Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for Professor Margaret Kweku and four other petitioners contesting the validity of the election of Peter Amewu as MP for Hohoe constituency has told a High Court in Ho, presided over by Justice Owoahene Acheampong, that the denial of voters in the SALL Traditional Areas of the right to vote for a parliamentary candidate affected the parliamentary election in the Hohoe constituency.
He contended that the continued denial of the people in the SALL traditional areas of representation in the 8th Parliament of the 4th Republic undermines Ghana’s democracy and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
According to Tsikata, the Electoral Commission (EC) had made admissions, which justified those reliefs being granted.
The EC admitted that the SALL Traditional Areas were not districts when Constitutional Instrument 112 of 2019 went into effect and made the Oti Region.
This was one of the things Tsikata talked about. Referring to that constitutional instrument, Tsikata emphasised that, by the plain meaning of the words in the instrument, the Oti Region “shall comprise the districts specified in the Schedule to this instrument.” Whatever is not a district in the schedule is, therefore, not included in the Oti Region.
The “SALL Traditional Areas”, as admitted by the Electoral Commission, were not a district but were part of the Hohoe Municipality, as also admitted by the Commission.
Mr. Tsikata emphasised that the Electoral Commission also acknowledged in their Answer to the Election Petition that, per Constitutional Instrument 95, the SALL Traditional Areas were a part of the Hohoe Constituency.
The further claims of the Commission that C.I. 95 had been amended by C.I. 128 in July 2020 and that another C.I. 119 had “realigned the district, electoral areas, and units”, involved “unlawful usurpation of power” by the Commission since the Commission, Tsikata insisted, has no power to create a district nor to change the boundaries of districts.
The EC had used those instruments to disenfranchise voters in the SALL Traditional Areas and to create the “mess that the nation is faced with”.
In Constitutional Instrument 128, according to Tsikata, the Electoral Commission had bundled together the SALL Traditional Areas, which were within the Hohoe Municipality in the Volta Region, with districts in the Oti Region, contrary to Article 47(2) of the Constitution, which provides that “no constituency shall fall within more than one region”.
That instrument was, therefore, unconstitutional. Furthermore, Article 47(6) of the Constitution made it clear that C.I. 119 and C.I. 128 could only come into effect upon the dissolution of the 7th Parliament, which was on January 6, 2021.
The instruments were, therefore, not in operation on December 7, 2020, when the election was held. C.I. 95 was still in operation, and the court, Tsikata maintained, had no option but to set aside the election results in the Hohoe constituency and have an election held with the participation of voters in the SALL Traditional Areas.
In response to what Tsikata said, Sekyi-Boampong, the lawyer for the EC, said that the petitioners were asking the court for declaratory reliefs, which meant that there had to be a full trial before the court could give those reliefs.
He referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court of Ghana and an English case, which, according to him, had decided that the reliefs the petitioners were seeking could not be granted without the parties being given a hearing.
Therefore, in his opinion, the petitioner's attorney's application was not properly before the court.
Sekyi-Boampong further argued that the Electoral Commission's admissions specifically related to the Hohoe Municipality Establishment and had little to do with the outcomes of the election that the Electoral Commission conducted on December 7, 2020, for the Hohoe Constituency.
According to him, “per C.I. 112, which created the Oti Region, the SALL Areas are captured under the Oti Region."
He stated that what happened in the SALL traditional areas was regrettable. He, however, insisted that the admissions made by the Electoral Commission did not “go to the root of the validity of the election."
He urged the court to dismiss the application and give directions to the parties for a trial to enable the court to obtain a full account of what had transpired in respect of the SALL Traditional Areas.
After the submissions, Justice Owoahene Acheampong adjourned the case to December 21, 2023, for his ruling.
Sekyi-Boampong suggested that the court could adjourn until January 2024, and Tsikata stated that this showed the urgency with which the Electoral Commission treated the SALL issue.
Tsikata said there was a need to deal with the matter urgently. Justice Acheampong maintained the 21st of December 2023 for the ruling.
Peter Amewu, the second respondent to the election petition, was again not in court, nor was he represented by any lawyer.
At the start of the proceedings, Justice Acheampong checked the court's records to make sure that Amewu had received notice of the hearing through his secretary at the Ministry of Railways, as the court had ordered on November 2, 2023.
Justice Acheampong, after checks from the registrar, read out a report that indicated that Amewu was served.
Comments
Post a Comment