The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the mandamus application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The counsel for the NDC, Godwin Edudzi Tameklo argued that the application was an attempt at challenging the validity of the election results without using the right approach.
According to him, per sections 16 and 20 of the representation of people law, PNDCL 284 as amended, it is only by a petition that the results of an election can be challenged.
He contended that any attempt to do so through any prerogative writ such as a mandamus is a way of circumventing a proper hearing to be done by evidence.
He submitted further that the procedure of a petition outlined under sections 16 and 20 must take precedence over order 54 of C. I 47 which makes room for judicial review applications such as this.
This assertion comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s December 27 ruling, which overturned an earlier High Court decision that had granted the New Patriotic Party’s application directing the EC to re-collate results in certain constituencies with disputes.
The Supreme Court’s decision has reignited debate over the EC’s authority to independently address discrepancies in election results.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the mandamus application filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
The counsel for the NDC, Godwin Edudzi Tameklo argued that the application was an attempt at challenging the validity of the election results without using the right approach.
According to him, per sections 16 and 20 of the representation of people law, PNDCL 284 as amended, it is only by a petition that the results of an election can be challenged.
He contended that any attempt to do so through any prerogative writ such as a mandamus is a way of circumventing a proper hearing to be done by evidence.
He submitted further that the procedure of a petition outlined under sections 16 and 20 must take precedence over order 54 of C. I 47 which makes room for judicial review applications such as this.
This assertion comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s December 27 ruling, which overturned an earlier High Court decision that had granted the New Patriotic Party’s application directing the EC to re-collate results in certain constituencies with disputes.
The Supreme Court’s decision has reignited debate over the EC’s authority to independently address discrepancies in election results.
