Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses NDC’s case against EC

Relief 1 – Struck out as it was withdrawn by the plaintiff NDC

Relief 2. Which said that “A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, specifically article 51 read conjointly with article 42 of the Constitution, the power of the 2nd Defendant to compile and review the voters’ register must be exercised subject to respect for and the protection of the right to vote; – was granted by the court subject to the use of CI 126

Relief 3. Which said that “A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly article 42, upon the registration of and issuance of a voter identification card to a person, that person has an accrued right to vote which cannot be divested in an arbitrary and capricious manner; – was granted by the court subject to the use of CI 126

Relief 4. A declaration that, upon a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 42 of the Constitution, all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the 2nd Defendant to registered voters are valid for purposes of identifying such persons in the exercise of their right to vote; WAS DISMISSED

Relief 5. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Article 42, the 2nd Defendant’s purported amendment of Regulation 1 subregulation 3 of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2016 (C.I 91) through the Public Elections (Registration of Voters)(Amendment) Regulations, 2020 to exclude existing voter identification cards as proof of identification to enable a person apply for registration as a voter is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever; WAS DISMISSED

Relief 6. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant, in purporting to exercise its powers pursuant to article 51 of the 1992 Constitution to exclude the existing voter identification cards from the documents required as proof of identification to enable a person register as a voter without any justification is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to article 296 of the 1992 Constitution; WAS DISMISSED

Relief 7. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of the Constitution specifically Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, proof of identification for registration as a voter should not be limited by the provisions of Public Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020; THIS WAS DEEMED AS AUTHORISED AND CANNOT BE FAULTED

Relief 8. An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to include all existing voter identification cards duly issued by the 2nd Defendant as one of the documents serving as proof of identification for registration as a voter for the purposes of public elections; WAS REFUSED

The court also dismissed reliefs 1-6 in the case filed by MARK TAKYI-BANSON

The court then made the following consequential reliefs:

1. That all stakeholders should comply with the implementation of Articles 42 & 45 and comply with the provisions of CI126

2. The EC is hereby directed to commence with its programme for the compilation of the voters register as advertised

3. Any other court in the country shall apply this decision to the various cases relating to the elections now pending before it.