ABU RAMADAN & EVANS NIMAKO v. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

GBADEGBE JSC:

Pending before us is an application by the plaintiffs-judgment creditors-applicants(the applicants) for clarification and further directions in respect of our judgment dated May 05 2016. The application was expressed in the body of the motion paper to have been brought under our inherent jurisdiction and rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16 of 1992.The reliefs prayed for by the applicants numbering four are as follows;

(a) A declaration that the order made by this honourable court pursuant to the judgment in the instant suit dated May 5th, 2016 that the 1stDefendant/Respondent to“delete or clean” the current register of voters to conform to the provisions of the 1992 Constitution and applicable law means the immediate removal of names of persons who registered with the National Health Insurance Scheme Card and who had otherwise not established qualification to register or remain on the register of voters; and

(b) A declaration that the said order is made pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Constitution of Ghana and provides the legal basis and authority for 1st Defendant/Respondent to comply with same forthwith.

(c) A declaration that the dismissal of Plaintiffs/Applicants reliefs 4(a) and (b) in the suit does not bar 1st Defendant/Respondent from adopting the validation process as an auditing tool to clean the current register of voters.

(d) An order further directing the 1st Defendant/Respondent to remove the names of persons who used the National Health Insurance Scheme Card and others who had not lawfully established qualification to register from the current register of voters forthwith and provide those who remain eligible and subsequently establish qualification to register under law an opportunity to do so in time to participate in the general elections of 2016.

The application was supported by an affidavit which provided the factual basis of the motion. The Defendants/Respondents in their answer to the application raised objections to the substantive reliefs claimed by the applicants in the matter. The respondents contend that the applicants having invoked the court’s jurisdiction for the clarification of the judgment of 05 May 2016, the reliefs sought should be limited to the scope and meaning of the orders made under it and that it is incompetent for the applicants to seek substantive declaratory reliefs.

The respondents also take issue with the applicants for pursuing reliefs which were clearly granted in the judgment of th