Writing what I wanted, when I wanted, was what blogging was to me. I guess that’s how I felt being a columnist in a magazine or newspaper would be like. Ghana Decides knocked that perception out of my head with a punch that would have made Azumah Nelson proud. On demand ...]]> Jerome Kuseh ( @readjerome  )

Writing what I wanted, when I wanted, was what blogging was to me. I guess that’s how I felt being a columnist in a magazine or newspaper would be like. Ghana Decides knocked that perception out of my head with a punch that would have made Azumah Nelson proud. On demand write-ups, not being able to publish my work until it had been approved and/or edited, deadlines and assignments have all rubbed the shine off one of my dream jobs. Despite all the wonderfully-talented people I met, and the feeling of fulfillment that I get from being part of something that changed politics and elections forever in Ghana, if I turn down an offer to be a columnist of the Huffington Post, I’m blaming GhanaDecides!

Roxanne Scott ( @Whosworld )

I had an overall positive experience at Ghana Decides. I was able to get to know and work with a set of passionate individuals. I learned about the Ghanaian political process and got to interview people about their experience participating in the political process, as well as learn about political figures.

I really enjoyed how Ghana Decides engaged with their audience. One of the memorable examples of this for me was the Last Tweetup at Cafe Des Amis. Supporters, the press, and others interested in the organization were invited to give feedback on the work of Ghana Decides. This was a very personal way to engage with supporters. I also enjoyed engaging in the Women and Politics Google hangouts. Another great example of how to use social media to deliver information and problem solve.

Once again my experience at Ghana Decides was, overall, positive and was proud of my small contribution to the team.

When we were kids, anytime we played football and you scored against the team in which the owner of the ball was part of ...]]> The writer, Efo Alonte Hunter, is a Geneticist and a Career Ghanaian. In this last post in his series, he rounds up on what has been a great election season in Ghana.

When we were kids, anytime we played football and you scored against the team in which the owner of the ball was part of (sometimes he could be the area bully as well), he would take the ball, put it under his armpit and declare the goal illegal. If you insisted the goal was legal, you were disallowed from playing or the game would be declared all over.

I remember some years ago watching Asante Kotoko playing Hearts of Lion on TV. Suddenly, against the run of play, Hearts of Lion scored a goal. Kotoko felt that a foul had been committed in the build up to the goal and that the referee had ignored the foul. After protesting for a while, they came up with the (in)famous, “YƐN BƆ BIOM”, catch phrase.

On the evening of 7 December 2012, when the Presidential election results were trickling in, all seemed to be going in favour of New Patriotic Party (NPP). Some party officials were so confident they declared themselves winners. Old ‘Sir John’ even told supporters to wear white to church on Sunday. By the next day however, the tides had turned and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) had taken the lead. After Dr Afari Gyan’s official announcement, NPP started protesting and took the EC to court.

7 January 2013, President John Mahama was fated to be sworn into office. The opposition parties were invited. Everyone who was invited turned up, but the NPP’s official response was, “YƐN BƆ BIOM”.  Much to the chagrin of some of the NPP supporters, former President John Kufuor – who never forgets to seize any opportunity to flaunt his statesmanship – was present at the ceremony.

Then the responses kept rolling in:

Akatsi South Bye-Elections, NPP official response: “YƐN BƆ BIOM”

Buem Bye-Election, NPP official response: “YƐN BƆ BIOM”

Ministerial Vetting, NPP official response: “YƐN BƆ BIOM”

It appeared that for the foreseeable future, the official response by the NPP to any official invitation would be, “YƐN BƆ BIOM”

Photo credit: vinniesite.WordPress.com

Of course, they are getting paid huge sums of money for not carrying out their official duties. When Doctors or any other professional group employs the “YƐN BƆ BIOM” philosophy, these same politicians will be heard on all sorts of media platforms talking about patriotism. I am not saying their grievances should be dismissed. Boycotting official events that they are paid to carry out has never solved anything; at least, not in this part of the world.

Then again, it is not like we really care if they show up or not. I just wish they would be denied their allowances anytime they refused to show up in parliament or refuse to partake in an official programme.

Meanwhile, in court, NPP was busy playing a match that was not getting much attention from Ghanaians. The problem is, most Ghanaian have short attention span, a cruel disease that made us decide to not butcher or bomb ourselves to death. After all the hype and emotion spent on the elections, most people were already worn out.

