EC Chair suit against Barker-Vormawor, CJ adjourned sine die for panel reconstitution
When the case was called, lawyers for the Electoral Commission indicated to the seven-member panel that it had a motion to discontinue the matter.
The Supreme Court has adjourned sine die a suit filed by the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission against activist and lawyer, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, Chief Justice and the Attorney General.
This is to enable the current panel, which is chaired by the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo, to be reconstituted.
When the case was called on May 5, lawyers for the Electoral Commission indicated to the seven-member panel that it had a motion to discontinue the matter.
However, due to the fact that the Chief Justice, who is also a party in the suit, is presiding over the matter, the court had to adjourn for the panel to be reconstituted.
Before the adjournment, the Chief Justice inquired from the parties if any had an objection to her inclusion on the panel.
That was where the first defendant, Oliver-Barker, indicated his objection to the Chief Justice’s inclusion on the panel.
The case was then adjourned sine die for the reconstitution of the panel.
The suit stemmed from a petition submitted by the #FixTheCountry Movement to President Akufo-Addo invoking the constitutional procedure for the removal of the EC Chair and her deputies over their handling of the SALL issue.
In their petition, the group contended that the EC Chair and her deputies, per their conduct, intentionally denied the people of Santrokofi, Akpafu, and Likpe (SALL) the right to vote in the 2020 elections.
They, therefore, held in light of the above that the conduct of the EC bosses meets the threshold of stated misbehavior and/or incompetence as defined under Article 146 of the Constitution of 1992 and thus should be removed.
But in their writ at the Supreme Court, the EC officials contended that Oliver Vormawor had published the content of the petition seeking their removal in the public domain, contrary to Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that: "All proceedings under this Article shall be held in camera, and the justice or chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defense by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice."
