|
Supreme court rules: 'Prisoners can vote'
Source: Daily Graphic | Wed 24th March 2010
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision yesterday, gave the
nod to more than 13,586 remand and convicted prisoners in the
country to exercise their franchise.
To cement its decision, the court directed the Electoral
Commission (EC) to come out with a Constitutional Instrument
(CI) to create the legal framework that will facilitate the
inclusion of prisoners in the voters register for the next
general election.
The court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice
Georgina Theodora Wood, in a unanimous decision, upheld an
application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by
two legal practitioners, Messrs Ahumah Ocansey and Kojo Graham
of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
The two had, in separate suits which were consolidated by the
court on November 12, 2009, prayed the court to declare as null
and void sections of PNDC Law 284 which barred remand and
convicted prisoners from voting.
Joined in the suit were the Attorney-General and the EC.
The A-G's Department had opposed the suit n the grounds that the
reliefs being sought by the two lawyers were against the public
interest, while the EC had prayed the court to exclude it from
the suit. The court, however, disagreed.
In a three-and-a-half-hour ruling, the court, which had Dr
Justice S. K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones
Dotse and Mr Justice Annin Yeboah as its members, ruled that,
The 1992 Constitution, per Article 42, grants all citizens of
Ghana who are 18 years and above and are of sound mind the right
to be registered to enable them to vote in all public elections
and referenda.
"This right extends or includes all convicted prisoners,
irrespective of the provisions of Section 7 (5) of the
Representation of the People Law, 1992, (PNDC Law 284) which
imposes a residency requirement or qualification under which
convicted prisoners were deemed disqualified."
It, therefore, declared as void Section 7 (5) of Law 284, since
it was inconsistent with Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
It further stated that to avoid chaos and hasty decisions, it
was imperative for the EC to come up with rules and regulations
to regulate the registration exercise.
"This is to ensure that such an exercise is efficiently and
effectively managed, controlled and directed to operationalise
the registration of prisoners to enable them to vote in future
elections and referenda such as will ensure harmonious interface
with the Prisons Service Act 1972 NRCD 46 and all the other
relevant stakeholders," the court held.
In reply to the A-G's opposition, it contended that it found it
extremely difficult to understand what constitutionally
legitimate interest was served by the non-recognition of the
prisons as places of residence for the purpose of voter
registration, even for those who had been convicted of high
crimes such as subversion and high treason.
"Even for those who attempt to derail the democratic process,
voting remains an important means of teaching them democratic
values," the court pointed out.
It commended the two legal practitioners "for taking up this
important constitutional case on behalf of prisoners and for the
industry they put into this work, which was done pro bono".
According to the court, it could not overlook the crucial role
played by the two lawyers who advanced the frontiers of human
rights law in Ghana's justice system free of charge to
prisoners.
Source: Daily Graphic
|
