The Supreme Court has dismissed an action filed by human rights activist Fred Akweter, who was challenging the constitutionality of the law that bars persons convicted of electoral offences from being registered as voters or voting for five years after serving their sentences.
The panel of seven, presided over by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, unanimously said there was no merit in the suit and dismissed same as unmeritorious.
The panel, which also includes Justice Samuel Adibu Asiedu, Justice Richard Adjei-Frimpong, Justice Sir Dennis Dominic Adjei, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Janapare Adzua Bartels-Kodwo and Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, said their reasoning would be ready on or before May 5, 2026.
Per his writ filed at the Supreme Court, the Applicant, (A private Legal practitioner) argued that Sections 27, 28, 29, 36 and 41 of the Representation of the People Law, 1992 (PNDCL 284) violate Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the right to be registered as a voter and the right to vote.
The Electoral Commission (EC) and the Attorney-General (A-G) are the defendants in the case, while the plaintiff was represented by Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey.
Sections under scrutiny
The following provisions in PNDCL 284 impose various fines and terms of imprisonment, as well as disqualifying a convict for five years from voting or registering to vote after serving his or her sentence.
Section 27 of PNDCL 284 stipulates that a person who makes false statements during voters’ registration, registers twice, or uses force to prevent someone from registering as a voter commits an offence.
Section 28 criminalises the forging, defacing or destruction of ballot papers, while Section 29 makes it an offence to vote more than once during an election or to vote when not entitled to vote.
Section 36 of PNDCL 284 makes it a crime for a person to prevent a person from exercising his franchise to vote, while Section 41 imposes various sentences on people who engage in bribery and undue influence during elections.
Challenge
The Plaintiff contended that the only exceptions to the right to vote and be registered to vote, as stipulated under Article 42 of the Constitution, are if a person is not a Ghanaian, is below 18 years, or is of unsound mind.
He said barring a person from registering to vote or voting on the basis of committing an electoral offence for which the person had already been punished was an unconstitutional fetter on the right to vote as stipulated by Article 42 of the Constitution.
It was his case that the fundamental right to vote has unconstitutionally been curtailed by Sections 27, 28, 29, 36 and 41 of PNDCL 284.
He said the direct effect of the impugned sections under PNDCL 284 is to disqualify a certain class of people outside the limitation recognised by the Constitution generally, and Article 42 specifically.
The plaintiff acknowledged that fundamental human rights such as the right
Apart from the limitations explicitly stated in Article 42 of the Constitution, there are no additional constitutional provisions that outline further qualifications for who is eligible to vote, the plaintiff added.
The Applicant pointed to the case of Ahumah Ocansey v A-G where the Apex Court upheld the rights of prisoners to vote, arguing that the impugned provisions were bad in law as they prevented persons who had served their sentences from voting.
“The right to vote is a fundamental right that enables Ghanaians to engage actively in the democratic and governance process of our country.
“As a result, this right must consistently be protected by the courts and all relevant institutions involved in elections, especially the Electoral Commission,” the plaintiff added.
READ: Supreme Court dismisses Wesley Girls’ Board application to strike out suit
Reliefs
a). A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, every Ghanaian of 18 years and sound mind has the right to be registered and to vote in public elections and referenda.
b). A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, in conjunction with other relevant provisions of the Constitution, an individual convicted of an election-related offence shall not be deprived of their right to be registered as a voter or to participate in public elections or referenda.
c). A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), which prohibits a person convicted of an offence relating to nomination papers and ballot from being registered as a voter or voting at an election, is unconstitutional and an unjustified interference with their constitutionally guaranteed right.
d). A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 29 of the Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284), which prohibits a person convicted of an offence relating to unauthorized voting from being registered as a voter or voting at an election, is unconstitutional and an unjustified interference with their constitutionally guaranteed right.
e). An order directed at the 2nd Defendant to register all persons who meet the criteria outlined in Article 42 of the Constitution but have been convicted of an electoral offence.
f). An order directed at the 2nd Defendant mandating the reinstatement of all individuals who fulfill the criteria set forth in Article 42 of the Constitution but whose names were excluded from the voter register after being convicted of an electoral offence.
g). An order for the payment of the Plaintiff’s legal fees and costs for the enforcement of the action.
h). Any other orders this Honourable Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances.
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
