[ad_1]
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the referendum only in the zones reserved for the creation of six new regions, scheduled for 27 December 2018.
In a unanimous decision rendered yesterday at the Court, a seven-member panel found that the plaintiffs did not present a genuine argument for constitutional interpretation and therefore did not properly rely on the court's original interpretative jurisdiction.
Useful links Ghana Politics | Ghana celebrity news | News in Ghana
"The jurisdiction of the court has not been duly invoked and, as a result, the case is closed," he concluded.
The judgment was read by Professor Nii Ashie Kotey, while Judge Sophia Adinyera chaired the panel.
Judges Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Samuel K. Marful-Sau, Agnes M. Dodzie and Nene A. Amegatcher were also on the panel.
Useful links Ghana news | Ghana Business News | News in Ghana
Creation of new regions
On August 15, 2017, the State Council advised President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to appoint an investigating commission to examine the need to create six regions and make recommendations on all the factors involved in creating new regions.
The Justice S.A. Brobbey Commission, established under Article 5 of the 1992 Constitution and the Constitutional Instrument (CI) 105, began its work on 21 November 2017.
for the news of Ghana | Ghana Business News | News in Ghana
On June 27, 2018, he presented his report to President Akufo-Addo and recommended the creation of six new administrative regions, namely: Oti, Ahafo, Bono East, Western North, Savannah and North East.
The commission recommended to the president to limit the referendum to the proposed new regions.
As a result, the EC set the referendum on 27 December 2018.
Referendum Challenge
The three plaintiffs – Mayor Agbleze, Destiny Awlimey and Jean Claude Koku Amenyaoglo – however, challenged the format of the referendum and filed their case with the Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.
The Attorney General (A-G) and the Electoral Commission were joined at the trial.
The applicants sought an interpretation of Article 5 of the 1992 Constitution, which deals with the creation of new administrative regions or the merger of two or more regions.
They argued that it was unconstitutional to limit the referendum to only the proposed regions.
Instead, they said the constitutional route was to hold the referendum in the four existing regions (Western, Volta, Brong Ahafo and Northern) that needed to be modified to give birth to the six new regions.
It is also their case that all registered voters from the four existing regions must vote, not just those from the six proposed new regions.
An badociate deputy, Mr. Godfred Yeboah Dame, challenged the plaintiffs' arguments and baderted that they had not raised any issues requiring a constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court.
No ambiguity
In its judgment, the court upheld the Deputy Member's argument, baderting that section 5 of the 1992 Constitution was "clear, precise and unambiguous" and therefore did not require any constitutional interpretation of the of the court.
He cites almost all the provisions of Article 5 in the judgment and indicates that Clause 4 clearly gives the inquiry commission the mandate to recommend the areas in which the referendum will take place, while the CE is also responsible, under Clause 5, for prescribing the manner in which the referendum would be held.
"The complainants invite the court to give a new interpretation of Article 5 when the words are clear and unambiguous. No question of interpretation arises and, therefore, the complainants failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court, "he said.
It considered that the inquiry commission, the President and the EC had acted in a manner consistent with the clear and unambiguous provisions of Article 5 of the 1992 Constitution.
I did not understand
The court also concluded that the complainants misunderstood a referendum on the creation of new regions and a referendum on the merger of two or more regions.
The authors of the 1992 Constitution made a clear distinction between a referendum on the merger of two or more regions and a referendum on the creation of new regions.
The Supreme Court stated that Article 5, clause 7, stipulated that more than 60% of the registered voters in the regions where the planned merger would take place were to vote, while 80% of the voters were to vote in favor of the merger. .
On the other hand, Article 5, Clause 6, stipulated that 50% of the persons entitled to vote in a referendum for the creation of new regions had to vote, while 80% of the electors had to approve the creation of the new region. .
Email of the author: This email address is protected from spam. You must enable JavaScript to view it.
Source link
