<<Print>>

A man without integrity is not a gentleman. Confucius

Did the Supreme Court mean that the use of the National Health Identification card for the purpose of registering as a voter was not unconstitutional or that because they did so without malice that is why they should be given the opportunity to be registered afresh?

Sometimes some of us give cause for those who think erroneously that the law is an ass to get some grounding. Normally, when one registers as a voter fraudulently and is found out, the person has to suffer the penalty of serving a prison term and be banned from exercising the franchise over a stated period.

Therefore in ruling that some names should be deleted from the voters register but such affected persons must be given the opportunity to register as voters again meant that those involved could not be held liable for fraud. It also meant that although at the time that they registered the law permitted them to do so with the NHIS cards nonetheless the law flew in the face of the constitution and, therefore, it was void.

I thus want to look at the issues from the point of view of common sense. This is so because in law there are those who believe in the philosophy that the law must be interpreted purposively as against those who look at the structure of the law before giving their interpretation.

The fact is that dead persons do not have a right to be registered as voters. Foreigners do not have a right to register as voters. Similarly, minors do not have a right to register as voters. In the circumstance, if any of these categories of persons illegally find their names on the register, the natural thing to do is to remove their names from the register. Not only that, but also once they are found to have got their names on the register but they do not so qualify, they are deemed to have infringed the law for which they have to be prosecuted.

Thus, the only category of persons who should have been given a reprieve although they found their names on the voters register unconstitutionally but not fraudulently, are those who registered with the NHIS cards, a document which has been pronounced by the Supreme Court as not a sufficient basis to establish citizenship.

Perhaps the time has come for our justices to bring certainty into their language so that when they speak, ordinary mortals would understand them, rather than leave our people at the mercy of politically partisan minded lawyers who interpreted the law from partisan perspectives.

If we have any good intentions about ensuring peaceful and fair elections, then probably there may be the need to seek a review of the decision of the Supreme Court as to what to do about the names of those who registered with NHIS cards. This is important because as much as we cannot depend on the interpretation of the plaintiffs in the suit, so also can we not depend on the interpretation of the defendant in the cause.

Yes, the court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs for the declaration of the current voters register as unconstitutional, to be replaced by an entirely new one. But the court has also stated clearly that the NHIS cards cannot be the basis of establishing citizenship and, therefore, the NHIS card cannot be used to qualify to register as a voter. The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to organise elections. It has no authority of interpretation of decisions of the courts. Therefore the position of the Electoral Commission on the matter cannot be considered as the correct and proper grounding for the decision of the Supreme Court.

Parties in legal suits are equal before the law. As much as the plaintiffs and their lawyers cannot impose their understanding of the ruling of the Supreme Court on us, so also should we not allow the Electoral Commission to impose its understanding on us. We must definitely find some common ground and in my view the best approach is to go back to court and seek a clarification as to whom the court referred to as names that must be removed from the register but must be offered the opportunity to register afresh.

In the matter of the Presidential Election Petition, if the Supreme Court through administrative process could clarify the issue as to where the vote of Justice Baffoe Bonnie went, when in the presentation by Justice William Atuguba, he had counted him as having ruled on both sides, then probably the same mechanism must be used to explain the present matter that is causing anxiety. Otherwise, our Lordships must meet and tell us exactly what they meant by their ruling.