<<Print>>

The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned to October 10, the case in which a businessman is challenging the authority of the Electoral Commission (EC) to create 45 new constituencies. This was after Mr Joe Ghartey, counsel for Mr Ransford Frances had prayed the seven-member panel to grant them leave to amend the writ and two other reliefs. According to him, the writ was filed in July this year, and �Just yesterday (October 3, 2012) the Constitutional Instrument (CI) 78 has come into effect.� Mr Benjamin Kunbuor, Minister of Justice and Attorney General told the court that he could see that his outfit had been served with application for leave to amend the writ but his attention was not drawn and that he just saw the document in court. According to Mr Kunbuor, he had been short served and would need time to take a look at the document to ascertain whether or not to respond to it. Mr James Quarshie �Idun who represented the EC said they were also served only yesterday, October 3th.The court presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba therefore adjourned the case. Other Justices on the panel were Ms Rose Owusu, Ms Sophia Adinyira, Professor Dateh Baah, Mr Anin Yeboah, Mrs Vida Akoto Bamfo and Mr Sule Gbadegbe. Mr Ransford Frances and his lawyers are praying the Supreme Court to declare the C.I. 78 as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This was after the court had dismissed a writ for an interlocutory injunction filed by lawyers of the plaintiff seeking to prevent Parliament from passing the C.I. 78 that was intended to give legal backing to the creation of the 45 new constituencies. The businessman was challenging the power of the E C to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying it before Parliament, a Constitutional Instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. On July 16 this year, the plaintiff proceeded to the SC praying it to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 23, 51 and 296 (c), the EC, in the exercise of its functions and discretionary power in creating new constituencies, as required by Constitutional Instrument, regulations not inconsistent with the Constitution or any other law to govern the exercise of its discretionary power. The plaintiff further wanted the Supreme Court to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating new constituencies and or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it lays before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.