The Electoral Commission of Ghana (EC) has, in a 31-page document, written to the Supreme Court explaining why it excluded the current voter ID card from being used as a primary document in its forthcoming registration exercise.

In its writ, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) had argument that “the 2nd Defendant (EC) has no legal basis to exclude the use of existing voter ID cards for the purposes of registration and that should this Court allow the 2nd Defendant to deny Ghanaian citizens the use of their existing voter ID cards for registration, it would impair the right of citizens to register and vote. That would be a dent on the gains made by this Court in giving life and meaning to Article 42 of the Constitution”.

The party’s lawyers argued further: “We end by relying on the poignant statement by Kpegah JSC in Apaloo versus Electoral Commission supra at page 410 where His Lordship stated: “Thus, consistent with our belief in and adherence to the principle of universal adult suffrage, the right to register and vote is guaranteed every citizen of Ghana who is eighteen years or above and not of unsound mind. In the case of Tehn-Addy v Electoral Commissioner [1996-97] SCGLR 589, the plaintiff was denied the chance to register as a voter, and he brought an action claiming that the Electoral Commission had violated the Constitution, 1992. This court unanimously held that every sane Ghanaian citizen of eighteen years and above had the right under article 42 of the Constitution, 1992 to be registered as a voter. And that the constitutional right of voting was indispensable in the enhancement of the democratic process and it could not be denied in the absence of a constitutional provision to that effect”.

“The function of the 2nd Defendant under article 45(e) is to undertake programmes for the expansion of the registration of voters and not to undermine or place unnecessary impediments on registration. The 2 Defendant’s constitutional function includes making it easier to register to vote and not to place impediments on the enjoyment of that fundamental right to be registered and o vote”.

“In the circumstances, we invite this Honourable Court not to be frightened by the spectre of ghosts, minors and foreigners on the register. For ghosts may be able to receive salaries when on the payroll but cannot appear to vote when on the voter roll and foreigners and minors can be removed from the roll of voters if the 2nd Defendant is diligent and does its work well”, the NDC’s argument said.

Summary of EC’s response

In summary, the following are the legal reasons why the 2nd Defendant (EC) is not allowing the existing voter identification cards to be used in the upcoming voter registration exercise.

The existing voter register which was compiled in 2012 pursuant to CI 72 and revised since by limited registration exercises has been held by this Honourable Court as not being reasonably credible. By implication, the cards issued pursuant to it are also not reasonably credible.

In respect of the cards issued pursuant to ci 12, the 2nd Defendant (EC) has found that those voter identification cards were issued without any form of identification at all and its ineligibilities, breaches and excesses were imported into the 2012 register pursuant to CI 72 in breach of Article 42 and displacing the credibility of the CI 12 cards.

The 2nd Defendant found a fundamental omission in its training manual and the manner in which the voter registration exercise was carried out in 2012 partly in breach of its own binding CI 72 and also in breach of Article 42 of the Constitution.

The 2nd Defendant wants a break from the past to remedy all the carried-on ineligibilities, excesses and breaches of Article 42 as the existing cards have become fruits of a “poisoned tree”.

It will be in continuous breach of article 42 of the constitution, to totally disregard this Honourable court’s own judgment to continue using the existing cards and It is in contravention of Section 8(1) of Act 750 (as amended) for the 2nd Defendant to accept the existing voter identification cards as a means of proving citizenship for the compilation of the new register.

Your Lordships, we (EC) submit that what Section 8(1) of Act 750 (as amended) has done is to effectively exclude the existing voter identification card as a form of identification for the purposes of proving citizenship which is the first and foremost qualification required of an individual applying to be registered as a voter. It is the considered opinion of the 2nd defendant (EC) that to accept any form of identification, including the existing voter identification cards, which is not provided for under Section 8(1) Act 750 (as amended) as a means of proving identification for the compilation of the new register will be in contravention of statute.

The seven-member Supreme Court panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah, will reconstitute on Thursday, 11 June 2020, to adjudicate the matter.