Charlotte Osei Is The Beauty, And I Do Not Want To Be A Bully.

He sent a chilling message on his Facebook wall, an ex-officer of the Ghana Armed Forces, one of the most revered and respected armies in the world all over for good conduct and discipline. He stated in part that H.E. J. D. Mahama will not see full term, and that an interim government will be put in place to supervise the general elections, adding that all must mark his words, there will be coup. All this he blamed on beautiful Charlotte Osei.

I first decided to brush his message aside knowing him to be a troubleshooter, a pedophile, a peeping Tom and a pornographer. Nothing good and sensible can ever come out from the confused dark minds of such a fellow. On second thoughts however, I was jerked out of daydreaming, because this was coming from someone who had served in the Ghana Army. The last time I checked, an ex-officer made such threats of coup, and he, indeed, succeeded in overthrowing a constitutional government. That was about thirty-five years ago. So the bullying of Charlotte Osei is all about a coup?

The current issue resulting in the attacks on Charlotte, our Electoral Commissioner, is about the Supreme Court judgment of May 5, 2016 on the Abu Ramadan/Evans Nimako vs Electoral Commission/Attorney General (Writ # J1/14/2016).

The plaintiffs came back from the court room smeared all over in white talcum powder, clad in white cloths over their shoulders, to the popping of inferior sparkling wine (since they cannot afford champagne, what, in these hard times), and proclaimed from rooftops to the whole world that they were given a favoured judgment at the court.

Did the Supreme Court say the EC must compile a new voters’ register? We asked with excitement? No! The Supreme Court said the EC must delete all those who used the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) cards as some of ID from the register. Well, it should be obvious, because sick people cannot vote. Meanwhile, the media headlines were awash with victory for the plaintiffs.

The EC, according to the media, swore that it had started deleting NHIS holders in the register, and then later came out to say that that job cannot be done. The confusion is becoming basaaa! Is the EC flouting a Supreme Court judgment? Was this the reason why that ex-army officer gave that chilling prophesy?

I was compelled to read and digest the ruling and understand what is happening to my beautiful Charlotte Osei and the bullies who are almost ready in stripping her naked in public.

The plaintiffs sought the following reliefs: 1). By Art. 45(a), the EC must compile a reasonable, accurate and credible register; 2). The current register contains names of person who are unqualified to be on it; 3). The current register contains names of deceased persons and 4). (a) The SC should order the setting aside of the current register and compel the EC to compile a fresh one or (b) i) The EC must be ordered to audit the current register to delete names of unqualified and deceased persons, ii) provide validated registration with biometric evidence and iii) strike out names of all who fail to validate.

The SC dismissed two interlocutory applications on March 3 and April 21, 2016, which sought to 1) order the EC to hold on to any registration exercise until after the determination of the case and 2) enjoin the PNC to the case. The reasons given include the fact that the SC cannot deny the EC its constitutional mandate of Art. 45(a) and the fact that, according to the SC Rule 45(a), the PNC cannot be a party to the case.

The functions of the SC include setting limits of discretions which the constitution has invested in an institution/body. Decisions made within the boundaries cannot be impugned, and the exercise of jurisdiction requires the SC to deliver credible decisions, in order to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.

The agreed set of issues filed was, whether or not: 1) the plaintiffs invoked the original jurisdiction of the SC; 2) the presence of names of unqualified persons renders the register unreasonably accurate or credible and violates Art. 45(a); 3) the presence of names of deceased persons renders the register unreasonably accurate or credible and violates Art. 45(a); 4) the decision by EC not to use record validation to revise current register renders it unreasonable and inconsistent with Art.23 and Art. 296 of the constitution; 5) the SC has the jurisdiction and authority to compel the EC to discharge functions in a particular manner; 6) the plaintiffs suit falls for determination within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court; 7) the plaintiffs have proof of the inaccuracy of the voters’ register; 8) a party is entitled to an order from the court to compel the EC to carry out its constitutional function of compiling and revising the register in a particular manner and 9) the EC is bound by suggestions from citizens and stakeholders as to how it must carry out its constitutional mandate of compiling and revising the register.

