<<Print>>

Claims by Ghana’s Elections management body of its independence and therefore, not subject to the control of any authority has been confirmed by the Supreme Court when it stated that it (SC) has no powers to direct the election management body on how to perform it functions.

The apex court in its judgment in the Abu Ramandan & another vrs EC & another unequivocally stated that, acceding to demands that it should compel the EC to perform its functions would amount to “subverting the plain constitutional provisions” which grant the commission independence.

“In our opinion and as part of our function to declare what the law is, the above words which are unambiguous insulate the Electoral Commission from any external direction and/or control in the performance of the functions conferred' on it under article 45,” the highest court of the land noted.

This definite pronouncement on the independence of the EC was contained in the unanimous decision of the court on May 5, 2016 judgment in respect of the case of Abu Ramadan & Evans Nimako vrs The Electoral Commission & the Attorney- General.

Dismissing the plaintiffs’ relief to compel the EC to compile a new register, the court said “a careful scrutiny of the constitution reveals that its function under article 45(a) is not subject to any other provision, therefore in performing the said function, we cannot make an order compelling the Commission to act in a particular manner.”

“We think that the independence of the Commission is crucial for the success of any election. If the Commission is perceived otherwise, there is little prospect of the electoral administration on Election Day being perceived as transparent and fair if we are to consolidate our democracy, it is incumbent on all of us to defend and protect its independence as provided for in the constitution. We think that in the circumstances when a specific complaint is made regarding the performance of any of the functions of the Commission, it is our duty to inquire into it and ask if there is by any provision of the constitution or any other law which detracts from the presumption of independence that article 46 bestows on it'.

If there is no such constitutional or statutory provision then what it means is that the matter is entirely within its discretion and not subject to the control of any other authority including the court,” the court added.

The court’s pronouncement was in response to Abu Ramadan and Evans Nimako’s plea to the Supreme Court to compel the EC to compile a new register; in the absence of which, they wanted the court to direct the EC to use validation process to clean the register.


Contentious among the judgment, however, was the claim by the NPP that the Supreme Court ruling ordered the Electoral Commission to delete from the register names of persons who used National Health Insurance cards as means of identification to register.

But EC’s interpretation of the court order indicated that the court did not order a removal of names of NHI registrants from the electoral roll.

"For persons who registered with NHIA cards, such registrations were lawful at the time of registration, and the subsequent declaration of unconstitutionality in the earlier Abu Ramadan case does not automatically render them void.' Such a position according to the Supreme Court 'would have the effect of disenfranchising the persons affected. Such registrations should only be deleted by means of processes established under the law'," the EC stated.

A former PNC Youth Organizer, who was one of petitioners, has vowed to sue the EC Chairperson and her commissioners for contempt of court, arguing that the court ordered the EC to delete NHI card registrants from the voters’ register.

But the court has stated it has no powers to compel the EC, saying “in the absence of such breaches, the court has no power to compel or even to direct the 1st defendant as to how to exercise its constitutional mandate to produce a credible register; it is the end that will justify the means. I must emphasize here that even if there is provision in the law and/or regulations for validation, the court cannot compel the 1st defendant to follow that method unless it is the only mode that is sanctioned by the law or regulations.”