ROJO METTLE NUNOO & ORS v. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

JUDGMENT

DR. DATE-BAH JSC: By an order of 18th June 2007, His Lordship Ofoe J., as he then was, referred the following for interpretation by the Supreme Court:

i. “Whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 63(1) (sic) of the Constitution the defendant fully discharged the constitutional duty with the publication of the declaration of President Elect Instrument, 2004.

ii. Whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution any citizen who was aggrieved by or dissatisfied with the declaration contained in the declaration of the President Elect Instrument, 2004, had 21 days within which to present a Petition to the Supreme Court in challenge of the declaration, and

iii. Whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64(1) of the 1992 Constitution, the plaintiffs are estopped from attempting now to challenged (sic) the validity of the President Election.”

Statements of Case were filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant on these issues. The Attorney-General also, pursuant to an order of this Court, filed a statement of case.

The plaintiffs’ case is basically that the promulgation by the defendant of the Constitutional Instrument entitled “Declaration of President Elect Instrument, 2004,” CI 49, dated December 10, 2004 was insufficient to discharge the defendant’s constitutional obligation under Article 63(9) of the Constitution. Article 63(9) provides that:

“An instrument which –

(a) is executed under the hand of the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and under the seal of the Commission; and

(b) states that the person named in the instrument was declared elected as the President of Ghana at the election of the President,

shall be prima facie evidence that the person named was so elected.”

The Plaintiffs allege in their Statement of Case that they wrote to the defendant’s chairman in October 2005 to publish in the Ghana Gazette the full results of the December 2004 Presidential Elections. The Defendant replied that by the publication in the Ghana Gazette of the DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT ELECT INSTRUMENT, 2004, C.I.49, it had discharged its constitutional duties with regard to the declaration of the results of a Presidential Election. Not satisfied with this response, the Plaintiffs issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendant claiming the following reliefs:

i. “A declaration that the Defendant is bound by law to publish in the Ghana gazette or in any manner permitt