Ramadan and the legal meaning of ‘void’: Theory versus functionality (part 1)

Read Comments Comments (6)

• nana 9 years ago

  Massa I don't understand your article. The verbose use of big words and legalese is troubling. Pls come again. The article is for consumption of the general public and not law101 at some lecture theatre.

  Massa I don't understand your article. The verbose use of big words and legalese is troubling. Pls come again. The article is for consumption of the general public and not law101 at some lecture theatre.

  reply
• Abdulsalam 9 years ago

  I remember a bit of the prof and Mr. Ampaw write-up on Mr. Ramadan case indicating that there were no precedence in law where a legal act done under a law becomes voidable when the law is no longer in effect.
  In other words ...
  read full comment

  I remember a bit of the prof and Mr. Ampaw write-up on Mr. Ramadan case indicating that there were no precedence in law where a legal act done under a law becomes voidable when the law is no longer in effect.
  In other words the act becomes void as
  soon as the law becomes unconstitutional.
  
  The writer has shown, with examples, it is rather the write-up of the two 'legal luminaries ' that's void.
  
  I can't wait for a response from Mr. Ampaw and the prof.

  reply
• K Mensah 9 years ago

  It is clear this man did not understand lawyer Ampaw's article.

  It is clear this man did not understand lawyer Ampaw's article.

  reply
• SADIK LATEST 9 years ago

  There is no jargon used here but just that legal terminologies are been used here which is far far different from our everyday English. All the pacha pacha talkers are silent because this is for serious brains. The lawyers ca ...
  read full comment

  There is no jargon used here but just that legal terminologies are been used here which is far far different from our everyday English. All the pacha pacha talkers are silent because this is for serious brains. The lawyers can also join the discussion for public education.

  reply
• TRUTH STANDS 9 years ago

  Ghanaians want to know the law school Akuffo Addo complete, class mates, lectures and those he was call to the bar with

  Ghanaians want to know the law school Akuffo Addo complete, class mates, lectures and those he was call to the bar with

  reply
• Kofi 9 years ago

  The writer is forgetting one key tenet in law; LEGALITY; that is, If an act or its consequences becomes void, the constitution considers conditions before act became void with legality in mind before considering void ab initi ...
  read full comment

  The writer is forgetting one key tenet in law; LEGALITY; that is, If an act or its consequences becomes void, the constitution considers conditions before act became void with legality in mind before considering void ab initio.
  
  In lay mans terms the NHIS registrants voter cards were registered under a legal provision OR CI72 before the law made it void.
  
  So all voters who registered with NHIS cards before the law changed were done with a legal CI72.
  
  The main question here is under what conditions can a citizen who registered to vote using NHIS card be deemed as void?
  
  There were conditions and one o the conditions was to carry out a legal thing like enabling voters to vote. The act granted by CI72 to enable citizens to vote. If the registration of citizens was a legal act, then one cannot assume a change in law automatically voids those voters. The same constitution grants voters the right to vote. That is what makes voting a franchise for all citizens of able and sound mind. It did not say with or without the right registration procedure. It is not up to a citizen to authenticate themselves to partake in that franchise. It is the responsibility of the state. Anything else is tantamount to disenfranchisement.
  
  On the other hand if the NHIS card was a foreign document, it becomes illegal, so all voters that resistered to vote with it automatically become void and deemed as if they never registered. Void ab initio applies only here.
  
  The NHIS card registrations was deemed voidable due to changes of voting conditions that occurred later. But not void ab initio. (Void from the beginning of the contract).
  
  We should rather provide the voter ample time, and ample consideration to reregister under the new conditions to avoid disenfranchised voters. For disenfranchised voters have tights and can sue the state from denying them their basic rights.
  
  I presume this is why the Supreme Court after watching the EC delay in providing ample help to reregister NHIS card voters, they felt the need to ask the EC for the names of the total who voted with NHIS cards.
  
  The author is playing games to forcing his assumption that all NHIS card holders who used that card to register in the past are illegal. So all should be voided automatically from the beginning without considering the rights of citizens who registered to vote with the NHIS card.
  
  That is wrong and self serving. That direction itself restricts a citizen who registered with the NHIS from voting.

  reply