Think tank Danquah Institute (DI) says it is concerned about the
“blatant and curious posture” of the Electoral Commission (EC) against
obeying a clear and express order of the Supreme Court to take immediate
and necessary steps to clean the register of both dead people and
voters who registered with their National Health Insurance (NHIS) cards
as proof of nationality.
According to the group, Ghana has a few months to the presidential and
parliamentary polls, therefore, the EC will have to act quickly on the
orders given by the Supreme Court.
“It is important to recognise that going by the proposed November 7
date, we have just five months to vote and the law imposes a mandatory
freeze on any modification of the active register for this year’s
elections, 60 days (or two months) before voting. This means, the entire
process of deletion and re-registration of millions of names must be
completed before September 7 if the November 7 date should hold,” a
statement released by the DI stated.
The Supreme Court held on May 5, 2016 that: (a) “That the Electoral
Commission takes steps immediately to delete or as is popularly known
‘clean” the current register of voters to comply with the provisions of
the 1992 Constitution, and applicable laws of Ghana; (b) “That any
person whose name is deleted from the register of voters by the
Electoral Commission pursuant to order (a) above be given the
opportunity to register under the law."
But the group noted that: “Today is Thursday, June 2, 2016. Nearly one
month since the Supreme Court gave its ruling on Thursday, the May 5.
Rather than taking ‘immediate’ steps, as ordered, to delete the names of
those who registered using NHIS card, it took the EC two whole weeks to
study the judgment and come out publicly to announce on Thursday, May
19 that the Court did not order it to delete the names of NHIS
registrants.”
Read full statement below:
IS EC PREPARED FOR NOV 7?
By the middle of July, the nation expects it’s sovereign Parliament to
debate and vote on the constitutional amendment intended to change the
date for holding general elections in Ghana from December 7 to November
7. Since, 1992, when the presidential election was held in November, all
subsequent ones were held on December 7. The bill needs both
Parliamentary Majority and Minority to agree in order to become law.
Whiles it is generally accepted that there are very sound reasons
informing the push to hold, especially, the presidential poll, two
months before the January 7 swearing-in date, the Danquah Institute (DI)
is concerned about: the practical preparedness of the Electoral
Commission (EC) to make the November 7 date happen, and the intention of
the Commission to give Ghanaians a free, fair and credible elections,
which must be the overriding issue.
Our concerns are mainly due to the blatant and curious posture of the
Electoral Commission against obeying a clear and express order of the
Supreme Court to take immediate and necessary steps to clean the
register of: both dead people and the millions of names which got onto
the electoral roll using NHIS cards to establish eligibility, and for
the EC to give the eligible Ghanaians among them the opportunity to
re-register and in time for the 2016 polls.
It is important to recognise that, going by the proposed November 7
date, we have just five months to vote and the law imposes a mandatory
freeze on any modification of the active register for this year’s
elections, 60 days (or two months) before voting. This means, the entire
process of deletion and re-registration of millions of names must be
completed before September 7 if the November 7 date should hold.
The Supreme Court held on May 5, 2016 that:
(a) “That the Electoral Commission takes steps immediately to delete or
as is popularly known ‘clean” the current register of voters to comply
with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution, and applicable laws of
Ghana;
(b) “That any person whose name is deleted from the register of voters
by the Electoral Commission pursuant to order (a) above be given the
opportunity to register under the law."
Today is Thursday, June 2, 2016. Nearly one month since the Supreme
Court gave its ruling on Thursday, the May 5. Rather than taking
“immediate” steps, as ordered, to delete the names of those who
registered using NHIS card, it took the EC two whole weeks to study the
judgment and come out publicly to announce on Thursday, May 19 that the
Court did not order it to delete the names of NHIS registrants.
A week later, on Thursday, May 26, a member of the Supreme Court panel,
Justice Jones Dotse, in the presence of the Supreme Court judge who read
the unanimous decision, Justice Sule Gbadegbe, was compelled by the
strange behavior of the Electoral Commission to set the records
straight.
In line with the Code of Conduct for Judges and Magistrates, which
allows a judge to “explain for public information… what may be learned
from the public record of the case,” Justice Dotse took pains to explain
the May 5 decision: “The Supreme Court was quite forthright and clear
that the use of the NHIS cards is unconstitutional. The criteria for the
NHIS cards were not based on Ghanaian citizenship but only on residents
in Ghana. So, any foreigner who is resident in Ghana for six months and
more can register under the NHIS card. That was the basis upon which we
base our decision in 2014.
