The Supreme Court rejects the action of Kweku Baako contesting the dismissal of Charlotte Osei

General News of Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Source: Graphic.com.gh

2019-02-05

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the editor of the Crusade Guide, Mr. Abdul Malik Kweku Baako Junior, in which he challenged the indictment of the former President of the Electoral Commission (EC), Ms. Charlotte Osei.

Mr. Baako baderted that Ms. Osei was not indicted for the performance of her essential duties as EC Chairperson.

He therefore wanted an interpretation of Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution by the court.

But in a unanimous decision on Tuesday, a seven-member panel of judges chaired by Judge Julius Ansah dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it did not raise issues of constitutional interpretation or enforcement.

The writ, which was filed on Tuesday, July 10, 2019, also wanted the Supreme Court to find that the President of the Supreme Court's prima facie decision against Ms. Osei was inconsistent and in violation of section 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution.

Landforms

Mr. Baako sought 18 reliefs, including a statement that, if Article 146 (1) of the 1992 Constitution was interpreted in a faithful manner, an application for dismissal of the President of the EC, in accordance with the provisions of the 39, article 146, was valid only if such an alleged petition denounced reprehensible behavior or incompetence related to the exercise of the essential constitutional functions of the President of the EC.

He also sought a declaration that the Chief Justice (CJ) had entered into a prima facie case concerning six allegations contained in Ms. Osei's application for removal under section 146 of the Criminal Code. the Constitution. were not based on acts of misconduct or incompetence declared against Ms. Osei in the performance of her essential duties as EC President, were unconstitutional, null and void; , no avenues and no effect.

The same act was inconsistent and in violation of the provisions of Article 296 (c) of the 1992 Constitution, and therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Mr. Baako also asked the court to rule that the Chief Justice was performing administrative duties rather than the duties and duties of a judge or an officer of justice.

Another relief sought was a statement that, in the exercise of the constitutional functions and powers of a committee constituted by the CJ pursuant to section 146 (4) of the 1992 Constitution, the committee thus created exercised an administrative function rather than that of a judge. or an officer of the court and that the committee was required to comply with the regulations governing the exercise of its discretion under section 146 (4) of the 1992 Constitution.