[ad_1]
The Electoral Commission (EC) was dragged before the Supreme Court by a native of Daboya, in the Savanna region, as a result of limited registration exercises.
Umar Ayuba, a former member of parliament for the Yagbong constituency in the Daboya Mankarigun constituency, said that the Ghanaian citizen feared that the Supreme Court would interpret articles 45 (a), 45 (e) and 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
A copy of the writ dated Thursday, May 23, 2019, filed by the law firms Ayine & Felli and in possession of Modern Afghanistan indicated that the plaintiff had sought to avail himself of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule on sections 45 and 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
The European Commission, headed by Jean Mensah, has set Friday, June 7 to Thursday, June 27 the restricted voter registration exercises in district capitals and selected areas.
The exercise targets young Ghanaians who have reached the age of voting 18 years and older but are not registered.
The complainant stated in his writing that in recent years, the EC had always conducted general and limited voter registration exercises in all constituencies in the country's 275 constituencies, but that the 2019 exercises should be held in district offices. will no longer be allowed. a block number of the population voting for the first time.
According to the former MP, voter registration in constituencies has since become a legal exercise in accordance with the Public Election (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016 (CI 91).
The registrations in the electoral districts since the coming into force of the 91 AC indicate that registration in electoral constituencies has more advantages because it allows to obtain a higher number of votes. Voters wishing to register.
Umar argued that for eligible citizens living in remote rural constituencies, registration at the electoral zone level undoubtedly reduced the cost in time and money of travel to and from district capitals, which in most cases, were far from the communities.
Quoting his own riding to support his thesis, the complainant stated: "In the particular case of the Daboya-Mankarigu constituency, a first voter resident in Bombo, a rural community in the riding, must travel 94 km to get to the community. district capital. , Daboya, to register. "
In the statement challenging the EC's constitutional basis of establishing voter registration centers only in district capitals, the plaintiff inter alia asked the Supreme Court to declare that "on the basis of a faithful interpretation of Articles 45 a), 45 (e) and 42 of the Constitution, the decision of the "2nd defendant (EC) to proceed to the limited online registration of voters in 2019 in the district offices of the 2nd defendant instead of doing so on the basis of the repressive electoral zones that emerges from the same exercise carried out in 2018, especially in rural constituencies of the country, and is therefore unconstitutional in that it violates the elector's right for the first time of s & Register and vote. "
In addition, he wishes "a statement that, after a correct and correct interpretation of Article 45 (a) and (e) of the Constitution, the decision of the 2nd respondent to proceed to the limited online registration of Voters in 2019 at the District Offices of the 2nd Defendant rather than on the basis of electoral zones is inconsistent and inconsistent with the mandate of the second defendant set out in paragraphs (a) and (e) of section 45 of the Constitution and Article 2 (2) (a) and (b) of the Public Election (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016 (AC 91). "
In addition, the plaintiff wishes the Supreme Court to declare that "on the basis of a faithful interpretation of Articles 42, 45 (a), 45 (e) and 17 of the Constitution, the decision of the 2nd defendant to submit to the registering electors online in district offices of the second accused instead of proceeding in the same way according to electoral zones places an unjustified and disproportionate burden on voters for the first time, especially in constituencies rural communities such as Daboya-Mankarigu, violating the right of rural voters for the first time to be granted an equal opportunity to register to vote under Articles 42 and 17 of the Constitution. "
Other remedies sought include "a statement that, after correct interpretation of sections 45 (a), 45 (e), 17, 23 and 296 of the Constitution, the decision of the 2nd respondent to proceed with the online registration limited electors in 2019 to the 2nd defendant's district offices instead of on the basis of electoral zones is an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of his voter registration discretion "
The former member of the General Assembly also wishes an order inviting the EC to "undertake the limited 2019 voter registration exercise in the manner prescribed by law, in particular the Public Elections (Registration) Regulations 2016". (91), in order to avoid or minimize the suppression of votes, especially in the rural constituencies of the country ".
He also asked the Supreme Court for an order from this Honorable Court to prevent the 2nd accused, his employees, his employees and his agents from destroying any document or document relating to the registration exercise. the limited number of electors conducted in 2018 by the 2nd accused (EC) until the final decision on this action and any other order of this Honorable Court seems appropriate in the circumstances.
The plaintiff has attached exhibits showing a limited number of voter registrations in the 2016 and 2018 referendums, as evidence of his attempt to suppress potential voters.
Source link
