|
The Supreme Court orders the
Electoral Commission to do what?
By Dr. Michael
J.K. Bokor
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Folks, the Supreme Court
today ordered the Electoral Commission to do a number of
things to make the existing voters register credible for
Election 2016:
1. To delete from the
electoral roll names of all dead people and persons who
used the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) card to
register to vote.
2. To allow those whose
names will be removed because they used the NHIS card as
proof of citizenship to register, an opportunity to
register if they qualify.
3. To remove from the
register all minors who registered in the last elections
in 2012.
4. The EC must do all it
can to consult others in its work.
(See
http://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2016/May-5th/supreme-court-orders-ec-to-clean-up-voters-register-immediately.php#sthash.Ipb8PmhE.dpuf).
The Supreme Court noted
that the register in its current form, is not
"reasonably credible". The Court's verdict was in
response to the suit filed by two opposition
politicians— Abu Ramadan (a former youth leader of the
People's National Convention) and Kwame Baffoe (an NPP
youth leader) who claimed that the voters' register in
its current state is not fit to be used for the November
election.
Their suit followed the
Electoral Commission’s rejection of demands to compile a
new voters' register. The plaintiffs had argued that the
EC should at least conduct an exercise to clean up the
document by removing names of persons deemed ineligible
to be on the roll. To them, then, this validation
process would be deemed a compromise after months of
pressure from opposition parties on the EC yielded no
results. Thus, the Supreme Court’s verdict would compel
the EC to clean up the register.
MY COMMENTS
Some in the
opposition camp may be tempted to celebrate this verdict
and tout it as a validation of their concerns. But any
celebration will be misplaced and short-lived. First, I
don’t think that the Court’s verdict signals any victory
for the plaintiffs and their political camps. It is a
verdict that will not be easy to obey. It isn’t any
different from what the Justice Atuguba-led Supreme
Court panel suggested at the end of the NPP’s useless
2012 petition hearing. How many of those recommendations
have been implemented by the EC? Why add more?
The EC has already begun
the limited registration exercise; and we are already
being told about improprieties regarding the
registration of minors or undesirables from neighbouring
countries. The NPP and NDC are blaming each other for
those improprieties while the EC grapples with technical
hitches here and there. Who will solve these problems
before they add up to what the Supreme Court is asking
the EC to tackle?
Second, the minors
registered in 2012 may no longer be minors four years
down the lane. So, if the EC goes ahead to delete their
names from the register—which may be possible only at a
later date from the limited registration exercise
currently going on—when again will they be registered to
participate in Election 2016 on November 7?
Again, by asking the EC to
delete names of those registered on the basis of the
National Health Insurance Scheme’s cards, the Supreme
Court hasn’t given the EC any concrete and workable
solution. On what basis will those people now be
re-registered, granted that there is no other authentic
national identity card to validate their identities?
Furthermore, by asking the EC to “do all it can to
consult others in its work”, the Supreme Court has
opened a can of worms. Who are those “others”? Already,
there is no consensus among the political parties on how
to solve problems of this sort. The Inter-party Advisory
Committee (IPAC) can’t solve any problem of this sort
either. Neither can identifiable civil society groups,
clearly because almost all of them have become
politically inclined and lost credibility when it comes
to non-partisan handling of issues that are politically
interested. Why has the Supreme Court thrown the door so
open to cause more confusion?
By declaring that “the
register in its current form, is not reasonably
credible”, the Supreme Court is pandering to the whims
and caprices of those putting needless pressure on the
EC. What is its definition for and justification of a
“reasonably credible” voters register?
The EC has already given
indications that it will take appropriate steps to
“clean up” the voters register. What the Supreme Court
is adding to its workload will be useful only if it fits
into the EC’s own agenda and will be done expeditiously.
Otherwise, I foresee danger.
I think that the Supreme
Court’s verdict is itself problematic and won’t solve
any problem. Granted that time is of the essence, the EC
is needlessly being put on the spot to be blamed if
major problems crop up at Election 2016. Is that what we
want?
I am also more than
concerned about the ultimatum: to clean up the voters
register IMMEDIATELY. Why so, when the EC is already
occupied with another major national exercise of limited
registration? Has the Supreme Court considered
constraints regarding time, resources, and money
involved in such a clean-up exercise?
It is one thing giving such
an ultimatum and another implementing it within the
context of availability of resources. We know that the
EC has already complained of not being given adequate
funds for its tasks. Parliament failed to meet its
request, if our recollection is right. So, how is it
going to do what the Supreme Court is imposing on it?
What happens if the EC
fails to do what the Supreme Court has instructed it to
do? No reasonably credible voters register, so no
general elections or a rejection of the outcome of the
elections? More problems loom, I daresay.
I shall return…
•
E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com
• Join me on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the
conversation.
|
