2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, being employees of the GES and GHA, are public servants and not civil servants. Thus, they are not disqualified under Article 94(3)(b) from contesting in political activities. The plaintiff's action was dismissed.
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC:-
The facts of this case are fairly simple and generally uncontroverted.
The 2ndDefendant is an employee of the Ghana Highway Authority(GHA), a member of the ruling NDC party andhe was registered to contest as constituency chairman.
The 3rd Defendant is an administrative officer with the Ghana Education Service(GES), specifically, with Swedru High School, a member of the ruling NDC, and had registered to contest for the position of the constituency secretary.
It is the case of the plaintiff that by virtue of the provisions of Article 94(3)(b) the 2nd and 3rdDefendants are not qualified to members of parliament and, since they are not qualified to be members of parliament, by virtue of Article 55(8) they do not qualify to contest for the positions they are seeking for, that is, constituency chairman and secretary respectively.
Plaintiff’s submission is based on the premise that both second and third Defendants are civil servants.
The reliefs the plaintiff seeks are as follows:
i) A declaration that:
a). …. the inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by the 1st Defendant to the list of candidates contesting in the constituency elections is inconsistent with Articles 55 and 94 clause (3) (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
b).On the true and proper interpretation of Articles 55(8) 94 clause (3) (b) of the Constitution, and section 68(2) of the Civil Service Act, 1993 PNDCL 327 the 2nd and 3rd Defendants being Civil Servants are precluded from participating in active politics to the extent of vying for executive positions in the upcoming constituency elections of 1st Defendant because they are not eligible as Members of Parliament and for that matter cannot hold any executive office in any political party.
c).That on the true and proper interpretation of the definition of Civil Service as defined under the Civil Service Act 1993 (PNDCL 327) the 4th Defendant is part of the Civil Service and as such, its members are precluded from participating in active politics. Therefore the permission granted to the 2nd Defendant to enable him contest as a candidate in the constituency elections of the 1st Defendant is null and void and of no effect as its sins against Article 94 clause (3) (b).
d).That as the 2nd and 3rdDefendants are precluded from participating in active politics by virtue of them being civil servants, the 5thDefendant contravened the Constitution when it included their names in the list of persons qualified to contest for executiv