Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, a senior lecturer at the University of Ghana School of law has shared his legal opinion on the 9 parliamentary seats currently under contention.
Justice Sai teaches Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Criminal Law.
He has also taught Law at the University of Leeds and the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA)
The Justice was very vocal in Ato Forson’s ambulance case during the NPP administration.
He also challenged Cecelia Dapaah by asserting that the amount quoted by the police is presumably correct until the embattled former Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources provided her own figures of the money stolen from her.
The legal practitioner this time has elaborated on the high court’s decision and what lies ahead for the supreme court concerning the 9 parliamentary seats.
Lawyer Justice Sai Writes:
On Friday, December 27, the Supreme Court will hear and decide whether the High Court’s decision – which authorised the EC to re-collate the parliamentary election results for 6 constituencies – should stand.
The constituencies are (1) Okaikwei Central, (2) Ablekuma North, (3) Nsawam-Adoagyiri, (4) Tema Central, (5) Techiman South, and (6) Ahafo Ano North. Here are the facts leading to the Supreme Court case:
(1) Voting in the elections ended at 5pm on December 7. The election results for the constituencies were subsequently collated and declared, all in favour of the NDC parliamentary candidates.
(2) On December 17, the NPP parliamentary candidates for each of the constituencies filed separate applications at the High Court in Accra for an order directing the EC to re-collate the already collated and declared results.
(3) All the 6 cases were placed before one High Court judge, Rev Fr Justice Joseph Agyemang, in General Jurisdiction 13, in Accra.
(4) The fundamental rule of law is that a court cannot make a final decision which will adversely affect a person whom the court did not give an opportunity to to present his or her side of the story.
(5) Yet, none of the NDC MP candidates who contested in the elections in the 6 constituencies, and who were declared winners were made a party to any of the 6 NPP applications.
(6) The NDC MP candidates, however, got wind of the necodemus applications and immediately, on December 20, caused their lawyers to file an application in which they begged the High Court judge to allow them to be heard before he decides the case.
(7) Even though the NDC MPs and their lawyers were in the courtroom, the judge flatly refused to allow them to join the case, thereby refusing to hear their side of the story. He refused even though he knew very well that his decision will definitely affect them.
(8) In refusing to hear the NDC MP candidates, the Judge explained himself in each of his 6 rulings in the following words:
“[The NDC] Joinder Application at this stage should not operate as a setback on this [NPP] Application because of the urgent nature of the circumstances of this case.
The Court is going for the Christmas holidays and the Parliamentarians would be sworn-in in the first week of January, 2025. So it behoves on all of us to ensure that the Constituency in question be represented appropriately (sic)”.
So, the fundamental question before the Supreme Court on Friday is – whether the Rev Fr Justice Agyemang’s orders should stand, considering that he refused to hear the NDC MPs’ side of the story before making final orders which affected them.
