by EMMANUEL EBO HAWKSON
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to delete the 56,739 names it submitted to the court as the list of National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) registrants on the electoral roll.
In a unanimous decision read by Mr Justice Sule Gbadegbe, the court further ordered the EC to take all the necessary steps to delete other names of persons who registered with NHIS cards but which were not included in the list it presented to the court.
“Delete from the current register the names of persons not included in the list submitted to the court on June 29, 2016 but were also found to have registered with NHIS cards,’’ the court said.
The court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood.
The other members of the five-member panel were Mr Justice A.A. Benin, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Mr Justice Anin Yeboah.
Clarification
The ruling was a clarification of the court’s judgement on the voters register delivered on May 5, 2016.
Clarifying the judgement, the court held that its orders were for the EC to take immediate steps to remove the names of NHIS registrants on the electoral roll.
“The order takes precedence over any existing statutory provisions, including Constitutional Instrument (CI) 91 of 2016, which are the public elections and registrations of voters regulations,’’ it said.
It asserted that the import of the orders meant that the EC was to give opportunity to people who would be affected to re-register if they qualified.
“In order not to violate the fundamental electoral rights and also not to disenfranchise such persons, the first respondent (the EC) is to give adequate notices to the affected persons.
“The removal of the names is to precede the process of re-registration and the first respondent is to give such persons the opportunity to re-register early enough to be able to take part in the 2016 general election,’’ the court held.
Application
What triggered the ruling was an application by Abu Ramadan, a former National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention (PNC), and Evans Nimako, the original plaintiffs in the suit that led to the May 5, 2016 judgement.
The two were seeking clarification and further directions on the judgement.
According to them, the judgement of the court had generated many controversies and, therefore, it ought to clarify the judgement.
Their reliefs sought a declaration that the order made by the court in relation to the judgement meant that the EC was to immediately remove the names of persons on the electoral roll who registered with NHIS cards.
They also sought a declaration that the order was based on Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, had a “a legal basis and authority for the EC to comply with the order’’.
The two also wanted a declaration that although the court had, in its judgement, dismissed their relief for the EC to use validation, the commission could still go ahead and adopt it as an auditing tool.
They also wanted the court to further direct the EC to remove persons not qualified to be on the voters register.
The EC, however, objected to the application, stating that there was no ambiguity in the judgement which required clarification.
Court view
The court, in its ruling, upheld the first relief, stating that the two parties had placed different meanings on the judgement delivered and, therefore, the motion for clarification was appropriate, adding that “the application for clarification succeed’’.
The court, however, dismissed the second and third reliefs, explaining that the applicants sought to reintroduce validation, which had been dismissed by the court in the May 5 judgement.
“It is, therefore, surprising, if not baffling, that the applicants will think it fit to repackage the same relief and present it to this court by way of a post-judgement motion when the real purpose was to seek alteration of the judgement delivered on May 5, 2016,’’ it held.
It also dismissed the fourth relief, asserting that granting of that relief would amount to a repetition of the orders given by the court in relation to the judgement.
“You cannot sue someone for the same cause of which judgement has been given,’’ it said.
Credibility
Meanwhile, the court yesterday also struck out an application which asked it to determine whether the current voters register was credible or not.
That was after the applicant, Kwame Baffour, had withdrawn it.
Counsel for the applicant, Nkrabea Effah-Dartey, had prayed the court to strike out the application as a result of its ruling yesterday that clarified its judgement on the electoral roll of May 5, 2016.
“In view of the ruling on the clarification of the judgement, we will not pursue the outstanding application,’’ he said.
Atmosphere & security
There was a charged atmosphere in the courtroom and the precincts of the Supreme Court, as scores of policemen and prison officers had pitched camp at vantage points.
Even before one was allowed into the court premises, the security officers conducted body searches.
At the entrance of the Supreme Court, there was a body scanner and body checks, with prison officers holding sniffer dogs to detect potential troublemakers.
Heavily armed policemen manned the entrance of the court.
To read the full piece from Graphic Online, click here.