A private citizen has initiated a legal action against the Electoral Commission, (EC), a day after a similar action was commenced by five political parties, including the National Democratic Congress challenging the EC’s decision to restrict the limited registration to its district offices.
The Applicant in the latest action Ayitah Precious, filed at the Tema High Court, on Friday, September 8, named the Attorney General as the 2nd Respondent.
The applicant is seeking among other things, a declaration that the decision of the EC to restrict the limited voter registration exercise to its 268 district offices is unlawful, and a violation of the Applicant’s fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
On August 17, the EC in a press conference dubbed ‘Let the Citizen Know’ announced that it would commence a registration exercise for eligible Ghanaians who turned 18 years old and other eligible voters who could not register after the 2020 registration exercise, to register on Tuesday, September 12, 2023, and at its only district offices.
The above is what the applicant said is against provisions of Constitution and on Friday, September 8, filed the motion.
“Take Notice that Counsel for and on behalf of the Applicant herein will move this Honourable Court for a declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent to restrict the limited voter registration exercise to its 268 district office is unlawful and a violation of the Applicant’s fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 23, 33, 42(e), 46, 296 and 140 of the 1992 Constitution, an order directing at the 1st Respondent to decentralize and expand the upcoming limited voter registration exercise to make it easy for the Applicant to be registered onto the electoral roll; and a further order restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents, workmen and assigns from restricting the limited voter registration exercise to its District offices on grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit and for any other order(s)that this Honourable Court may deem fit.”
*Reliefs*
The Applicant in his affidavit in support to the originating motion on notice is seeking the following reliefs;
a). A declaration that the decision of the Is Respondent to restrict the limited voter registration exercise to its 268-district offices is unlawful, and a violation of the Applicant’s fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 23, 33, 42, 45(E), 46, 296, and 140 of the 1992 Constitution,
b). An order directed at the 1st Respondent to decentralize and expand the upcoming limited voter registration exercise to make it easy for the Applicant to be registered onto the electoral roll; and,
c). An order for interlocutory injunction restraining the st Respondent, its agents, workmen and assigns from restricting the limited voter registration exercise to its District offices.
d). An order for perpetual injunction restraining the Is Respondent, its agents, workmen and assigns from restricting the limited voter registration exercise to its District offices.
e) Costs including legal fees.
Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah
