Supreme Court sets May 19 to rule on Zanetor’s application
The Supreme Court will on May 19 rule on an application filed by Dr Zanetor Rawlings, National Democratic Congress (NDC) Parliamentary Nominee for Klottey Korle Constituency challenging the capacity of an Accra High Court to hear a case concerning her candidature.
The Supreme Court fixed the date after parties in the matter had argued out their case in court.
Dr Zanetor is seeking for an order of prohibition directed at the trial judge, Mr Justice Kwaku T. Ackah Boafo from further hearing the matter.
According to Dr Zenator’s lawyer, Mr Godwin Tamakloe the trial judge erred in law when he wrongfully assumed the jurisdictional role to interpreter Article 94 (1) (a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Counsel contended that the function of the interpretation of the Constitution was done by the Supreme Court and not the High Court in the matter at stake.
The trial judge had ruled that since Zenator has put herself up she was entangled in the web of Article 94 (1) (a), which stipulates that she should be a registered voter before participating in last November parliamentary primaries.
Counsel was of the view that the said ruling be brought before the SC for same to be quashed.
Mr Tamakloe argued that political parties had ways of declaring people as candidates adding these were done by popular acclamation or open contest.
Nii Armah Ashietey the incumbent Member of Parliament who lost to Dr Rawlings last year had gone to court challenging his defeat in the November 11, 2015, primaries citing some constitutional breaches.
According to Mr Ashietey, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings did not qualify to be elected as the parliamentary nominee since at the time of the contest she was not a registered voter in the country.
This he said was a serious constitutional breach.
Mr Gary Nimako Marfo at the SC today relied on his filed submissions and the various exhibits as well as the supporting affidavits.
Mr Marfo argued that as at the time contesting the primaries Dr Zenator Rawlings was not a registered voter and that she only displayed her Voter Identity card after registering in the ongoing limited registration exercise being conducted by the Electoral Commission.
He contended that an order for certiorari would not lie since the trial judge did not falter in law.
Counsel posits that Dr Rawlings did not meet the legal requirement of Primaries as such the order of certiorari be dismissed it lacked merits.