2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a case involving the Constitutional duty of the 1st Defendant to conduct elections, the plaintiff sought various declarations claiming non-compliance with constitutional principles of transparency and fairness in electoral regulations. The court held that while provisions existed, they were inaccurately expressed and mandated corrections, ensuring presidential election regulations matched those for parliamentary elections in terms of transparency. The court referenced Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, and Administrative Law, emphasizing broad interpretation and addressing omissions and inconsistencies. Concurrences were noted from all justices, and previous landmark cases were cited to support the principles established.
ATUGUBA JSC:
We heard this case on 21st October 2016 and in view of its obvious urgency, adjourned for judgment today 27th October 2016. The plaintiff by his writ dated 27th September 2016 claims as follows:-
“A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of articles 42, 43, 45 (c) and 51 of the Constitution 1992, the function of the 1st Defendant under article 45 (c) of the Constitution, “to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda” implies a duty to conduct such elections in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner.”
A declaration that, on a true and proper interpretation of article 51 of the Constitution, 1992, the power of the 1st Defendant under Article 51 by constitutional instrument to make regulations for the effective performance of its functions under the Constitution or any other law implies a duty to make regulations that promote free, fair, credible and transparent elections.
A declaration that by the combined effects of Articles 23, 45 (c), 51 and 296 (a) & (b) of the Constitution and the core constitutional values of transparency, accountability and the rule of law (legality), the failure of the 1st defendant to make mandatory provisions in the Public Elections Regulations, 2016 (C. I. 94) requiring the returning officer of the 1st defendant to furnish the contesting parliamentary and presidential candidates, their representatives or counting agents with copies of the Parliamentary Elections-Result Collation Form, Form One E. L. 23A and Presidential Elections-Result Collation Form, Form One E. L. 23B, specified in the schedule thereto, is unreasonable, unfair, non-transparent and does not promote or secure free and fair elections and is accordingly inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 23, 45 (c), 51 and 296 (a) & (b) of the Constitution and the core constitutional values of transparency, accountability and the rule of law.
A declaration that the failure of 1st defendant to make provision in C. I. 94 requiring the returning officer and the contesting candidates, their representatives or counting agents to sign the Parliamentary Elections Results Collation Form, namely Form One E. L. 23A and the Presidential Elections-Result Collation Form, namely Form One E. L. 23B in the schedule thereto is unreasonable, arbitrary, and non-transparent, and does not promote or secure free, fair and credible elections, and is accordingly inconsistent with, and in contravention of, the letter and spirit of the Co