By Joyce Danso
Accra, Dec. 27, GNA – The Supreme Court has quashed the High Court (General Jurisdiction 13) order to the Electoral Commission to collate parliamentary results in four constituencies.
The four constituencies are Okaikwei Central, Ablekuma North, Techiman South and Tema Central.
The five-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang in its ruling in a certiorari application held that the NDC, the applicant should be given hearing in the writ of mandamus.
“The applicant should have granted them (applicant) hearing since the issue affected them. Hearing required that the other party file a statement of case and affidavit in opposition.”
According to the apex court of the land, the time the High Court granted the order of mandamus, collation had already been done in those four constituencies.
In the case of two other constituencies, namely Nsawam Adoagyiri and Ahafo Ano North, the five-member panel noted that at the time the mandamus order was given, collation had not been completed.
The ruling therefore makes way for the writ of mandamus to be heard before a new judge and with interested parties given the opportunity to file their statement of case and their affidavit in opposition if any.
The Supreme Court therefore granted the applicant leave to file a statement of case on the fresh mandamus writ.
On the issue of bias against the High Court Judge, the Supreme Court noted that sufficient evidence was not led to that effect.
Earlier Mr Godwin Edudzie Tamaklo, who represented the NDC, argued before the Court that seeking to quash the ruling of the High Court gave the EC the go ahead collate six parliamentary results in six constituencies.
The NDC held that the High Court ruling was made in violation of their rights to be heard and accused the trial judge of bias and partiality.
It therefore prayed to the Supreme Court for a prohibition order to prevent the Electoral Commission from re- collating, recounting or declaring results in the six constituencies.
The party also sought to restrain the IGP from providing security for what it described as an “unlawful exercise” of re-collating and declaring results.
Mr Gary Nimako-Marfo, who represented the interested parties, opposed the order of certiorari filed by the applicant, saying the High Court exercised its discretion when it ruled on the writ of mandamus.
Mr Nimako-Marfo submitted that if the applicant was aggrieved, they ought to have gone on an appeal, noting that the Supreme Court was not the right forum.
He held that the trial Judge never exhibited any bias or partiality, adding the High Court acted within its jurisdiction.
Mr Nimako-Marfo contended that there was no breach of natural justice.
Mr Justine Amenuvor, who represented the Electoral Commission, also opposed the applicant’s application, saying nonjoinder did not affect proceedings before a court.
Parties are, however, expected to appear before a new Judge by Tuesday January 31, 2024.
GNA