General Mosquito, aka Asiedu Nketia, was heard somewhere saying, “Any idiot can go to court”. Next thing we knew, the NDC joined the NPP in court, offering confirmatory evidence to General Mosquito’s words. The NDC presented about a thousand witnesses in their defence.

By the time the court will be done with half of the witnesses, President John Mahama would probably be done with his first term in office. And we would be due for another bout at the polls.

The Freedom Arc: Freedom and Justice Ghana

Today marks, officially, the end of Ghana Decides as a project. We are still dusting off our backpacks and desks; we are using pure water to wash the terra-cotta sand off our eye-lids. The project was a long one-way trip for which we had ...]]> From the Editor, Ghana Decides

The Freedom Arc: Freedom and Justice Ghana

Today marks, officially, the end of Ghana Decides as a project. We are still dusting off our backpacks and desks; we are using pure water to wash the terra-cotta sand off our eye-lids. The project was a long one-way trip for which we had many plans projected and abandoned, new paths discovered and pursued; and, absolutely no idea about how to fold up. So it is a mixed feeling, but not doubt.

When we began, it was with one purpose to ensure that the words of Ghanaians usually drowned and watered down by mainstream media would this time permeate social media, and augmented so much that it could not be ignored by media outlets and politicians. We are happy to have done simply that.

Our commitment was to generate original content always. It was a hard one in an age where copying and pasting the reports of others was easier and preferred. We persisted because we were reminded of our duty by those whom we spoke to throughout our travels across the country – to share their words and thoughts with the nation and the world.

In our coverage of events, we were careful to be the platform for everyone while guarding the platform jealously because we were fully aware of the enormity of the responsibility we had to this nation and its peoples. That responsibility was never a burden when we sat down to write for this website or share information from The Team. It was almost effortless, carved out of love and purpose.

We are thankful to those who received us, to those who although with angst decided to try out social media at their organisations, as a way of interacting with our people and ensuring a successful election. We are thankful to Ghanaians who read content from here, shared it with their friends on Facebook, their followers on Twitter, and their readers on blogs and websites.

In the coming days, we will publish the stories of those who worked with us at Ghana Decides. From our volunteers, team members and team leaders. Be sure to read them.

For us at GhanaDecides.com who lived and slumbered on this platform, and for me, it is a relief to see a climactic end to what we started because we can begin new things. But we have already started suffering the withdrawal syndromes. So as we shut down, we will keep one eye open for the future and the other for the people of Ghana.

Thank you.

President John Mahama has appointed Regional Minister designates for six out of the ten regions. They are as follows:

1. Mr. Samuel Sarpong, Ashanti Region.

2. Hon. Eric Opoku, Brong Ahafo Region.

3. Mr. E. K. T. Addo, Central Region.

4. Hon. Nii Laryea Afotey Agbo, Greater Accra Region.

5. Mr. Bede A. Ziedeng, ...]]> Report by Jerome Kuseh, for Ghana Decides

President John Mahama has appointed Regional Minister designates for six out of the ten regions. They are as follows:

1. Mr. Samuel Sarpong, Ashanti Region.

2. Hon. Eric Opoku, Brong Ahafo Region.

3. Mr. E. K. T. Addo, Central Region.

4. Hon. Nii Laryea Afotey Agbo, Greater Accra Region.

5. Mr. Bede A. Ziedeng, Upper West Region.

6. Hon. Paul Evans Aidoo, Western Region.

In addition to this, the president has re-assigned some of the Minister designates he had previously nominated. Hon. Abdul Rashid Hassan Pelpuo is now Minister of State at the Presidency in-charge of Public-Private Partnerships designate. He was previously assigned as Minister of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts. The position has now been assigned to Mrs Elizabeth Ofosu-Agyare, who was formerly designated as Minister of State at the Presidency.

The previous list of Ministers of State at the Presidency has been updated to include the following specific designations at the office of the President:

1. Hon. Alhassan Azong, Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Public Sector Reform.

2. Hon. Abdul Rashid Hassan Pelpuo, Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Public-Private Partnerships.

3. Hon Alhaji Mustapha Ahmed, Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Development Authorities in the Office of the President.

4. Hon. Fifi Kwetey, Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Financial and Allied institutions in the Office of the President.

5. Alhaji Limuna Mohammed Muniru, Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Human Resource Development and Scholarships.

6. Hon. Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe Ghansah, as Minister of State at the Presidency in charge of Social and Allied institutions in the Office of the President.

In a related news, Members of Parliament (MPs) belonging to the New Patriotic Party (NPP) have announced their boycott of the vetting of ministers nominated by President John Mahama.

