Supreme Court's rulings in favor of Zanetor and implications for political parties

Read Comments Comments (14)

• Osman Adam Sagnarigu 9 years ago

  Ata, it appears you've misconstrued the reason/s why the feuding parties went to the court. SC ruling was not to interpret NDC constitution. Rather, at law, to answer if "unregistered Ghanaian could represent a political part ...
  read full comment

  Ata, it appears you've misconstrued the reason/s why the feuding parties went to the court. SC ruling was not to interpret NDC constitution. Rather, at law, to answer if "unregistered Ghanaian could represent a political party as a candidate". SC relied on the relevant sections of article 94 to answer that question, and not to interpret NDC party constitution. The SC ruling has exposed a deficiency found in some Party Constitutions about who can contest a primaries. The SC ruling implied that, so far as there is an opportunity / chance to register as a voter, one is eligible until the voter roll is closed for the ensuing election. As simple as that.

  reply
• LONTO-BOY 9 years ago

  Osman, I couldn't agree more with your explanation and opinion of the Supreme Court ruling on this issue. The Supreme Court ruling was NOT to interpret the NDC Party Constitution, but actually the democratic rights of a Ghana ...
  read full comment

  Osman, I couldn't agree more with your explanation and opinion of the Supreme Court ruling on this issue. The Supreme Court ruling was NOT to interpret the NDC Party Constitution, but actually the democratic rights of a Ghanaian to contest or vote in an election/political party primaries as indeed, guaranteed by the country's Constitution.
  
  Now, if the Supreme Court says Zanetor Rawlings' selection and nomination was within a lawful realm as far as the country's Constitution is concern, what lessons should we Ghanaians and the Political Parties learn from that?

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  LONTO-BOY, I hope you are well, I have not read your contributions on Ghanaweb for some time, though I must admit that I do not check all articles and news items, let alone the comments. Perhaps you have been very busy.
  
  I ...
  read full comment

  LONTO-BOY, I hope you are well, I have not read your contributions on Ghanaweb for some time, though I must admit that I do not check all articles and news items, let alone the comments. Perhaps you have been very busy.
  
  I hope the political parties will learn from this judgement and prepare for the future, otherwise one day, an unregistered voter will contest the presidential primaries of NDC/NPP on the basis as this ruling.

  reply
• LONTO-BOY 9 years ago

  MASSA KOFI, I'm doing fine. I do often visit/browse Ghanaweb for news stories and articles, but just that I don't usually pass comments.

  MASSA KOFI, I'm doing fine. I do often visit/browse Ghanaweb for news stories and articles, but just that I don't usually pass comments.

  reply
• nana addo 9 years ago

  Big words small meaning

  Big words small meaning

  reply
• sagacity 9 years ago

  The Supreme Court cannot be wrong regardless of the decision. one can disagree with the court's and set out the reasons why. The court's decision is a fait accompli.

  The Supreme Court cannot be wrong regardless of the decision. one can disagree with the court's and set out the reasons why. The court's decision is a fait accompli.

  reply
• Esi Atta 9 years ago

  Hey, let justice be perverted. It's up to the people of Osu Klottey to say 'enough!' The judges don't want to be picked up at night and... . Know what I mean? We are talking about a Rawlings and judges. Those folks know the h ...
  read full comment

  Hey, let justice be perverted. It's up to the people of Osu Klottey to say 'enough!' The judges don't want to be picked up at night and... . Know what I mean? We are talking about a Rawlings and judges. Those folks know the history, unlike many of us.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  Esi Attah, are you implying that the majority justices were scared so they ruled in favour of Zanetor? That would be dangerous for the administration of justice in Ghana. I do not believe so. My argument is that the SC made a ...
  read full comment

  Esi Attah, are you implying that the majority justices were scared so they ruled in favour of Zanetor? That would be dangerous for the administration of justice in Ghana. I do not believe so. My argument is that the SC made a mistake in taking over the case from the High Court. The matter should not have been turned into Article 94(1)(a) case. Even if it was Article 94(1)(a) case, the language is so plain, straightforward and clear that it required no interpretation but only an application by the High Court as succinctly outlined by the dissenting Justice Anin Yeboah.

  reply
• Obuama 9 years ago

  Esi Atta must be sick with the lunatic comment she has made. Please learn from the comments of Osman Adam Sagnarigu and Sagacity who have made quite intellectually intelligent comments. Think with your brains and not from you ...
  read full comment

  Esi Atta must be sick with the lunatic comment she has made. Please learn from the comments of Osman Adam Sagnarigu and Sagacity who have made quite intellectually intelligent comments. Think with your brains and not from your backside. Be a lady!!!

  reply
• Okonko Palm 9 years ago

  The supreme court is increasingly running a ring around itself with dodgy decisions which will throw the rule of law and its relevance into disrepute.
  
  The decision where it ruled on the NHIS cards is a case in point.For po ...
  read full comment

  The supreme court is increasingly running a ring around itself with dodgy decisions which will throw the rule of law and its relevance into disrepute.
  
  The decision where it ruled on the NHIS cards is a case in point.For political expedience and to be seen to appease all,the sc has come to decisions which are more political than law.
  
  Most of its recent decision have been based on legal sophistry thereby creating a legal black hole which will be difficult to fill.By its ruling on the NHIS cards case the doctrine of retrospective law had also been jettisoned.
  
  There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.That is, unless there be clear words to the contrary statutes do not apply to past,but to future,state or circumstances.
  
  It appears this ruling like the NHIS card case has not only changed the law but has given them a retrospective right to apply to the past.These sc judges of today will leave a legacy that will be the laughing stock of the next generation of lawyers.

  reply
• EBBY 9 years ago

  I'm not a lawyer but I don't agree with your comment about the ruling on NHIS cards being retrospective. Are you saying that if someone who registered with NHIS cards at the age of 18years, be allowed to use the card for the ...
  read full comment

  I'm not a lawyer but I don't agree with your comment about the ruling on NHIS cards being retrospective. Are you saying that if someone who registered with NHIS cards at the age of 18years, be allowed to use the card for the next 70 years or the person's life time? At what point do you cut off the use of those cards without affecting some of the people who used it to register? Parliament passed the NHIS card law in 2012 which has now been deemed unconstitutional. Why do we have to perpetuate unconstitutionality if we know it is wrong? All parliamentary laws are subject to constitutional controls as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If a person is convicted by a law enacted by parliament and the law is later found to be unconstitutional on appeal to the Supreme Court, that person is set free. We don't keep the person in jail with the excuse that the conviction happened before the Supreme Court decision.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 9 years ago

  Okonko Palm, once the use of the NHIS card as evidence of Ghanaian citizenship/nationality was ruled unconstitutional in 2015, there was nothing wrong with the second ruling on the removal. I also do not believe the implemen ...
  read full comment

  Okonko Palm, once the use of the NHIS card as evidence of Ghanaian citizenship/nationality was ruled unconstitutional in 2015, there was nothing wrong with the second ruling on the removal. I also do not believe the implementation is retrospective because the results of the 2012 general elections were not affected by the both rulings. In fact, it would have been odd for NHIS card registrants to have remained on the voters' register after the first judgement. Moreover, the order to re-register those affected after the deletion reversed retrospective effect, if any.
  
  However, I share your concerns about some of the decisions of the SC. Sadly, Ghana and Ghanaians as a whole cannot engage in any constructive debate on SC decisions for party political reasons. Indeed, the Ghana Bar Association that should be leading the debate is soo one-sided in favour of one political party that they have lost credibility and any sense of objectivity. One example is their suit challenging the appointing powers of President Mahama, which has been dismissed today and the SC affirming the supremacy of presidential powers over advisory bodies when it comes to constitutional appointments such as Justices of the SC.

  reply
• NPP KWASEAFUO PARTY. NPP JIMIFUO KUO 9 years ago

  You privilege child of Julor Jator JJ must be jailed.

  You privilege child of Julor Jator JJ must be jailed.

  reply
• MARCUS AMPADU 9 years ago

  If I'm not mistaken, the legal term "per incuriam" can be translated as without care.
  "a mistaken decision of a court.", as you wrote.
  Per Incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care" , refers to a judgement o ...
  read full comment

  If I'm not mistaken, the legal term "per incuriam" can be translated as without care.
  "a mistaken decision of a court.", as you wrote.
  Per Incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care" , refers to a judgement of a court which have been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgement which would have been relevant. Does that constitute a mistaken decision of a court? Not necessarily, Krakye Ata.

  reply