2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, arises from an originating motion filed on 23 December 2020 in the Ho High Court by applicants seeking human-rights redress against the Electoral Commission, its regional officer Wisdom Kofi Akpakli, John Peter Amewu, and the Attorney-General. The applicants sought declarations that Amewu was not duly elected for Hohoe, mandamus to organize a parliamentary election including the SALL areas, and injunctions to prevent gazetting and swearing-in. The High Court granted interlocutory orders restraining gazetting and swearing-in the same day. The Attorney-General invoked Article 132 to seek certiorari and prohibition; on 5 January 2021 the Supreme Court quashed the orders, holding the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 33 to entertain election-dispute reliefs, which belong to a special jurisdiction under Article 99 and PNDCL 284. Applicants then pursued review under Article 133 and Rule 54(a), advancing eighteen grounds, including demands to consider CI 128’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court held supervisory jurisdiction is confined to patent jurisdictional errors, declined to address CI 128, and dismissed the review.
TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-
Background to the current application
On 23rd of December 2020, the Applicants herein commenced an action in the High Court, Ho. They sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47) by the issue of an Originating Motion against The Electoral Commission (1st Respondent), Wisdom Kofi Akpakli, the Regional Electoral officer, (2nd Respondent) (3) John Peter Amewu (3rd Respondent) and (4) The Attorney General (4th Respondent)
Chapter 5 of the 1992 Constitution provides in Article 33(1) and (3) that
33(1) Where a person alleges that a provision of this Constitution on the fundamental human rights and freedoms has been, or is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action that is lawfully available, that person may apply to the high court for redress
33(3) A person aggrieved by a determination of the High Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal with the right of a further appeal to the Supreme Court
Order 67 of CI 47 provides:
Application for redress under Article 33 of the Constitution
1. A person who seeks redress in respect of the enforcement of any fundamental human right in relation to the person under article 33(1) of the Constitution shall submit an application to the High Court
Included in the reliefs sought by Applicants from the High Court were the following prayers:
Relief 1(f) A declaration that as a result of the numerous deficiencies in the conduct of the elections by the 1st and 2nd respondents as set out above, the 3rd respondent was not duly elected as the person to represent the people of Hohoe Constituency (including the applicants and all registered voters in the subject-areas) in Parliament from 7th January 2021 to 6th January 2025
(2) An order of mandamus to compel the 1st and 2nd respondents, to organize and conduct the parliamentary election in respect of the Hohoe Constituency including the Santrokofi and the other three traditional areas to enable all registered voters there to have the opportunity to vote for the determination of the member of parliament
(3) An order to restrain:
a. the 1st and 2nd respondents from seeking to gazette the 3rd respondent as the duly elected MP for the Hohoe Constituency from January 7th 2021 to January 6, 2025
b. the 1st and 2nd respondents from in any way, presenting the 3rd respondent as duly elected