The MPs said they had reached the decision following a meeting with the National Executive of the party. The first batch of Minister designates are slated to be vetted on Thursday, 24 January, 2012.

The Supreme Court of Ghana granted the National Democratic Congress (NDC)  Joinder application seeking to join the election petition filed by the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) by a 6 to 3 majority decision.

The nine-member panel, which was presided over by Justice William Atuguba, heard arguments by both sides last week.

Justices Julius ...]]> Ghana Decides Desk Report.

The Supreme Court of Ghana granted the National Democratic Congress (NDC)  Joinder application seeking to join the election petition filed by the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) by a 6 to 3 majority decision.

The nine-member panel, which was presided over by Justice William Atuguba, heard arguments by both sides last week.

Justices Julius Ansah, P. Baffoe Bonnie and Anin Yeboah voted against the NDC Joinder motion. Justices Mrs. Justice Sophia Adinyira, William Atuguba, Ms. Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice G.S. Gbadegbe and Mrs. Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo all ruled in favour of the NDC.

The lead counsel for the NDC had argued that the party offered its platform to President Mahama as a candidate, and he was therefore an interested party in the case. The NPP had said there was no legal basis for the Motion filed by the NDC.

Supreme Court of Ghana

The NPP’s Presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo, his vice Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and party chairman Jake O. Lamptey had filed a case at the Supreme Court challenging the results that declared President John Mahama as winner of the 7 and 8 December polls.

The latest development is expected to open the way for the substantive case filed by NPP’s Nana Akuffo-Addo, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia and Jake Obetsebi Lamptey to commence fully.

We are receiving reports from the Supreme Court indicating that Ghana Decides Team Member, Mawuli Tsikata, has had his iPad and accreditation seized by people suspected to be from the National Security and Ghana Police.

Mr. Tsikata is Ghana Decides accredited member to the Supreme Court, ...]]> Ghana Decides Desk Report. [Last updated Tuesday 22 January 2013. 3.10PM]

We are receiving reports from the Supreme Court indicating that Ghana Decides Team Member, Mawuli Tsikata, has had his iPad and accreditation seized by people suspected to be from the National Security and Ghana Police.

Mr. Tsikata is Ghana Decides accredited member to the Supreme Court, and he has been covering the challenge of the 7 and 8 December electoral results by the New Patriotic Party (NPP). He was at the court premises this morning to cover the verdict of the Supreme Court on the application by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to join the suit.

The suspected National Security and Ghana Police officers had seized the iPad because Mr. Tsikata had taken a photograph within the premises. His accreditation card was returned to him without his iPad. There is no law prohibiting the taking of photographs at the Supreme Court of Ghana and Ghana Decides cannot ascertain why Mr. Tsikata’s device was seized or was not returned.

An hour ago, Mr. Tsikata tweeted:

“that moment when National Security operatives and the police choose to behave like thugs sent on a useless mission. #ElectionPetition”

An hour earlier, Joy FM journalist and blogger, Anny Osabutey had tweeted:

“Mawuli Tsikata of GhanadDecides’ [sic] Ipad seized by security officers 4 allegedly taking p in the court premises. #ElectionPetition”

Meanwhile, reports coming from the Supreme Court suggest a heavy police and security presence.

We can report that Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo, one of nine Justices on the NDC Joinder application has just ruled in favour of the NDC. Eight more Justices are expected to make a decision soon.

The Supreme Court of Ghana just granted the NDC Joinder application a ‘go’ by a 6 to 3 majority decision. Justices Julius Ansah, Bafooe Bonnie and Anin Yeboah voted against the NDC Joinder motion.

UPDATE:

****Ghana Decides Team Member, Mawuli Tsikata, received his iPad a few moments ago. The security officials apologised for the incidence.****

Tweet from Mawuli Tsikata

The ongoing election legal tussle over the December 2012 general election between Nana Akuffo-Addo & 2 Others v.  John Dramani Mahama and Electoral Commission have all the potentials of being the biggest constitutional law case in Ghana probably dethroning the celebrated cases of ...]]> Written by Kwesi Baffoe Entsiful, Esq. Baffoe Entsiful, is a practising lawyer in Ghana.

The ongoing election legal tussle over the December 2012 general election between Nana Akuffo-Addo & 2 Others v.  John Dramani Mahama and Electoral Commission have all the potentials of being the biggest constitutional law case in Ghana probably dethroning the celebrated cases of Re Akoto and Tufuour A-G.

