The High Court in Accra has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Democracy Hub seeking to halt the Ayawaso East By-Election over alleged monetised NDC primaries as incompetent.
The Court, presided over by Justice Kwasi Agyenim Boateng, lauded the intention of the applicant, saying they lacked capacity with respect to the procedure used in filing the action.
Democracy Hub, per their writ of summons, was asking for declaratory reliefs, judicial review reliefs, injunctive and consequential orders.
But their action was met with a counterclaim where the National Democratic Congress filed an application seeking to set aside the Writ of Summons and accompanying statements of claim pursuant to Order 9 Rule 8(a) of CI 47.
They urged the Court to set aside the Plaintiff/Respondent’s (Respondent) Writ of Summons and accompanying Statement of Claim for “being incurably defective and incompetent; and dismissing the suit in its entirety.”
The NDC also premised the request on the ground that the Respondent’s action is seeking the enforcement and/or interpretation of provisions (Articles 55(5) and 45(b)) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which is exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1)(a) and 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution; therefore, the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s action;
“The Respondent cannot seek the judicial review reliefs of certiorari and mandamus through a Writ action; therefore, the procedure adopted by the Respondent is procedurally incompetent; and “The Respondent has no locus standi to pursue the instant matter in this Honourable Court,” they argued.
What Democracy Hub sought
Democracy Hub structured their action and sought the following claims:
A. Declaratory Reliefs
- A declaration that the parliamentary primary conducted by the 1st Defendant for the Ayawaso East Constituency, having been found to have been characterised by widespread vote buying, inducement and monetisation, did not conform to the democratic principles required under Article 55(5) of the Constitution, and that the continued reliance on the outcome thereof and the presentation of a candidate founded on that process constitute actions contrary to and inconsistent with the Constitution in violation of section 9 of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574).
- A declaration that the continued reliance by the 1st Defendant on the outcome of the said primary and its failure to take steps to prevent the implementation of a process found by itself to have been tainted by widespread inducement and monetisation constitute actions contrary to and inconsistent with the Constitution in breach of Article 55(5) and section 9 of the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574).
- A declaration that the decision of the 2nd Defendant to accept and give effect, for the purposes of the impending Ayawaso East parliamentary by-election, to the nomination of a candidate whose selection arose from a primary process which the 1st Defendant itself found to have been characterised by widespread vote buying, inducement and monetisation is inconsistent with the 2nd Defendant’s constitutional mandate under Article 45(b) of the Constitution to organise, conduct and supervise public elections in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of Ghana.
B. Judicial Review Reliefs
- An order of certiorari quashing the decision of the 2nd Defendant recognising and/or accepting the said candidate as the duly elected parliamentary candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Ayawaso East by-election.
- An order of mandamus directed at the 2nd Defendant to refuse to accept or act upon the nomination of the said candidate unless and until a primary conducted in accordance with democratic principles is held.
C. Injunctive Reliefs
- An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from:
a. accepting the nomination of the said candidate; or
b. permitting the said candidate to contest the by-election pending the final determination of this action.
- An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from recognising or dealing with the said candidate as the duly elected parliamentary candidate of the 1st Defendant for Ayawaso East.
D. Consequential Orders
- An order that any step taken pursuant to the impugned primary, including the submission and/or acceptance of nomination forms, is null and void.
- An order directing the 2nd Defendant to ensure that any primary conducted under its supervision complies with the constitutional requirement of democratic participation.
- Costs inclusive of legal fees and incidental expenses incurred in prosecuting this action.
- Any further orders or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances.
Source :www.kumasimail.com
