Elections 2016: Supreme Court To Deliver Judgment In Matter Between EC And PPP Today

The Supreme Court will today, Monday, November 7, 2016, bring to a close the controversy surrounding the disqualification of presidential aspirants in the December 7, 2016 election.

Although the court will be giving its judgment on a single case involving the legality or otherwise of the disqualification of the presidential candidate of the Progressive People’s Party (PPP), Dr Papa Kwesi Nduom, the court’s decision will automatically affect other disqualified aspirants.

So far, the High Court, in two separate decisions, has directed the Electoral Commission (EC) to allow Dr. Nduom and Hassan Ayariga of the All People’s Congress (APC) to correct anomalies on their nomination papers.

The High Court decision in favour of Dr Nduom was delivered on October 28, 2016, while, that of Mr. Ayariga was delivered on Friday. 

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court on October 28, 2016, the EC proceeded to the Supreme Court, urging the court to quash the High Court’s order to the EC to allow Dr Nduom to correct anomalies on his nomination forms.

At the court’s sitting in Accra, the court, presided over by Mrs. Justice Sophia Adinyira, declined oral submissions from the lawyers and gave them up to the close of day yesterday to file their written addresses.

Other members of the panel were Justices Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Vida Akoto-Bamfo, A.A. Bennin, Yaw Apau and Gabriel Pwamang.
Mr. Thaddeus Sory represented the EC, while Mr. Ayikoi Otoo, represented Dr Nduom.

EC’s application is invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the October 28, 2016 ruling of Justice Eric Kyei Baffour which directed the EC to permit Dr Nduom to effect corrections on his nomination forms. 

The EC’s application has been mounted on three grounds in the writ invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 

The grounds set out by the EC are that the High Court committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record; that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction of the matter and also exceeded its jurisdiction. 

Arguing to establish the ground for an error apparent on the face of the record, the EC  stated that the High Court was wrong in holding that the applicant did not set a nomination period for submission of nomination papers by candidates to the EC.

The applicant is arguing that it was beyond doubt that the court conceded in its ruling that beyond the nomination period, no opportunity was afforded any candidate to correct any anomalies in their nomination papers.


SOURCE: Daily Graphic