Lifeline for disqualified aspirants as Supreme Court orders EC to extend nomination period
All the 12 disqualified presidential aspirants in this year’s polls were yesterday given a lifeline by the Supreme Court that could enable them to contest the December 7 election.
Advertisement
In a unanimous decision, the court directed the Electoral Commission (EC) to give all of them a fair hearing.
The court, in its judgement, also extended the nomination period from yesterday, Monday, November 7, to the close of work today, Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
“Invite the interested party and all the presidential candidates who were able to submit their nomination papers by close of the nomination day of September 30, 2016 and were disqualified without a hearing and give them a hearing within the extended period,’’ it ordered the EC.
It also directed the EC to afford the candidates “in appropriate cases” the opportunity to comply with Regulation 9 (2) of the Public Elections Regulations, 2016 (C.I. 94), which states; “The returning officer shall inform a candidate that the candidate’s nomination is invalid where (a) the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing to the nomination paper are not as required by law; or (b) the nomination paper is not subscribed to as required by law, and shall give the candidate an opportunity to make amendments or any alteration necessary, within the stipulated nomination period”.
High Court cases stayed
Meanwhile, the four legal cases challenging the disqualification of some presidential aspirants at the High Court have been put on hold by the apex court.
“Stay all proceedings pending in the various High courts against the applicant (EC) by some of the disqualified presidential candidates on the same issue of having been denied a hearing to enable the EC to carry out its mandate in line with these orders,’’ the court ordered the High Court.
The apex court, presided over by Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, said all the orders were to take effect immediately.
There was no order as to costs.
Other members of the panel were Justices Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Vida Akoto-Bamfo, Yaw Appau, A. A. Bennin and Gabriel Pwamang.
High Court exceeded its power
Mrs Justice Adinyira said the High Court was right in quashing the disqualification of the presidential aspirants but held that the court exceeded its jurisdiction when it ordered the EC to allow the aspirants to correct their mistakes.
It said Dr Nduom properly invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, which quashed the EC’s October 10, 2016 decision disqualifying him and the other aspirants.
It, accordingly, proceeded to direct the EC to give the affected presidential aspirants a fair hearing.
Reaction
In an interview with the media, lead counsel for Dr Nduom, Mr Ayikoi Otoo, chastised persons who supported the EC’s decision to disqualify the 12 aspirants without finding out whether or not it was in accordance with the law.
“Some people tried to create the impression that the disqualified candidates were involved in fraudulent activities. I am very happy that the Supreme Court has told the EC to live by the law’’, he said.
The lawyer for the EC, Mr Thaddeus Sory, described it as a victory for democracy.
Before the apex court’s ruling, some supporters of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP) were seen standing in small groups with worried faces, obviously not sure what the fate of their flag bearer would be.
They, however, broke into wild jubilation after the ruling when they realised that their beloved “Edwumawura” (Dr Nduom) had been given a lifeline to become a presidential candidate in the December polls.
The EC and the two leading political parties, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), bore the brunt of the jubilation as the PPP supporters chastised the electoral management body for “trying to disqualify their candidate at all cost’’.
They also sang songs alluding that Ghanaians were tired of the NPP and the NDC, for which reason the apex court had done a great service to the country by giving Dr Nduom the chance to contest the December polls.
End of controversy
The Supreme Court’s decision brings to a close the controversy surrounding the disqualification of presidential aspirants from the December 7, 2016 election.
Although the court gave its judgement on a single case involving the legality or otherwise of Dr Nduom’s disqualification as a presidential candidate, its decision automatically affects the other disqualified aspirants.
So far, the High Court, in two separate decisions, has directed the EC to allow Dr Nduom and Hassan Ayariga of the All People’s Congress (APC) to correct anomalies on their nomination forms.
The High Court decision in favour of Dr Nduom was delivered on October 28, 2016, while that of Mr Ayariga was delivered last Friday.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court on October 28, 2016, the EC proceeded to the Supreme Court, urging the court to quash the High Court order to the EC to allow Dr Nduom to correct anomalies on his nomination forms.
EC’s argument
The EC’s application invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the October 28, 2016 ruling of Mr Justice Eric Kyei Baffour which directed the EC to permit Dr Nduom to effect corrections on his nomination forms.
The EC’s application was mounted on three grounds in the writ invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The grounds set out by the EC were that the High Court committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record; that it wrongly assumed jurisdiction of the matter and also exceeded its jurisdiction.
Error
Arguing to establish the ground for an error apparent on the face of the record, the EC stated that the High Court was wrong in holding that the applicant did not set a nomination period for the submission of nomination papers by candidates to the EC.
The applicant argued that it was beyond doubt that the High Court conceded in its ruling that beyond the nomination period, no opportunity was afforded any candidate to correct any anomalies in their nomination papers.
“With regard to the nomination period, the evidence before the court in so far as the parties are concerned is that the nomination period was fixed by applicant to last from the 8th day of September, 2016 to the 30th day of September, 2016”, the statement of case accompanying the writ of the EC said.
According to the applicant, Dr Nduom himself deposed to the nomination period at “paragraph 8 of his affidavit in support of his application before the High Court as follows: This year, the EC opened nominations between the period of September 8 and September 30, 2016”.
The evidence before the court, according to the applicant, was that Dr Nduom knew that the EC had fixed the nomination period.
The first respondent in the substantive matter was Mrs Charlotte Osei.
A response filed on behalf of Dr Nduom by Mr Otoo stated that the EC’s argument that Dr Nduom knew of the nomination period was mischievous and misconceived because that point had been pointed to the High Court as a mistaken belief.
Dr Nduom’s lawyer argued that the EC woefully failed to make a case for judicial review in the nature of certiorari and for that reason the court should dismiss the application in its entirety.
He said the High Court recognised the need for the EC to fix the nomination period – in other words, to indicate when nomination would open and close, since at both the opening and the close of nominations the returning officers had statutory duties to perform.
Jurisdiction
Touching on the EC’s ground of the High Court assuming wrongful jurisdiction in upholding Dr Nduom’s application, Mr Otoo submitted that the 1992 Constitution did not provide any mode by which an aggrieved person could seek redress and that from the Rules of Procedure, an application by way of Judicial Review was the most appropriate in the circumstances.
Responding to the EC’s argument that Dr Nduom should have filed a petition instead of going by Judicial Review at the High Court, Mr Otoo held that “an action or a suit to question the validity of a nomination by an election petition, as opposed to an application for judicial review, would amount to the interested party abandoning his desire to be a presidential candidate in the 2016 presidential election”.
