Try asking the following...
J U D G M E N T
GBADEGBE JSC:
My Lords, by the writ of summons herein, the plaintiffs seek from us in the exercise of our original jurisdiction the following reliefs.
1. A declaration that the Local Government (Creation of New Districts Electoral Areas and Designation of Units) Instrument, 2010, LI 1983, which purportedly came into force on 24th November 2010 is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
2. An order restraining the 3rd defendant, its agents and assigns from in any way, using the new electoral areas created under the schedule to LI 1983 for the District Assembly Elections, scheduled for 28th December 2010.
3. A declaration that on the expiration of 21 parliamentary sitting days, the original copy of LI 1983, which was laid before Parliament on 19thOctober, 2010 automatically came into force in accordance with article 11(7) of the Constitution, 1992.
4. An order directed at the 3rd defendant to use only the original copy of LI 1983 as laid before Parliament on 19thOctober, 2010 to conduct the District Assembly Elections, scheduled for 28th December, 2010.
In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiffs discontinued against the 1st defendant and, at the direction of the Court, 2nddefendant was struck out leaving the Electoral Commission and the Attorney-General as the only defendants. In this regard, the Electoral Commission became the first defendant and the Attorney General, the second defendant. From the processes filed before us by the parties to the action herein, there does not appear to be any conflict on the facts. What is in contention for our determination turning on those facts is a simple question of law. The said question is whether Parliament in the exercise of its functions under article 11.7 of the 1992 Constitution may effect changes to any instrument laid before it? This requires a careful reading not only of Article 11.7 of the 1992 Constitution but also other provisions of the constitution that deal with the law making power of Parliament. Reference is made to the speech of Acquah JSC (as he then was) in the case of NMC v Attorney-General [2000] SCGLR 1 at 11 as follows:
“But to begin with, it is important to remind ourselves that we are dealing with our national constitution, not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It is a document that expresses our sovereign will and embodies our soul. It creates authorities and vests certain powers in them. It gives certain rights to persons as well as bodies of persons an