Supreme Court ruling on NHIS voters ‘fair’ – Ace Ankomah

Some private legal practitioners are encouraged by today’s Supreme Court ruling on the case involving the Electoral Commission and Abu Ramadan, with lawyers of the plaintiff declaring it an “absolute victory”.

The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ordered the EC to immediately delete from the register names of the 56,739 persons who registered with National Health Insurance cards.

The court also ordered the EC to immediately delete persons whose names were not submitted to the Supreme Court but who registered with the NHIS cards.

Commenting on the ruling on his facebook page, Ace Ankomah, said the strength of the court ruling affirms the May 5 ruling that ordered the EC to delete names of persons who registered with NHIS cards.

He said: “What is the wahala? The SC has clarified that all who registered by NHIS should be immediately deleted and then given the opportunity to re-register. The EC has provided a list of roughly 56k, whom it says its records show, are affected by the order.

That's fair. That's what its records show. But the list is not cast in stone. So if you can show that there are others that were not captured in the EC's list (for whatever reason), then provide that list because the EC would then be duty bound to delete them all in accordance with the orders of the SC, and afford them the chance to re-register.

If you doubt the EC's list and can show that there are "source document" that can prove more, sue in the High Court under Article 21(1)(f) to enforce your right to that information. As for me, I don't see the wahala koraa."

Lawyer Samson Lardi Anyenini also concurred with the court’s decision and summarised the judgement as follows:

1. Who said the judgment/orders of May 5 were not clear? The only difference now is the list of NHIS carders. Delete them "forthwith" and notify those affected and give them the chance to register in good time for the 2016 elections.

2. Court clarifies its earlier order was for immediate deletion of NHIS carders and that those orders take priority over (supersede) any election law including C.I 91. EC was wrong on this point as it sought to use C.I 91 to implement the orders.

3. Court declines invitation by Plaintiffs for an enquiry into credibility of list of NHIS registrants submitted by EC because it is not allowed to deal with new evidence in present application for CLARIFICATION of its May 5 Judgment.

4. Order of immediate deletion of NHIS carders on list submitted by EC AND [critically] ANY OTHERS NOT ON THE LIST BOUT FOUND ON THE VOTERS ROLL.