REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, HO
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- APPAU, JSC (PRESIDING)
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- TORKORNOO (MRS.), JSC
- HONYENUGA, JSC
- AMADU, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human rights Law
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Attorney-General applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition after the High Court, Ho, granted ex-parte injunctions restraining the Electoral Commission from gazetting John Peter Amewu and restraining his presentation for swearing-in as MP-elect for Hohoe. The underlying suit was brought by Professor Margaret Kweku (NDC candidate) and SALL voters as a human rights action under article 33(1) and Order 67 of C.I. 47, seeking declarations and orders grounded in alleged violations of voting and representation rights. The Supreme Court held that reliefs which effectively challenge the validity or consequences of a parliamentary election must be pursued exclusively by election petition under article 99 and PNDCL 284, not through human rights proceedings. It found the High Court’s interim orders void for lack of jurisdiction and, in any event, time-limited and lapsed. The Court quashed the proceedings leading to those orders and struck out the election-challenge reliefs, but refused prohibition and left the remaining human rights claims for the High Court to consider, declining to address the constitutionality of C.I. 128.
APPAU, JSC:-
On the 23rd day of December, 2020, one Professor Margaret Kweku who was the parliamentary candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Party in the Hohoe Constituency of the Volta Region and four (4) others, namely; Simon Alan Opoku-Mintah, John Kwame Obimpeh, Godfried Koku Kofie and Felix Quarshie who claimed to be registered voters in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lolobi traditional areas in the Oti Region (hereinafter referred to as SALL Areas), initiated an action in the High Court, Ho by Originating Motion on Notice, praying for certain reliefs against the Electoral Commission as 1st respondent and three others. The three others are; Wisdom Kofi Akpakli (the Returning Officer for Hohoe Constituency, as 2nd respondent), John Peter Amewu (the NPP M.P. Elect for Hohoe Constituency, as 3rd respondent) and the Attorney-General, as the 4th respondent. Per their motion paper, the action of the applicants in the trial High Court, was premised on article 33 (1) of the Constitution, 1992; Order 67 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 [C.I. 47] and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court.
Article 33 (1) and Order 67, rule 1 of C.I. 47 provide:
“Article 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.
Order 67 rule 1 of C.I. 47: 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.”
In their application, the applicants were seeking six (6) declarations, an order of mandamus and three (3) restraining orders. These are:
a. A declaration that the decision of the 1st respondent, implemented by the 2nd respondent, preventing and excluding the 2nd to 5th applicants and other registered voters in the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lolobi traditional areas from voting for a parliamentary candidate in the Hohoe Constituency, denied the said voters their fundamental right to vote, to democratic participation and specifically, to be represented in Parliament;
b. A declaration that the eleventh hour decision of the 1st respondent, implemented by the 2nd respondent, preventing the holding of Parliamentary elections in the Santro