2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Appau, JSC, considered an application by the Attorney-General to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in certiorari and prohibition arising from ex-parte interim injunctions issued by the High Court, Ho, on 23 December 2020. Professor Margaret Kweku of the NDC and four SALL-area voters had sued the Electoral Commission, the Hohoe returning officer, John Peter Amewu (MP-elect), and the Attorney-General under article 33(1) and Order 67 of C.I. 47, seeking declarations, mandamus, and restraining orders. The High Court restrained gazetting and swearing-in of Amewu for ten days. The Supreme Court held that reliefs restraining gazetting and swearing-in were election-petition remedies that could only be pursued under article 99 and section 16 of PNDCL 284. It granted certiorari, quashed the High Court’s 23 December proceedings, and struck out reliefs 1(f), 2, and 3(a)-(c). Prohibition was refused; the remaining human-rights reliefs (1(a)-(e)) could proceed, and the ex-parte orders had lapsed by operation of law.
RULING
APPAU, JSC:-
On the 23rd day of December, 2020, one Professor Margaret Kweku who was the parliamentary candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Party in the Hohoe Constituency of the Volta Region and four (4) others, namely; Simon Alan Opoku-Mintah, John Kwame Obimpeh, Godfried Koku Kofie and Felix Quarshie who claimed to be registered voters in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lolobi traditional areas in the Oti Region (hereinafter referred to as SALL Areas), initiated an action in the High Court, Ho by Originating Motion on Notice, praying for certain reliefs against the Electoral Commission as 1st respondent and three others. The three others are; Wisdom Kofi Akpakli (the Returning Officer for Hohoe Constituency, as 2nd respondent), John Peter Amewu (the NPP M.P. Elect for Hohoe Constituency, as 3rd respondent) and the Attorney-General, as the 4th respondent. Per their motion paper, the action of the applicants in the trial High Court, was premised on article 33 (1) of the Constitution, 1992; Order 67 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 [C.I. 47] and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court.
Article 33 (1) and Order 67, rule 1 of C.I. 47 provide:
“Article 33 (1): Where a person alleges that a provision of this constitution on the fundamental human rights and freedoms has been, or is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action that is lawfully available, that person may apply to the High Court for redress.
Order 67 rule 1 of C.I. 47: A person who seeks redress in respect of the enforcement of any fundamental human right in relation to the person under article 33 (1) of the Constitution shall submit an application to the High Court.”
In their application, the applicants were seeking six (6) declarations, an order of mandamus and three (3) restraining orders. These are:
A declaration that the decision of the 1st respondent, implemented by the 2nd respondent, preventing and excluding the 2nd to 5th applicants and other registered voters in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lolobi traditional areas from voting for a parliamentary candidate in the Hohoe Constituency, denied the said voters their fundamental right to vote, to democratic participation and specifically, to be represented in Parliament;
A declaration that the eleventh hour decision of the 1st respondent, implemented by the 2nd respondent, preventing the holding of Parliamentary elections in the Sant