The petition seeks to challenge the election of President John Mahama in the 2012 presidential elections where the Electoral Commission declared him as elected president. The petitioners have alleged among other irregularities and breaches of the various pieces of legislation. The Electoral Commission and the President as respondents have filed answers to the petition.

The political party, on whose ticket the president contested the election, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has filed an application to join the suit claiming to have an interest or would be affected by the outcome of the case. The petitioners are vehemently opposed to the application.

The Motion for Joinder was scheduled to be moved by the NDC on the January 10, 2013.  Media reports have it that the petitioners through their counsel sought to raise a preliminary objection against one of the judges on the panel, on the suitability of His Lordship Justice William Atuguba as we are told by the media.  It is rumoured that he is the cousin of the newly appointed Executive Secretary of the President, Dr. Raymond Atuguba. This article does not discuss the merits of the petition, but instead is aimed at the explanation of the general issue of empanelling of Judges at the Supreme Court, how the law Lords arrive at their decisions, and what happens when there is objection against a member of a panel or a single judge sitting.

The issue of the panel system has been with us as a country for quite some time now, predating the 1992 Constitution. The panel system simply means that not all the judges at the Supreme Court get to sit on each and every case that comes before the court. The judges sit in groups, differently constituted at all time. The system is supported by the 1992 Constitution in its Article 128(2) which provides that “the Supreme Court shall be duly constituted for its work by not less than five Supreme Court Justices except as otherwise provided in article 133 of this Constitution.” When this provision is read in tandem with clause 1 of Article 128 which also states that “the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief justice and not less than nine other justices of the Supreme Court” it leads to the conclusion that the Constitution anticipate the panel system. The reason being that if the court is duly constituted for its work by not less than five justices of a court, which has at least nine justices, then the logical conclusion is that panels of at least five judges may be empanelled to handle a different case.

Therefore, Article 128 of the 1992 Constitution serves as the constitutional basis for the panel system in Ghana.  This is because if the number of judges are at least ten and it is properly constituted for its work by not less than five justices, then obviously not all the justices may sit on every case.

The court always sits in odd numbers and by practice the court ordinarily sits in groups of five; and so by virtue of that, there is no situation of a tie when it comes to voting on decisions. In the past where there were not enough justices of the Supreme Court, other superior justices were adopted to sit with the panel in order to form a quorum.

There is however, an exception to the minimum of five justices duly constituting a panel for sitting as provided for under Article 128(2).  Article 128(2) makes reference to Article 133, which deals with review of the court’s earlier decision. Clause 2 of 133 requires that the Supreme Court in reviewing it decisions should be constituted solely for that purpose by a panel of not less than seven justices. The figure seven is employed by the constitution based on the premise that the ordinary bench would have been constituted by the minimum constitutional number of five.

The idea behind the review is to add a new mind to the ordinary bench that decided the case at the first instance. That is why when the Constitution recommends that when the court is duly constituted for its work by not less than five justices, when the same case is on review the panel should be at least seven. This is to ensure that fresh minds are brought on board to take a second look at the case. This also means that if seven justices sit as an ordinary bench, then on review the court would be duly constituted for its review function by an enhanced or enlarged panel of judges; and, it is usually not less than nine justices.

Where the original panel was more than five justices the review panel ought to be more than seven.

One of the reasons that may be given for the panel system is that it leads to expeditious trial and disposal of cases.  This is because unlike the US, in Ghana, except in very few limited cases, every case can be pursued up to the Supreme Court and so without this system the court would be inundated with cases, which has the potential of grinding the wheels of our judicial system to a hall.

Currently the Supreme Court is made up of fourteen justices including the Chief Justice. I provide below the list of the justices and the Presidents that appointed them.

Having established constitutional basis for the panel system, I now discuss how the court is empanelled. The empanelling of the Supreme Court, that is the selection of judges to sit on any particular case, is an administrative function of the Chief Justice. That is to say it discretionary power of the Chief Justice to select or empanel a court out of the total number of membership of the court at any particular point in time. It may be important to also state that the 1992 Constitution does not have an upper ceiling to the membership of the Supreme Court. It however, indicates the minimum number of justices which it not less than nine justices.

When a panel is duly constituted, it is presided over by the most senior justice on the panel. Where the Chief Justice is part of the panel, then he or she will preside over the Court.  This is supported by Article 128(3) of the 1992 Constitution which provides that the Chief Justice presides over sittings of the court when he/she is on the panel and in his/her absence the most senior of the Justices of the Supreme Court presides.  The seniority of justices of the Supreme Court is determined by his or her date of appointment to the Supreme Court and it is in that respect that His Lordship Justice W. A. Atuguba was the president of the court as constituted for the NDC joinder application.  By this method, none of the Supreme Court justices gets to know whether or not he/she is going to be on a panel until informed by the chief Justice. The constitution of the panel changes for cases, and that there is no permanent panel. The size of a typical panel is five justices, with a review panel of seven.

