A private citizen, Ayitah Precious, has initiated legal proceedings against the Electoral Commission (EC), following a similar action undertaken by four political parties, including the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
The legal action challenges the EC’s decision to confine the limited voter registration process to its district offices.
Ayitah Precious filed the lawsuit at the Tema High Court on Friday, September 8, with the Attorney General named as the second respondent.
The applicant is pursuing several remedies, including a declaration asserting that the EC’s decision to restrict the limited voter registration to its 268 district offices is not only unlawful but also violates the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
The controversy arose on August 17 when the EC, in a press conference titled ‘Let the Citizen Know,’ announced its plan to commence a voter registration exercise for eligible Ghanaians who have turned 18 years old and other eligible voters who could not register after the 2020 registration exercise.
The registration was scheduled for Tuesday, September 12, 2023, and limited to the EC’s district offices.
Ayitah Precious contends that this decision contradicts constitutional provisions. In the motion filed on Friday, September 8, the applicant’s counsel stated:
“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.”
The applicant seeks various reliefs in the affidavit supporting the motion, including:
a) A declaration that the EC’s decision is unlawful and violates constitutional provisions.
b) An order directing the EC to decentralize and expand the limited voter registration exercise.
c) An interlocutory injunction restraining the EC from limiting the registration to its district offices.
d) A perpetual injunction preventing the EC from restricting the limited voter registration exercise to its district offices. e) Costs, including legal fees.
This legal action adds to the growing controversy surrounding
