Abu Ramadan III: Clarification ruling, orders, and the EC

Read Comments Comments (7)

• Kwame 9 years ago

  It looks like colonization is not constitutional, therefore these lawyers must bring the British crown and Queen Elizabeth in whose name unconstitutional things were done to justice. In the absence of that this is just a part ...
  read full comment

  It looks like colonization is not constitutional, therefore these lawyers must bring the British crown and Queen Elizabeth in whose name unconstitutional things were done to justice. In the absence of that this is just a partisan write up.

  reply
• Dr.Asiamah 9 years ago

  Does the ec knows dead names on the register?

  Does the ec knows dead names on the register?

  reply
• Adamu 9 years ago

  This long lecture is total waste effort to explain something that had no pivot. In law one must understand what's required in order to seek of obey it. The EC did just that but politicians masquerading as lawyers have tilted ...
  read full comment

  This long lecture is total waste effort to explain something that had no pivot. In law one must understand what's required in order to seek of obey it. The EC did just that but politicians masquerading as lawyers have tilted the goalposts of justice to meet their agenda. The voter interests is tossed out. The national interest is tossed out. Else we will be look for a national ID system based on unique numbers to eradicate all problems in identification of citizens and create a system subject to authentication.
  
  What a bunch of jokers we are as a people.

  reply
• Okonko Palm 9 years ago

  The long essay on the interpretation of the Abu Ramadan's petition as you outlined is not in controversy,but as you rightly said what was in controversy was the mode of implementation of the court's ruling.
  
  Under the statu ...
  read full comment

  The long essay on the interpretation of the Abu Ramadan's petition as you outlined is not in controversy,but as you rightly said what was in controversy was the mode of implementation of the court's ruling.
  
  Under the statute setting up the ec and its powers,the constitution spelt out the mode upon which the ec could remedy its mistakes under the law establishing it under the judicial review orser.Hence the due process argument.Even the SC had always used the phrase " to take the necessary steps"which implies due process so I don't see where the controversy is.
  
  Having made a claim that the sc ordered the ec to delete the names under its order,you now claim it is impossible to do that because the ec accepts that they don't have that record.As it is your claim is that the only logical outcome is your validation argument.
  
  This has been your agenda throughout and you still cling to it.The sc had made some initial legal decisions which will haunt them including your present argument and the question of drivers license and even birth certificates since they are all within the reach of non Ghanaian.
  
  I have said all along that the sc is running a ring around itself by allowing these frivolous writs.When others use their logic to test the law and the constitution then we would see the folly of some of these decisions.
  
  After all the sc is also not above the constitution and therefore subject to the ultra vires rule under judicial review.The constitution must be interpreted in such a way as to be constitutionally valid where possible.Some of their ruling give me the impression that they have their eyes more on public opinion than the law.

  reply
• Rich 9 years ago

  The whole issue has been a waste of time. From the lay man's point of view, the ruling have not changed anything. The brother from Togo can will still vote. Enough evidence shows that there is inconsistencies in the list rele ...
  read full comment

  The whole issue has been a waste of time. From the lay man's point of view, the ruling have not changed anything. The brother from Togo can will still vote. Enough evidence shows that there is inconsistencies in the list released by EC.There is not tool to check if the names are authentic. What a waste

  reply
• kakeonti 9 years ago

  ME,LAYMAN IN THE STREET.IT'S ALL BOGUS.RAWLINGS/KUFUOR WON TWICE WITH SAME.BUT,FOR ONE PERSON; THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO FAVOUR HIM-WHAT A SERIAL LOSER!!.

  ME,LAYMAN IN THE STREET.IT'S ALL BOGUS.RAWLINGS/KUFUOR WON TWICE WITH SAME.BUT,FOR ONE PERSON; THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO FAVOUR HIM-WHAT A SERIAL LOSER!!.

  reply
• tiger 9 years ago

  Ist not clear what the intentions of
  Abu Ramadan were but with the SC ruling he achieved nothing.Your Explanation of the ruling is much a do about nothing-the ruling doesnt change
  anything the people ramadan sought to ban ...
  read full comment

  Ist not clear what the intentions of
  Abu Ramadan were but with the SC ruling he achieved nothing.Your Explanation of the ruling is much a do about nothing-the ruling doesnt change
  anything the people ramadan sought to ban from voting will be voting anyway so what has he achieved

  reply