Applicant, it is the Supreme Court that has the ultimate power to determine matters relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.
Mr. Chris Akumey, Counsel for the Applicant added that the application sought to arrest further infringement on the Constitution of Ghana.
It was the case of the Applicant that assuming the determination in the substantive matter went in her favour and by then, the recently appointed EC chairperson is in office, it would result in the country having two EC chairpersons; one appointed by the Executive and the other declared by the Supreme Court, which would arise in conflict.
According to the Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, granting the application for injunction would create an improper composition of the Electoral Commission and that the Commission can not function without a chairman and deputies.
According to Mr. Yeboah Dame, the interest of the Applicant is Mrs. Charlotte Osei and not the entire nation.
The Deputy Attorney General said that pursuant to Article 47 (2), the Electoral Commission under the auspices of the Chairperson is expected to conduct a review exercise on the partitioning of districts after every 7 years, and the last review was done in 2011. He added that the time had come for another review exercise and if the application for injuction is granted, the exercise could not be undertaken.
The seven- member panel chaired by His Lordship, Justice Julius Ansah held the view that Article 2(2) adequately provides a remedy in the event that the substantive suit succeeds.
Article 2(2) of the Constitution is in the following terms: “The Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of a declaration under clause (1) of this article, make such orders and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for giving effect, or enabling effect to be given, to the declaration so made”.
Source: GhanaJustice/F.Kyeremateng
