The Supreme Court has directed that the mandamus application filed by New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary candidates be reassigned to a different High Court judge for hearing. This directive follows the annulment of previous orders issued by the original High Court and emphasizes the continued legal significance of the applications.
Despite nullifying the earlier orders, the Supreme Court affirmed that the mandamus applications remain active and must be adjudicated by the newly assigned judge.
The legal contention originated from a December 20 High Court ruling that instructed the Electoral Commission (EC) to re-collate parliamentary election results in nine constituencies. This directive came in response to mandamus applications filed by the NPP candidates, who alleged procedural discrepancies in the initial electoral outcomes. However, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) contested this ruling, taking the matter to the Supreme Court. The NDC described the re-collation process as both illegal and procedurally flawed, citing concerns over its potential to compromise electoral integrity.
In compliance with the High Court’s directive, the EC proceeded with the re-collation process in seven constituencies, all of which were won by the NPP. However, results for Dome/Kwabenya and Ablekuma North remain unresolved, further intensifying the legal and political tensions surrounding the case.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Gabriel Pwamang clarified the Supreme Court’s position, emphasizing that while the earlier orders had been quashed, the underlying mandamus applications retained their legal validity. He stated, “Despite quashing orders stated above, the applications for mandamus themselves are still alive and ought to be heard and determined.”
The Supreme Court invoked its constitutional authority under Article 129 (4) of the 1992 Constitution and applied Order 55 Rule 65 to provide procedural guidance for the continuation of the case. Justice Pwamang granted leave for the applicants to submit affidavits and statements of case in response to the respective mandamus applications, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural requirements.
“The time of filing is hereby abridged to two days from today. The applicants for mandamus in the High Court may respond to the processes of the interested parties,” he added. This accelerated timeline reflects the court’s recognition of the urgency associated with resolving electoral disputes within the national electoral calendar.
The Supreme Court further directed the High Court to hear the mandamus applications on Tuesday, December 31, 2024. This directive aims to ensure an expedited resolution of the legal matters while maintaining adherence to due process.
Justice Pwamang also addressed concerns regarding potential bias in the adjudication process. He stated, “We are not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided to us by the applicants. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the integrity of the adjudicatory process and in line with the practice of this court, we hereby direct that the applications for mandamus shall be placed before a different High Court judge for hearing and determination.”
This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of impartiality and fairness in the resolution of electoral disputes. By reassigning the case to a different High Court judge, the Supreme Court seeks to preserve public confidence in the legal process and ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing.
The directive to reassign the mandamus case adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing electoral disputes. For the NDC, the Supreme Court’s ruling represents a partial victory, as it addresses concerns about procedural irregularities while allowing the mandamus applications to proceed. For the NPP, the continuation of the case presents an opportunity to validate their candidates’ claims through a transparent and impartial judicial process.
The broader implications of this case extend beyond the immediate constituencies in question. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding the integrity of Ghana’s electoral system. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that electoral disputes are resolved in a manner that upholds constitutional principles and protects the rights of all stakeholders.
As the High Court prepares to hear the mandamus applications, the focus will remain on how the legal issues are ultimately resolved. The outcome of the hearing on December 31 will have significant implications not only for the affected constituencies but also for the broader electoral landscape. It will serve as a test of the judiciary’s ability to navigate the complex interplay of legal, political, and procedural considerations in the pursuit of justice.
This case also raises important questions about the role of the EC in managing electoral disputes. The commission’s compliance with the High Court’s initial directive to re-collate results in seven constituencies has drawn both praise and criticism. While some have commended the EC for acting in accordance with judicial orders, others have questioned the transparency and credibility of the re-collation process.
The unresolved results for Dome/Kwabenya and Ablekuma North further highlight the challenges facing the EC in ensuring that electoral outcomes are accepted by all stakeholders. The commission’s ability to navigate these challenges will be critical in maintaining public trust in the electoral process and preserving the legitimacy of Ghana’s democratic institutions.
As the legal proceedings continue, the Supreme Court’s directive serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s pivotal role in addressing electoral disputes and upholding the rule of law. The reassignment of the mandamus case to a new High Court judge represents a significant step in ensuring that the adjudication process is free from bias and procedural flaws.
Ultimately, the resolution of this case will have far-reaching implications for Ghana’s electoral system and democratic governance. It underscores the need for continuous improvement in electoral processes and the importance of maintaining a robust and independent judiciary to address disputes and protect the rights of all citizens.
