NGO: Grant prisoners voting rights
Gilbert Boyefio
29/07/2008
The Legal Resource Centre, a Non Governmental Human Rights Organisation, on Wednesday will move an order of Mandamus, (an order from a high court to a lower court, or to an authority, instructing it to perform an action or duty) to compel the Electoral Commission to provide opportunities for all Ghanaian prisoners of eighteen years and above and of sound mind to register and vote in public elections and referenda.
According to Tuinese Edward Amuzu, lawyer of the LRC, this action seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court within the context of judicial review.
He said the applications are seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Electoral Commission to discharge its function of making proper arrangements to register Ghanaian prisoners to vote in public elections, particularly in the 2008 Parliamentary and Presidential Elections. He explained that Mandamus is one of the reliefs provided for by Order 55, C.I. 47.
Mr Amuzu pointed out that the Electoral Commission's actions have violated the fundamental human rights of prisoners to participate in the governance of Ghana, observing, "When public bodies refuse to perform their functions, the course of action opened to citizens is to seek an order of mandamus to compel such bodies to perform their functions. This is trite learning. This principle is also supported by the case of Mould v. Devine".
He argued that issues raised by this application bother on the fundamental right to vote. He said it is their view that the court in exercising its jurisdiction to grant a mandamus under Order 67, C1 must take cognizance of Chapter five of the 1992 Constitution, particularly, article 33(5) which indirectly incorporates into the Ghanaian human right corpus rights contained in international human rights instruments and treaties.
But according to the Electoral Commission, it was unable to register the prisoners for voting in view of restrictions placed on it by section 7(5) of PNDCL 284, which provides that "A person who is a patient in an establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness or who is detained in legal custody in a place shall not be treated as resident there for the purposes of this section."
In its statement of case, the application should be struck out so that the LRC take the proper steps to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the matter.
However, the LRC was of the view that the high court has original jurisdiction in all matters except matters reserved for the Supreme Court, and the action herein in relation to the right to vote have not been reserved for any other court.
The human rights group indicated that in view of this, the high court is empowered to exercise jurisdiction under Order 67, C1 47 in vindication of rights as contained in Chapter five of the 1992 Constitution, particularly, article 33(5). According to Mr Amuzu the right to vote being one of the most basic rights in a democracy, clothed the high court with jurisdiction to adjudicate on Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution as read together with Article 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
The LRC argued that section 7(5) of PNDC Law 284 should be read together with section 7(1C) of PNDC Law 284 for clear understanding of the provisions.
He said section 7(1) of PNDCL 284 therefore created a requirement of residency in a constituency before Ghanaians who are eighteen (18) years or above and of sound mind could register in anticipation of voting in public elections and referenda.
The LRC is of the view that in accordance with the law, to be resident within a constituency, an individual should not have been away from his place of abode for a continuous period of six (6) months ending on the qualifying date. They said the combined effect of sections 7(1) and 7(5) of PNDCL 284 is that a convict or a person in legal custody is not resident "in a place" of his legal custody.
These sections in no way say such a person can never be considered as a resident of a polling division for the purpose of talking part in public elections. They said the position of the EC appears to be informed by an erroneous impression that Ghanaians can only qualify to register if they meet residency requirements of PNDC Law 284.
To the LRC, voting like other rights is not a privilege which government grants to citizens, and therefore to limit this right, it must be shown that allowing prisoners to exercise their franchise will infringe on the rights of others.
29/07/2008
The Legal Resource Centre, a Non Governmental Human Rights Organisation, on Wednesday will move an order of Mandamus, (an order from a high court to a lower court, or to an authority, instructing it to perform an action or duty) to compel the Electoral Commission to provide opportunities for all Ghanaian prisoners of eighteen years and above and of sound mind to register and vote in public elections and referenda.
According to Tuinese Edward Amuzu, lawyer of the LRC, this action seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court within the context of judicial review.
He said the applications are seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Electoral Commission to discharge its function of making proper arrangements to register Ghanaian prisoners to vote in public elections, particularly in the 2008 Parliamentary and Presidential Elections. He explained that Mandamus is one of the reliefs provided for by Order 55, C.I. 47.
Mr Amuzu pointed out that the Electoral Commission's actions have violated the fundamental human rights of prisoners to participate in the governance of Ghana, observing, "When public bodies refuse to perform their functions, the course of action opened to citizens is to seek an order of mandamus to compel such bodies to perform their functions. This is trite learning. This principle is also supported by the case of Mould v. Devine".
He argued that issues raised by this application bother on the fundamental right to vote. He said it is their view that the court in exercising its jurisdiction to grant a mandamus under Order 67, C1 must take cognizance of Chapter five of the 1992 Constitution, particularly, article 33(5) which indirectly incorporates into the Ghanaian human right corpus rights contained in international human rights instruments and treaties.
But according to the Electoral Commission, it was unable to register the prisoners for voting in view of restrictions placed on it by section 7(5) of PNDCL 284, which provides that "A person who is a patient in an establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness or who is detained in legal custody in a place shall not be treated as resident there for the purposes of this section."
In its statement of case, the application should be struck out so that the LRC take the proper steps to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the matter.
However, the LRC was of the view that the high court has original jurisdiction in all matters except matters reserved for the Supreme Court, and the action herein in relation to the right to vote have not been reserved for any other court.
The human rights group indicated that in view of this, the high court is empowered to exercise jurisdiction under Order 67, C1 47 in vindication of rights as contained in Chapter five of the 1992 Constitution, particularly, article 33(5). According to Mr Amuzu the right to vote being one of the most basic rights in a democracy, clothed the high court with jurisdiction to adjudicate on Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution as read together with Article 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
The LRC argued that section 7(5) of PNDC Law 284 should be read together with section 7(1C) of PNDC Law 284 for clear understanding of the provisions.
He said section 7(1) of PNDCL 284 therefore created a requirement of residency in a constituency before Ghanaians who are eighteen (18) years or above and of sound mind could register in anticipation of voting in public elections and referenda.
The LRC is of the view that in accordance with the law, to be resident within a constituency, an individual should not have been away from his place of abode for a continuous period of six (6) months ending on the qualifying date. They said the combined effect of sections 7(1) and 7(5) of PNDCL 284 is that a convict or a person in legal custody is not resident "in a place" of his legal custody.
These sections in no way say such a person can never be considered as a resident of a polling division for the purpose of talking part in public elections. They said the position of the EC appears to be informed by an erroneous impression that Ghanaians can only qualify to register if they meet residency requirements of PNDC Law 284.
To the LRC, voting like other rights is not a privilege which government grants to citizens, and therefore to limit this right, it must be shown that allowing prisoners to exercise their franchise will infringe on the rights of others.
Comments
Post a Comment