“And in the recent one, we said the use of the NHIS is, therefore,
unconstitutional. [The EC] should take the opportunity to clean the
register of those undesirable persons. We also did not want to
disenfranchise anybody so the Supreme Court went on to say that anybody
who will be affected by that exercise must be given the opportunity to
register, according to the law and constitution.”
It is recalled that the Supreme Court declared in the first Abu Ramadan
case in 2014 that “upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 42
of the Constitution, the use of the National Health Insurance Card as
proof of qualification to register as a voter pursuant to the Public
Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations 2012 (C.I. 72) is
unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.”
158 Days to Nov 7 Date
As it is now, the EC says it intends to hold the 2016 general elections
on November 7. This means that we have 158 days to the polls. Already 26
days have gone by without the EC manifestly taking any steps to comply
with the decision of the Court.
The truth is that, as much as it is showing such great reluctance to
obey, the EC cannot escape from the Supreme Court decision. It has no
choice but to comply. This brings up two key questions:
(1) What are the necessary legitimate steps that the EC should and must
take in order to delete those millions of names and re-register those
who are eligible to vote?
(2) Will the EC be able to comply with the order in full and still hold the general elections in November rather than December?
Background
Before we proceed to discuss the two issues above, a little background
on the November 7 date should help. In its April 2015 report, the
10-member Electoral Reforms Committee set up by the EC which included
the EC, political parties and civil society groups recommended the
change of polling date to November 7.
This was a proposal from the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), which
had argued that “bringing the Election Day forward to November 7 will
allow ample time for run-offs (which are expected to be conducted three
weeks after the general election) and settlement of possible disputes
after the election.”
Last month, leadership from both the Majority and Minority sides of
Parliament raised concerns over the practicalities of holding this
year’s elections on November 7.
According to a Daily Graphic report, “while the Minority says the
posture of the EC, especially its Chairperson, Mrs Charlotte Osei, did
not support consensus building, and for which reason, there could be
problems in the processes towards changing the date, the Majority
Leader, Mr Alban Bagbin, said time might not be on the side of the
processes for an amendment,” the report read.
The 1992 Constitution and Constitutional Amendment
What then does the Constitution say? Article 291 (1) of the 1992
Constitution states that a bill to amend a provision of the Constitution
which is not an entrenched provision shall not be introduced into
Parliament unless: “(a) It has been published twice in a Gazette, with
the second publication being made at least three months after the first;
and
“(b) at least ten days have passed after the second publication.”
Article 291 (2) reads:
“the Speaker shall, after the first reading of the bill in Parliament;
refer it to the Council of State for consideration and advice and the
Council of State shall render advice on the bill within 30 days after
receiving it”.
Further on, Article 291 (3) and (4) say: “Where Parliament approves the
bill, it may only be presented to the President for his assent if it was
approved at the second and third readings of it in Parliament by the
votes of at least two thirds of all members of Parliament.
“Where the bill has been passed in accordance with this article, the President shall assent to it.”
On the issue of time for the amendment, it is quite clear that so long
as the amendment can carry a two-thirds majority of the entire House, it
can pass. This would require at least 30 Members from the Minority side
joining forces with all MPs from the Minority side.
PARLIAMENT MUST STAND FIRM
This is where we will urge the Minority to stand firm on the side of a
credible, free and fair elections when this matter comes up.
In as much as the country appears to be desirous of and impatient for
change, the Minority should not allow the EC to impose a November 7,
2016 date on us if it cannot convince the country that it has taken the
necessary, legitimate, logical, efficient and impartial steps to give
Ghanaians a clean register as ordered by the apex court of the land.
So far, the Charlotte-Osei-led electoral management body of Ghana has
shown nothing but odd contempt at all efforts to address the issue of
Ghana’s bloated register. It ignored calls from political parties and
civil society groups to have a new, credible register.
It ignored proposals from its own Panel of Experts to undertake
validation (or authentication or verification) of all existing voters to
clean the register.
It is currently trying to frustrate the strict, express order of the Supreme Court to clean the register.
Indeed, the only other main stakeholder in the electoral process that is
vehemently opposed to removing the names of NHIS registrants from the
register and allowing them to re-register is the ruling National
Democratic Congress (NDC). This, unfortunately, creates the unhelpful
impression that the EC is working with the ruling NDC to rig the 2016
general elections.
The EC has, with apparent ill motive, wasted a whole month that could
have been employed to start the process of cleaning the register. Yet,
it is asking the people of Ghana, through their parliamentary
representatives, to vote to amend the Constitution to hold the elections
a month earlier.
What this could effectively mean is that once the constitutional
amendment is passed and the EC gets its way, the Commission is likely to
hide behind it to frustrate an efficient process of deletion and
re-registration as ordered by the Court. This should not be allowed to
happen.
