<<Print>>

The Electoral Commission has scheduled a meeting with the Inter-Party Advisory Committee for Friday, July 18, 2004. Topics on the agenda include the limited revision of the Voters Register from July 25 to August 3, 2014, the report on the inspection of political party offices, and proposals for reforms submitted by the political parties and civil society. For all intents and purposes, IPAC has come to stay for as long as Ghana remains a democracy with an electoral commission. Though truth be told, it is an illegality under the 1992 Constitution! Going by the strict interpretation of Article 46, an entrenched clause that guarantees the independence of the EC. Article 46, without any ifs or buts, states: �Except as provided in this Constitution or in any other law not inconsistent with this Constitution, in the performance of its functions, the Electoral Commission, shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority�. The IPAC, composed of the representatives of all political parties, must of necessity fall under the definition of �any person or authority�. However, The Chronicle UNDERSTANDS WHY THE EC MAY HAVE FELT THE NEED TO accept the illegal �control and direction� of A BODY SUCH AS IPAC. The EC must have felt an intrinsic need to demonstrate its impartiality towards all the political parties that apply to subscribe to its elections. Whether or not the EC understood fully that it was permitting an unconstitutional window in its armour, we think that through it, it has purchased a strategic insurance for its continued independence. Otherwise, propelled by their mutual self-interest to have a say in the electoral process, the politicians, across whatever divide, would have achieved a rare unanimity of purpose � a coincidence of want � to galvanise the necessary support through a referendum to amend Article 46 to achieve their avowed objective of having a subservient electoral commission. Though illegal under the law, a body such as IPAC is, in the opinion of The Chronicle, what may be termed a NECESSARY ABERRATION. But it should not be cited as a precedent for any other wilful violation of the 1992 Constitution. At the same time, however, the EC owes a duty to Ghanaians and our Supreme Law not to swallow IPAC�s views or suggestions hook, line and sinker. EC should sieve each and every single advice of IPAC through the clauses of its constitutionally ENTRENCHED INDEPENDENCE and accept ONLY THOSE that are not INCONSISTENT with the 1992 Constitution. The EC�s unthinking acceptance of �No verification, No Vote� for the 2012 Elections had the effect of illegally amending an entrenched clause of the 1992 Constitution � the Right to Vote � through the back door and catapulting it into a constitutional violation that it should not be. The 1992 Constitution entrenched the right to vote, and prescribed a cumbersome process for its amendment, including reference to the Council of State and the people of Ghana through a referendum. Can such a protected right be said to be constitutionally suspended or abrogated by the mere insertion of a phrase or clause in a constitutional instrument enacted during any regular sitting of Parliament? We think not! Given BV�s dispute-proof characteristic, no honest politician or voter would condemn the use of biometric verification on Election Day, if the machines are functional. But their break down cannot be used as an excuse to suspend a constitutionally-entrenched right to vote, UNLESS before the breakdown an ARRANGEMENT had been communicated to all and sundry that in case of such an eventuality, their right to vote would be exercised in a day or two. Under the 1992 Constitution, the right to vote, of a Ghanaian registered as a voter, is unfettered. It can only be postponed and not denied.