THE REPUBLIC v. THE HIGH COURT, EX PARTE: DR. ZENATOR A. RAWLINGS & ANOR
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATUGUBA, JSC (PRESIDING)
- ANIN YEBOAH, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Election Law
- Judicial Review
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana was called upon to interpret Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution regarding the eligibility criteria for a person to be a Member of Parliament. The court held that the eligibility criteria come into force only when a public election of a Member of Parliament has been declared by the Electoral Commission and it has set the time to file nominations. The court emphasized the need to interpret constitutional provisions in a manner that ensures a coherent and functional legal framework.
MAJORITY OPINION
BENIN, JSC:-
The original matter that brought the parties herein before this court was an application invoking our supervisory jurisdiction for an order of certiorari to quash some decisions of the High Court, Accra. The incumbent Member of Parliament for the Klottey Korle constituency, who is the 1st interested party herein, lost the opportunity to contest for the seat again on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the 2016 general elections because he was defeated in the party primaries by the applicant herein. The 1st interested party took an action at the High Court to nullify the election of the applicant on ground that she was not a registered voter when she took part in the party primaries and was thus unqualified. During the pendency of the action before the High Court, certain decisions were taken by the said court which the applicant brought before this court to quash. Hence the title to the case as stated above. It was when the court was deciding that application that it concluded that a question of interpretation of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution had arisen from the proceedings before the High Court. The court decided to take the issue suo motu since the High Court had failed to make the reference. The question raised by the court for interpretation is this:
When can it be properly said that a Ghanaian citizen is by reason of non-registration as a voter not qualified to be a Member of Parliament within article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana?
The question invites the court to interpret this provision in order to bring out clearly the scope and intent of this particular provision of the Constitution, in particular when the eligibility criteria become applicable to a parliamentary election. All the parties have proffered what in their view is the correct interpretation to be placed on this provision. We would sum up briefly, but to the point, the arguments put across by each party. However, we noticed that the applicant and the 2nd interested party have several points of convergence so we intend to put their arguments together and consider same vis-à-vis those of the 1st interested party.
The applicant’s Counsel expressed the competing positions in these words:
“The kernel of the plaintiff/interested party’s (1st interested party herein) claim is that on the true and proper interpretation of Article 94(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, the 2nd defendant (applicant herein) was not qualif