THREE SUE A-G AND EC OVER RIGHT TO VOTE

THREE Ghanaians domiciled in the United States of America (USA) have sued the Attorney-General and the Electoral Commission (EC) at the High Court seeking an order to compel the EC to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are duly registered to take part in all general elections as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Amendment Act 699 (ROPAA).
According to the plaintiffs, the passage of the ROPAA gave them the right to vote and be voted for and that the constitutional provision or enactment which debarred or prevented them from being voted for, especially Articles 8 (2) of Act 527 and 94 (2) were inconsistent and in contravention of Articles 1 (1), (2); 2(1), (a), (b) and 17 (1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
That, they said, in effect violated their fundamental human rights as spelt out under Article 33 (1) of the constitution.
The suit was filed on behalf of Kofi Antwi Boateng of Daban, Kumasi, Dr Agyenim Boateng of Atimatim, also in Kumasi, and Kwasi Sarpong Afrifa of East Legon, Accra, by Nana Obiri Boahen and Associates in the Kumasi High Court.
In their statement of claim, Antwi Boateng said he was an accountant working in the USA and Dr Boateng was an assistant attorney with the State of Kentucky while Afrifa worked with the Ford Foundation.
According to them, they remitted home frequently and had been active and vocal, among other things, selling Ghana abroad.
They said in 2003, Dr Boateng presented a paper on judicial reforms in Ghana at a round-table conference of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) while Afrifa was playing vital role in respect of the 2007 conference to be organised by the UNDP in Ghana.
They said that Articles 33 (1) of the 1992 Constitution set out unambiguously the remedy(ies) available to any Ghanaian whose fundamental human rights were breached or violated.
The plaintiffs said that section 16 (1) of the Dual Citizenship Act 591 and Articles 8 (2) of Act 527 were all in violation of Articles 17 (1) and (2) of the constitution and as such the combined effect of those articles clearly violated their fundamental human rights.
With the passage of ROPAA, the plaintiffs said, their right to vote ought to go with the right to be voted for and that any law that gave them the right to vote and not to be voted for was inconsistent and in contravention of Articles 17 (1) and (2) of the constitution.
According to them, Article 94 (2) (a), which debarred full-blooded Ghanaians from holding certain positions, sinned against Article 17 (1) and (2) of the constitution and the spirit and letter of Act 699.
The plaintiffs said their action became necessary after appeals by their counsel to the defendants yielded no response and since the passage of ROPAA, the defendants had failed to take the necessary steps for them to exercise their right to vote during the recent district/municipal/metropolitan assembly and unit committee elections.
They considered that conduct a serious breach or violation of their fundamental human rights as spelt out in the constitution.
Consequently, they said the EC should be ordered to ensure that they did exercise their fundamental human rights as Ghanaians in all public elections.