EC loses again as High Court rules in favour of Ayariga
The presidential ambition of the flag bearer of the All People’s Congress (APC), Mr Hassan Ayariga, which was cut short by the Electoral Commission (EC), has been revived by the Accra High Court.
Advertisement
The court, presided over by Ms Justice Barbara Teteh-Charway, yesterday quashed the EC’s decision to disqualify Mr Ayariga from contesting the December polls because of certain errors on his nomination forms.
According to the court, the EC acted “unfairly” and “unreasonably” when it disqualified Mr Ayariga.
Consequently, the court has ordered the EC to give the APC flag bearer the opportunity to rectify the errors on his nomination forms.
“I order the respondent (EC) to afford the applicant (Ayariga) the opportunity to amend the anomalies detected on his nomination papers within a limited time,’’ the presiding judge held.
Jubilation
The court ruling led to ecstatic jubilation among Mr Ayariga’s supporters who thronged the court premises.
In an interview with journalists after the judgement, Mr Ayariga described the ruling as a victory for the rule of law.
“I am very proud that democracy and the rule of law is working. We are grateful to the judge and, therefore, we will continue to campaign,’’ he said.
Ayariga's case
Mr Ayariga dragged the EC to court after he had been disqualified from contesting the upcoming election because, according to the EC, two of the persons who endorsed his presidential nomination forms also endorsed the forms for another presidential aspirant.
He said the electoral body’s decision to disqualify him was not in “accordance with the law and procedure enshrined in C.I 94.”
He, therefore, sought an order from the court to compel the EC to allow him to correct the error, accept his “nomination and nomination forms and to include his name on the ballot paper for the 2016 presidential election.’’
Headache for EC
Mr Ayariga is the second presidential aspirant among the 12 disqualified aspirants to have his disqualification overturned by the High Court. The first was Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP).
With 33 days to the December polls, the High Court is faced with a myriad of suits. The trend of the court rulings in relation to the disqualification will definitely lead to the scratching of heads within the election management body.
But the EC is challenging the reversal of Dr Nduom’s disqualification at the Supreme Court, a move it hopes will bring closure to the numerous legal actions challenging its decision to disqualify the 12 presidential aspirants.
Nomination period
Although the EC, on September 29, 2016, notified and gave Mr Ayariga the opportunity to correct 30 errors on his nomination forms, it did not do same for the two errors that led to his disqualification.
Lawyer for the EC, Mr Thaddeus Sory, argued before the court that the EC was not under any obligation to notify Mr Ayariga of the two errors because the electoral body detected the two errors after the nomination period had closed on September 30, 2016.
In the view of the court, however, the nomination period could not have ended on September 30, 2016, due to the fact that the electoral body decided to collect the filing fees on October 10, 2016 as a result of a suit against it.
“At the close of the commission’s purported nomination period, none of the aspirants stood nominated, but rather it was on October 10, 2016 when their deposits were accepted by the commission that any of the candidates could have been considered nominated,’’ the court said.
According to the court, an aspirant could only be disqualified within a nomination period during which the EC scrutinised the three things required (nomination papers, statutory declaration and the filling fees).
After the forms had been scrutinised, the aspirant, the court said, ought to be given the opportunity to correct the anomalies on his or her forms before any disqualification could be enforced.
“The EC’s failure to notify the applicant (Ayariga) of the two anomalies on his nomination paper based on which he was disqualified and not giving him an opportunity to amend them constituted a breach of Regulation 9 of C. I 94,’’ the court held.
