Deputy Attorney General Godfred Dame says General Secretary of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Johnson Asiedu Nketia’s interpretation of Supreme Court ruling was very appalling.
He said the remarks clearly explains why people do not take him seriously.
After the Supreme Court verdict, Mr. Asiedu Nketia told the press that the NDC’s key reliefs had been granted by the court.
“The court has just delivered the verdict which has granted our request for the inclusion of the existing voter card as breeder document for the compilation of the new voters’ register. We feel vindicated,” the NDC General Secretary said.
But Mr. Dame, who represented Government in the case, condemned Mr. Asiedu Nketia’s misleading comments.
“The statement from the NDC General Secretary Asiedu Nketia was totally misleading and unwarranted and most deplorable because he is actually seeking to scandalize the court. You can’t go and deliberately misinterprete what the court said when you were there. These are things that the court should not even mind, I think that people do not take him seriously and what he said was rebutted”.
Mr. Dame, further stressed that the Supreme Court “stated clearly that the old voters’ ID cards are excluded from the upcoming voter registration exercise and that EC has the power to act strictly in accordance with C.I 126” but Mr Asiedu Nketia delibrately mislead the public.
The Apex Court on Thursday, June 25, 2020, ruled that the existing voter ID card and birth certificates cannot be used as proof of identity to register in the upcoming voter registration exercise.
The seven-member panel also gave the Electoral Commission (EC) the green light to compile a new voters’ register for the 2020 general elections.
The NDC dragged the EC to court over a decision by the commission to exclude the existing voter ID card as proof of identity for the purposes of the planned voter registration exercise.
A Ghanaian citizen, Mark Takyi-Banson, also filed a fresh case, asking the Apex Court to make a pronouncement on the matter.
He argued that the EC’s decision to compile a new roll of voters violated the 1992 Constitution.
Additionally, Mr. Takyi-Banson wanted the Court to rule against the EC for excluding birth certificates as proof of identity for voter registration.
The Supreme Court subsequently consolidated the two cases.
The court, presided over by a seven-member panel in its ruling, indicated that the election management body was independent and its action can only be guided by the court if it goes against the law.
“By this decision, the Electoral Commission i.e. 2nd Defendants in Suit No. J1/9/2020 and 1st Defendants in Suit No. J1/12/2020 are hereby directed to commence the compilation of the voter registration exercise as scheduled. By these decisions and, by virtue of Article 130 (2) of the Constitution any court in which same or similar action is pending or yet to be filed shall apply the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in these consolidated suits,” the Supreme Court directed.
