[ 2016-10-31 ]

Re EC goes to Supreme Court
I would be very surprised if anything comes out of
this.
The High Court focused on procedure ‎which
has nothing to do with the merits of a matter.

To quash the High Court decision would require a
showing that the judge committed some error on the
face of the record or the acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction.

The EC would have to demonstrate such an error of
law apparent on the face of the record without
requiring the Supreme Court to delve into the
proceedings.

I don't see any. secondly, the argument about
criminal action on the part of an Nduom subscriber
cannot be ascribed to Nduom unless they can show
that he did it or procured it.

Remember, they haven't referred Nduom to the
police on that score. That makes it the alleged
act and intent of the subscriber. No one can be
punished for the criminal acts of another.

Again, the EC's argument that Nduom is responsible
for his filings merely reduces the whole thing to
an administrative issue and the High Court has
correctly noted that he is entitled to an
opportunity to be heard before disqualification.

Thirdly, Nduom can successfully argue that because
he cannot have the means to verify each
subscriber's bonafides personally, the law allows
him to correct errors such as a subscriber
subscribing in two regions, whether intentionally
or under a mistaken belief.

There is something morally and instinctively
unjust about making someone lese responsible for
the actions of others.

The law requires that a candidate obtain the
subscriptions of others to his candidacy. Nduom
did not procure such signatures of his own
volition. The law then presumes that Nduom alone
is not responsible for those forms even if he
alone is responsible for submitting them to the EC
and paying the filing fee.

There was no procedural error on the part of the
high Court and it had jurisdiction and so if the
EC is relying on the alleged criminal subscription
of another person, I can't see how the Supreme
Court would look at that and pre-determine whether
there was in fact any criminal activity through
this process.

It is not the job of the EC to determine whether a
person has committed a crime or not or indeed to
even charge a person with a crime. The application
to the Supreme Court cannot be a substitute for
criminal prosecution and the law does not say that
the appearance of criminal activity is enough to
draw sanctions.

It would seem to me that if the EC is hanging this
application on the criminal peg then it would have
to show that the person has actually been
convicted of criminal action in relation to the
filing forms for Nduom.

Source - GRi

... go Back