The Supreme Court will on Friday December 27, 2024 hear motions filed by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) against the disputed Parliamentary election results.
The motions at the Supreme Court are among other things seeking to invoke its Supervisory Jurisdiction to reverse the High Court’s order to the Electoral Commission (EC) to collate and declare results of six disputed Parliamentary election results.
On Friday December 20, few hours after the High Court in Accra presided over by Justice Rev. Joseph Owusu-Adu Agyemang had granted a Mandamus application from six Parliamentary Candidates of the New Patriotic Party, the NDC went to the Supreme Court.
Per the application, the NDC want an “Order of Certiorari directed at the High Court (General Jurisdiction 13), Accra, to bring into this Honourable Court for the purpose of being quashed, the following Orders of the High Court dated the 20th December, 2024:”
The NDC is also seeking “an Order of Prohibition restraining the interested party (EC) from collating or recollating, counting or recounting and declarating the on results in the contentious constituencies and the 8th interested from providing security for the unlawful exercise of collation, …and declaration of the elections.”
The application is also asking the Apex Court for “an Order of interlocutory Injunction restraining the is interested party from collating or recollating, counting or recounting and declarating the election results in the contentious constituencies and the 8th interested party (IGP) from providing security for the unlawful exercise of collation, counting and declaration of the elections pending the determination of the instant suit.”
Though the EC had since December 21, 2024 declared seven out of the nine disputed results, the Cause list of the Apex Court had fixed Friday, December 27, 2024 to hear the applications.
Grounds of Application
Providing grounds for the application, the NDC states that, the impugned Orders of the High Court were made in breach of the Applicants’ right to be heard and that of the Inspector-General of Police.
It stated that, there was “apparent bias and partiality on the part of the judge,” and “The High Court committed a non-jurisdictional error of law by failing to exercise its powers under Order 55 rule 5(2) of C.I 47 to direct the 2nd to 6th interested parties to serve the Mandamus applications on the Applicants who have interests in the subject of dispute;”
It said the “Error of law apparent on the face of the record which error of law occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.”
