SUPREME COURT ADJOURNS ELECTORAL COMMISSION CASE

THE Supreme Court has adjourned sine die the case in which three persons are challenging the duties of the Electoral Commission (EC) with respect to the manner in which the 2004 presidential elections were gazetted.
According to the court, there was no proof that the EC had been served with the necessary documents to enable it to react appropriately to the issues raised.
The case was referred to the Supreme Court for judicial interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Justice Victor Ofoe, after it had granted a motion filed by counsel for the EC following a request made by the Supreme Court in its ruling of May 24, 2007.
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that the issues raised in the writ clearly required judicial interpretation and thereby urged the trial court to stay proceedings for immediate referral of the case for consideration.
The writ was issued against the EC by the three persons who are activists of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to challenge the way the 2004 general election and the presidential results were gazetted.
The plaintiffs, namely, Rojo Mettle Nunoo, Squadron Leader Clend Sowu and Kofi Portuphy, are seeking an order of the court to restrain the EC and its agents from destroying the said documents and materials, pending the final determination of the suit.
The plaintiffs contended that at the time the Chairman of the EC declared the incumbent President winner of the presidential poll, it did not base its declaration on the total results from 230 constituencies of the country, since those from 225 constituencies were used.
According to them, the EC held a press conference and, basing its declarations on total results from 225 out of the 230 constituencies, declared the incumbent President winner of the poll.
Plaintiffs maintained that the results at the time should have been declared as provisional until all results from the 230 constituencies had been collated, stating, “Up to the date of instituting the present suit, the defendant has not declared the full and complete results of the presidential election of December 7, 2004.”
Plaintiffs said the collation and declaration of election results in a transparent manner and on time formed an integral part of the constitutional duty of the defendant, which was mandated under the laws of the country to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda in Ghana.
Counsel for the EC, Mr Osei Aduama, had argued that the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional interpretation would prevail on whatever interpretation was given in the past.
According to him, the publication of constituency-to-constituency declaration of results in the gazette in respect of the presidential election, as requested by the plaintiffs, was irrelevant.
 The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether or not upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 64 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, the EC fully discharged its constitutional duty with the publication of the Declaration of Presidential Election Instrument 2004.
The trial court, on February 14, 2006, ruled against the EC, indicating that it would deal with the case on its own merit before transferring any issue that required interpretation to the Supreme Court, after counsel for the EC had requested that the issue be transferred for interpretation.
That followed a motion filed by the EC seeking the postponement of proceedings at the FTC to enable the Supreme Court to interpret the constitutional provision on the issue of gazetting general elections in the country that had been the subject of contention but it was refused by the trial High Court.