Godwin Tamakloe
The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has abandoned its claim that the Electoral Commission (EC) is enjoined to compile the register of voters only once at the inception of the Constitution and not on multiple occasions.
It has now made a tacit admission that the EC has the power and can compile a new voters’ register.
The NDC elements, after all their sabre-rattling stance against the new register, are now pushing for the inclusion of the existing voter ID cards as one of the primary documents for proof of citizenship for the upcoming voter registration exercise scheduled for June 30, 2020.
The NDC’s shifting of the goal-post came to the fore at the Supreme Court yesterday when its suit against the Attorney General (AG) and the EC, trying to stop the commission from compiling a new voters’ register ahead of the general election in December, was heard.
Legal Objection
Matters came to a head when Deputy AG, Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the AG, filed a preliminary legal objection insisting that the NDC was contradicting itself as far as the reliefs it was seeking from the court were concerned.
The Deputy AG, in his legal submissions filed on June 8, 2020, had raised an issue about the competence of the reliefs sought by the NDC. He submitted at paragraph 9 that “the bases for those claims are really not linked at and in fact contradict each other. Questions legitimately arise as to the maintainability by the same plaintiff of two separate causes of action, which contradict each other, in a writ.”
Court Discussion
Yesterday, the seven-member panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Anin-Yeboah, and assisted by Justices Jones Dotse, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Sule Gbadegbe, Samuel Marful-Sau, Nene Amegatcher and Prof. Nii Ashie Kotei asked the NDC lawyer, Godwin Tamakloe, to elect which of the reliefs he wanted to pursue before the court, since they were contradictory.
The NDC lawyer then abandoned the course that the EC was enjoined to compile the register of voters only once at the inception of the Constitution and not on multiple occasions and they proceeded to strike out that relief on the NDC writ as abandoned, leaving the course where the party wants the court to compel the commission to include the old ID cards in the registration exercise, for the court to determine.
Main Action
The NDC in late March this year sued the AG and attached the EC over the commission’s decision to compile a new voters’ register for the 2020 presidential and parliamentary elections.
The party wants the Supreme Court to declare that the EC, per the 1992 Constitution, can only compile a voters’ register once and subsequently review it over time and not compile a new one instead.
The NDC is contending that the EC “can only revise the existing register of voters and lacks the power to prepare a fresh register of voters for the conduct of the December 2020 presidential and parliamentary elections.”
Among the declaration being sought by the NDC is that the decision by the EC to amend the regulations that guide the registration of voters “to exclude existing voter identification cards as proof of identification to enable a person to apply for registration as a voter is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.”
AG’s Opposition
The writ was opposed to by the AG, which described the NDC’s claims that the EC is enjoined to compile the register of voters only once at the inception of the Constitution and not on multiple occasions as “patently absurd, far-fetched, outrageous and grossly erroneous.”
The EC, through its lawyer, Justin A. Amenuvor, also countered the NDC’s claims, describing the position as an interpretation by the party to serve its ‘parochial interest’ and not a proper appreciation of the 1992 Constitution as a whole.
He said the NDC’s understanding and interpretation of Article 45(a) was an absurd, strained and far-fetched one.
Court Argument
Godwin Tamakloe, counsel for the NDC, when called upon to select one of the two reliefs, had wanted leave of the court to enquire from the party which of the reliefs it seeks to pursue, but the panel reminded him that as a lawyer, he should be able to choose which of the reliefs he wants the court to consider.
He subsequently withdrew the relief that the EC can compile the register only once and stuck to the call for the inclusion of the old ID cards as proof of citizenship.
Mr. Tamakloe then addressed the court that the EC could not exclude the existing voter ID cards as proof on the grounds because of the EC’s claims that its registration officers abandoned the Constitutional Instrument regulating its compilation and rather relied on a training manual compiled by the commission, especially when there was no proof before the court.
He said the EC could not hold that all the elections that were conducted using the current ID cards were fraught with illegalities and prayed the court for its inclusion.
Dame Angle
When called upon to present his brief oral arguments, Mr. Dame submitted that the NDC case was incompetent both in substance and in procedure.
A major problem with the case, according to the Deputy AG, was that the counsel for the NDC had failed to indicate which existing voter ID card he wanted to be included in the registration exercise.
Counsel submitted that as far as he was concerned, the voter ID card issued in 2012 under C. I. 72 had been outlawed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, could not be used for any voter registration exercise.
The one issued in 1995 under C. I. 12 was fraught with unconstitutionality, as it was not subject to the requirements of proof of eligibility. Incidentally, that card formed the basis for compilation of the 2012 register, which in turn formed the basis for cards produced under C. I. 91.
He said to compile a new register with old voter ID cards would “amount to importing the sins and ills of the old voter registration process.”
He further argued that the EC had admitted to registering many people under a training manual which directed its officials to disregard proof of eligibility and, therefore, ID cards issued under that system cannot be credible or reliable and urged the court “not to impede the EC in its quest to act constitutionally.”
When asked by the court as to why he was introducing new matters, Mr. Dame answered that the court could not shut its eyes to a matter the EC had admitted in its processes before the court.
He finally argued that the action was incompetent because at the time of its institution, there was no constitutional instrument passed by Parliament.
The Counsel for the EC, Justin Amenuvor, chose to rely solely on the EC’s statement of case filed, except to say that the register compiled in 2012 using C.I. 72 which the Supreme Court found not to be reasonably credible was the same register used for the limited registration in 2016 under C.I. 91.
Judges Concern
The judges expressed displeasure at some developments in the matter, which they said created an impression about the court in the minds of the public.
The court warned lawyers in the case to avoid granting media interviews, as well as discussing the matter on radio, and television while it was still before the court.
Heavy Security
There was a heavy security presence on the court premises yesterday, as about 15 vehicles transported police officers to the court to guard the place.
One of the judges, Justice Gbadegbe, remarked “one constitutional matter and you talk and talk. Why?”
The court has set June 23, 2020 to deliver its judgement on the matter.