When the Supreme Court is empanelled by the Chief Justice any of the justices may recuse himself on the basis that he know a party to the suit or has some form of interest in the case. This interest could be direct or indirect and does not have to be pecuniary interest. This situation is when the judge on his own volition, or as is usually called suo moto, excuse himself. The alternative to personal recusal is that a party appearing before such a panel has the right to object to a particular judge on the panel as was in the instant case. Again, the  judge against whom the objection has been raised may decide to recuse himself/herself allows the party raising the objection to adduce evidence and or argument for the objection and for the court to decide whether the judge ought to be disqualified to sit on that case.  The standard test for the objector to meet is what the Supreme Court has stated in many of the cases as the test of real likelihood of bias and which must be proved on preponderance of probability.

From the above, it could safely be said that the petitioners in the instant case had the right to object to any judge being a member of the panel selected by the Chief Justice to sit on the Joinder Application. Again such objection could be done in an open court or as is mostly the practice to approach the bench and request to raise the issue in camera, but whichever procedure to follow is at the discretion of the court or the presiding judge. And so the Supreme Court was right when it asked the petitioners to file a motion for the said application. The petitioners would then have carried the burden of proving whatever allegation they may have had against this particular judge and for the court to determine whether they have successfully satisfied the standard of real likelihood of bias on the part of Justice William Atuguba.

The Chief Justice empaneled the following justices to hear the Joinder Application:

1. Mr Justice William Atuguba (Presiding)
2. Mr Justice Julius Ansah
3. Mrs. Justice Sophia Adinyira
4. Ms. Justice Rose Owusu
5. Mr Justice Jones Dotse
6. Mr Justice Anin Yeboah
7. Mr. Justice Baffoe-Bonnie
8. Mr Justice G.S. Gbadegbe
9. Mrs. Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo

It will be extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, to speak with certainty about either political or legal philosophies or inclination of our Supreme Court justices. This I may blame the legislature in not doing well to let Ghanaians get to the political beliefs or philosophies or ideas of our judges during their vetting. Our best guess would be probably to take a cue from their appointment particularly the regime that appointed each one. We may hazard a guess by saying a regime or government would appoint one to the Supreme Court if it is satisfied that the appointee, shares the political ideals, or at least have some similar political inclinations. The appointive authority may have made wrong deductions or perceptions of the appointee. This may lead to disappointment on the part of the appointive authority; the reason being that once a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court he/she tends to be impartial, neutral and adhered strictly to judicial principles. Example can be given of Supreme Court in the early years of the majority’s public. The majority of the justices at the Supreme Court were appointed by President Jerry Rawlings or the P/NDC administration, yet most of their decisions involving high profile cases went against the regime that appointed them by being faithful to the judicial oath they had sworn to. This example is not to demonstrate how these nine justices sitting on the present joinder application are deciding the issues that would come before them.

Of the nine justices empanelled to sit on the Joinder Application, six of them were appointed by the NPP administration and three were appointed by NDC administration. I cannot conclude that these justices share political or philosophical beliefs with the regimes that appointed them. And even if they do, I cannot conclude as there is no shred of empirical evidence to show that they tend to be swayed in their judgments in favour of the Presidents that appointed them. A recent example is Chief Justice Roberts of the United States appointed by President George Bush, a republican President. When the Supreme Court was to decide on the faith of “Obamacare” which was vehemently opposed by the Republicans in the latter part of 2012, Chief Justice Roberts voted to save the law, thereby defeating the move by the Republicans to change the law through the law court. Probably, historians or legal scholars should divert their attention to the study of our Supreme Court justices in the past and the present and their political, philosophical and legal leanings.

It is significant to indicate that during decisions taken by a panel sitting on a case, all the judges have equal vote. Each justice on the panel votes to determine the outcome of a case during pre-judgment conference. At the pre-judgment conference the justices discuss the cases thoroughly and then vote. Where judges vote and they are unanimous in their decision, one amongst them is selected to write the judgment and circulate it among themselves for inputs from other justices before the final judgment is read in open court. Where the vote leads to majority/minority decision the same process is gone through with each side and some may change their mind to join the other after reading draft copy of what other side had written. Where the presiding judge is in the minority he or she usually chooses to write the minority opinion. There is cordiality, cooperation and coordination among the judges as such there is hardly surprises on each other as to what the other is going to say.

