FRED AKWETER v. THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL & THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
April 29, 2026
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BAFFOE-BONNIE CJ (PRESIDING)
- ASIEDU JSC
- ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
- DZAMEFE JSC
- ADJEI JSC
- BARTELS-KODWO JSC
- ACKAAH-BOAFO J
April 29, 2026
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
ADJEI, JSC:
The Plaintiff calls upon this court to interpret Article 142 of the constitution of Ghana, 1992 (P.N.D.C.L. 284) which mandate the courts to suspend the voting rights of convicts of those offences which are unconstitutional.
The case is of constitutional importance by the fact that it seeks to challenge the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (P.N.D.C.L. 284) for its propensity of denying some citizens of Ghana of their fundamental human rights from being registered as voters or voting at an election and which said rights have been given constitutional authorization by the Constitution of Ghana, without providing for any exception and would require the striking out of some provisions of P.N.D.C.L. 284 should the action succeed.
The Plaintiff, who alleges that some provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (P.N.D.C.L. 284) are unconstitutional, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in his capacity as a citizen of Ghana to make a declaration to that effect under articles 2 and 130 of the Constitution of Ghana. The Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs from the Court against the Defendants.
“a. A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution every Ghanaian of 18 years and sound mind has the right to be registered and to vote in public elections and referenda.
b. A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution in conjunction with other relevant provisions of the Constitution, an individual convicted of an election-related offence shall not be deprived of their right to be registered as a voter or to participate in public elections or referenda.
c. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the1992 Constitution, Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), which prohibits a person convicted of an offense relating to nomination papers and ballot from being registered as a voter or voting at an election is unconstitutional and an unjustified interference with their constitutionally guaranteed right.
**_d. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), which prohibits a person convicted of an offense relating to unauthorized voting from being registered as a voter or voting at an election is unconstitutional and a
AI Generated Summary
This original-jurisdiction constitutional case was brought by a Ghanaian lawyer against the Attorney‑General and the Electoral Commission, challenging sections 27, 28, 29, 36 and 41 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284). Those provisions impose a five‑year disqualification from registration and voting on persons convicted of specified electoral offences. The Plaintiff argued the provisions contradict Article 42, which guarantees the franchise to citizens eighteen and above of sound mind, and sought reliefs compelling the Electoral Commission to register such persons. The State and the Commission defended the law as a proportionate, lawful measure to protect electoral integrity. The Supreme Court held that while voting is a fundamental right, it is not absolute; consistent with international instruments (UDHR, ICCPR, African Charter), ECtHR jurisprudence (Hirst, Scoppola) and comparative authorities, restrictions are permissible if prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and are proportionate. Applying a purposive, living‑instrument interpretation and proportionality analysis, the Court found the five‑year, conviction‑based disqualification to be a justified ancillary penalty. Both issues failed; the action was dismissed and the impugned provisions upheld.