A seasoned broadcaster, Paul Adom Otchere has described as problematic the debate about the definite law to apply in the deletion of names of ‘undesirable persons’ in Ghana’s electoral roll.

An Article published by an authority on legal matters, Dr. Raymond Atuguba argues that no judgment of the Supreme Court has received more wrongful interpretations of its meaning as the May 5, 2016 judgment on the voter roll.

“The Supreme Court DID NOT order that the names of all person on the register of voters, who registered with the NHIS identity card as a means of identification stand deleted,” according to him.

Some critics have also suggested the deletion of names of ineligible persons on the voters roll should not be an obligation imposed on the EC to do so on its own, but someone will have to trigger it, using the various committees at the districts across the country.

But, Mr. Adom Otchere believes the force of the authority derived by the EC to go ahead in deletion of the illegal entries in the electoral roll is the supreme court’s judgment – that according to him, constitutes law.

“…So when people say they don’t know what law pursuant to how they will delete the names it is worrying,” he told Accra-based Citi FM.

He explains the Supreme court only invoked the provisions of Article 22 of the 1992 constitution to make such orders in relation to those who registered with the NHIS cards and hence the EC must therefore obey and carry out the terms of the orders by the apex court.

He added further debate on the declaration and orders of the court given in the Abu Ramadan’s case is stretching the matter very far, because the 1992 constitution gives the Supreme court in terms of constitutional interpretation, the power to make orders.

“…If the court wants you to delete names of those who used NHIS cards to register, the court is coming under the authority of Article 22 to make that order- and also giving the directions for effect to be given to it. So all you need is the court’s order and declaration of the court. If the court says by the order, pursuant to Article 22 that go to the left or go to the right, you go to the right as directed by the court – Failure to do so constitutes a high crime, according to the constitution,” he argued.

“Now that the judge has spoken informally saying that this is what they meant, I believe that steps are being taken to get the court to be able to say that this is what they meant because this was a unanimous decision.

“Now we have come to a crossroads where it appears that one of the judges has spoken informally and said that we actually meant that you should delete the names so we wait to see what happens.”