The SC rulings on the issues are: 1) Yes; 2) minors could be deleted during the exhibition of the register; 3) the Birth and Death Registry is not up to task in informing the EC due to the system of the registration of birth and death. The defect, however, is not extensive in nature to result in inconsistency with Art. 45(a). The exhibition of the voters; register is so far good enough in deleting the deceased. The biometric registration system can be enforced to prevent imposters. On the NHIS as ID, the SC stated that the actual number is not known to determine the extent of the unconstitutionality of the register.

At the time the NHIS card was used, it was legal, so such people did no wrong, and to declare that their names should be deleted, will be to disenfranchise them. Even with these lapses, the court views that the register is not inconsistent with Art. 45 (a); 4) the demand for validation is without statutory authority, and the EC cannot employ non-statutory remedies, as the law does not give it that mandate. Therefore, non-compliance with the process of validation does not constitute any inconsistency with Art.

23 and Art. 296; 5) a big NO from the SC, with the statement that Art. 45(a) is not subject to any other provision, so the SC cannot make order compelling the EC to act in a particular manner; 6) A big Yes, just as in Issue 1); 7) another Yes, because of the continuous presence of unqualified names in the register; 8) just as Issue 5, the EC cannot be compelled to act in a particular manner other than its constitutional mandate in Art. 45 (a), and 9) a big No, since, according to the SC, the EC must not be compelled to be bound by suggestions from citizens and stakeholders.

The SC went on to state that the plaintiffs had to satisfy the court that the defendants had violated the laws of the country, but they could not. The Crabbe Committee’s recommendations were only advisory, with no legal statutes enforceable by a court of law, because all advisory opinions are not binding on the recipient.

On the issue of NHIS cards, the SC was explicit in pronouncing that the CI 91 did not make into law that any form of ID used by registered voters must be captured in the EC database. In my opinion, this is a very crucial revelation, and so, if today, the EC is saying it cannot delete from the register those names which present NHIS as proof of citizenship, then it is speaking the truth and cannot be faulted.

The Supreme Court responses to the four reliefs sought were 1) the EC’s mandate to compile a register of voters implies a duty to compile a reasonably accurate and credible register; 2) a declaration that the current voters’ register contains illegal names is not reasonably accurate or credible; 3) a declaration that the current voters’ register contains names of persons who are deceased is not reasonably accurate and credible and 4) a declaration that the EC must be compelled to compile a fresh register or be ordered to audit the current register to delete names of unqualified and deceased persons; provide validated registration with biometric evidence and strike out names of persons who fail to validate, were all struck out. Meaning relief 4 was struck out in its entity.

By the powers conferred on the SC under Art. 2 (2) of the Constitution, the SC pronounced that 1) the EC takes immediate steps to delete (clean) the current register to comply with the 1992 Constitution and applicable laws of Ghana and 2) and anyone whose name is deleted is given the opportunity to register under the law.

All the seven justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice (Mrs.) Georgina Wood, were in accord with the judgment. This was not a split decision.

So why the sound of victory by the plaintiffs over the SC decision, when a new and fresh register will not be compiled, and those who used NHIS as IDs cannot be deleted, because they simply cannot be found?

The only way to clean the register is to look out for minors and the deceased, apart from that the register stays as it is, so the Supreme Court says.

Unfortunately, when the plaintiffs came back from court, they failed to reveal their defeat and made all of us believe they had won the case. And what about the media who were in court? What did they hear that is different from the written judgment which is available to all now? They are hyping up the nation to chaos and conflict, that is why some ex-army officer, sick in the mind, could prophecy a coup. Maybe he is hoping to be a member of the military junta.

I am one of those who strongly believe that the voters register is over-bloated, and I have provided evidence here in this column and in other papers, and also presented my findings to an authority in my party, yet no one took my statistics serious enough to present them to the appropriate quarters. In the statistics from the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) report on the 2010 Census can the evidence be found? Do I have to bother myself anymore? Or maybe later, but now guess what, Charlotte Osei is the Beauty, and I do not want to be a bully.