It must also be noted that each judge on a panel for any particular case may decide to write a separate opinion even when his or her views are in line with that of the majority or the minority. This usually happens when even though he or she may have voted to go with the majority or the minority, he or she disagrees with their reasoning and so may opt to write a separate opinion but conclude in joining the majority or the minority to uphold or dismiss a relief or case.

President John Mahama has issued another list of minister designates in a press statement released on Sunday, 20 January 2013. The list contained the following persons as ministerial nominees.

1. Dr Henry Seidu Daannaa, Ministry of Chieftaincy and Traditional Affairs

2. Mr Kwesi Awhoi, Ministry of Interior

3. Hon. Mark Woyongo, Ministry ...]]> Report by Jerome Kuseh, for Ghana Decides

President John Mahama has issued another list of minister designates in a press statement released on Sunday, 20 January 2013. The list contained the following persons as ministerial nominees.

1. Dr Henry Seidu Daannaa, Ministry of Chieftaincy and Traditional Affairs

2. Mr Kwesi Awhoi, Ministry of Interior

3. Hon. Mark Woyongo, Ministry of Defence

4. Hon. Abdul Rashid Hassan Pelpuo, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Industry

5. Mr Haruna Iddrisu, Ministry of Trade and Industry

6. Mr Nayon Bilijo, Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development

7. Hon. Alhassan Azong, Minister of State at the Presidency

8. Hon. Alhaji Mustapha Ahmed, Minister of State at the Presidency

9. Mrs. Elizabeth Ofosu-Agyare, Minister of State at the Presidency

10. Hon. Fiifi Kwetey, Minister of State at the Presidency

11. Alhaji Limuna Mohammed Mumuni, Minister of State at the Presidency

12. Hon. Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe Ghansah, Minister of State at the Presidency

The appointment of ministers  is subject to parliamentary approval.

The nominees are Mr Seth Terkper (Finance and Economic Planning), Ms Hanna Tetteh (Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration), Alhaji Collins Dauda (Water Resources, Works and Housing) and Clement Kofi Humado (Agriculture).

The ...]]> Parliament’s Appointment Committee has fixed January 24 and 25 to vet six persons, who have been nominated by President John Dramani Mahama, for ministerial appointments.

The nominees are Mr Seth Terkper (Finance and Economic Planning), Ms Hanna Tetteh (Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration), Alhaji Collins Dauda (Water Resources, Works and Housing) and Clement Kofi Humado (Agriculture).

The rest are Alhaji A.B. Inusah Fuseini (Lands and Natural Resources) and Alhaji Amin Amidu Sulemani (Roads).

The Deputy Clerk to Parliament, Alhaji Ibrahim Gombilla, made it known in a public announcement on Saturday. According to the announcement, vetting would commence at 10.00 hours on both days at the Speaker’s Conference Room.

It invited written memoranda on the nominees from the general public to reach the Clerk to Parliament not later than 10.00 hours on January 23.

President Mahama has so far nominated 19 persons to various ministries

The Tamale High court, presided over by Justice Lawrence Mensah, has thrown out a writ of summons brought against Mr. Alhassan Dahamani and the Electoral Commission, seeking to disqualify his candidature for the Tamale North seat.

The court, subsequently ordered the plaintiff, Alhaji Abukari Sumani, to pay GHc500.00 to the defendant as ...]]>

Supreme Court of Ghana

The Tamale High court, presided over by Justice Lawrence Mensah, has thrown out a writ of summons brought against Mr. Alhassan Dahamani and the Electoral Commission, seeking to disqualify his candidature for the Tamale North seat.

The court, subsequently ordered the plaintiff, Alhaji Abukari Sumani, to pay GHc500.00 to the defendant as cost for damages, and asked him (plaintiff) to file a petition since the parliamentary election was over.

The plaintiff, who is also the immediate past MP for the Tamale North, on 2 November, 2012, brought a case against the defendant, alleging that he could not be a candidate for the area since he was not a resident, contrary to the representation of people’s law PNDC Law 284.

He argued that under the law, the defendant was supposed to have resided in the constituency “for an aggregate of five years” in order to qualify as a parliamentary candidate, stressing that the defendant had never resided in the area in his entire life.

Alhaji Abukari Sumani lost the Tamale North seat securing 10,885 behind the winner Alhassan Dahamani.