According to him, the Commission needs to be “smart” and tactful to ensure a successful implementation of the law.

[contextly_sidebar id=”jUlcxyrcR1mTPyIENmLSUoQBEXOHyrJm”]The Accra High Court on Monday ordered the EC to implement the ROPAA which was passed in 2006 and sought to empower eligible Ghanaians outside the country to vote in national elections.

The law has, however, not been implemented by successive governments, leaving many Ghanaians abroad disenfranchised.

Albert Arhin, who is also the National Coordinator for the Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO) in an interview on Eyewitness News said the decision of the court was welcome and will deepen the country’s democratic credentials. 

“To some of us, especially CODEO, it is good news. It is a good verdict, it enhances democracy because you don’t need to disenfranchise anybody… with this verdict, the Commission has to be very smart and careful to revisit the whole thing. They need to have a Constitutional Instrument to back it,” he said.

He argued that it was long overdue for the Electoral Commission to embrace the opportunity of extending voting to citizens outside the country.

“In other African countries, their Electoral Commission is doing it, and I think that our Electoral Commission has developed into a state where we should be able to do a thing like this. The others who are doing it are not better than the Electoral Commission we have here. We should be able to learn from best practices and be able to implement this. It is not beyond us.”

The Electoral Commission had argued that its failure not to allow Ghanaians outside the country case their ballots during national elections was due logistical and financial constraints but according to Mr. Arhin, the EC on its own cannot suggest it does not have adequate funds to support voting by Ghanaians living outside the country.

He said the EC must request for funding from the government who would then decide whether to allocate some money to the Commission for this purpose.

“The EC cannot say it does not have funding. It should be the government that says it does not have funds for the EC. You [EC] must prepare your budget and present it to government and if the government tells you it has no funding then you can tell Ghanaians that this is what I did and they said there is no money. But you cannot sit there on your own and say there is no money,” he said.

He further urged the Commission to begin preparations towards the implementation of the law for the country’s 2020 general elections.

‘Diffulcult to implement ROPAA’

Mr. Arhin’s comments come after suggestions from the National Organiser of the NDC, Kofi Adams, that the implementation of the Act will be difficult.

According to him the difficulties that political parties face in mobilizing and deploying officers to monitor electoral processes will be compounded by the implementation of the law.

“Of course the issues that we raised are still very relevant today. The fact still remains that political parties registered in Ghana here still have challenges to monitor the political processes even within Ghana so now you are going to follow every Ghanaian everywhere. Is the Electoral Commission going to now resource and support political parties to make sure that they reach everywhere there will be a Ghanaian to campaign and to track the process or in other words to present party agents? We still insist that the law as it is, is very difficult to implement.”

–

By: Jonas Nyabor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post EC capable of implementing ROPAA – CODEO appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The Court, presided over by His Lordship Justice Anthony K. Yeboah, on Monday ordered the Electoral Commission (EC) to implement the law within 12 months.

[contextly_sidebar id=”9fY1VbjAQb9kMlERqTs20f2m3X7QN1R9″]Kofi Adams, however, told Citi News the difficulties that political parties face in mobilizing and deploying officers to monitor electoral processes will be compounded by an implementation of the law.

“Of course the issues that we raised are still very relevant today. The fact still remains that political parties registered in Ghana here still have challenges to monitor the political processes even within Ghana so now you are going to follow every Ghanaian everywhere. Is the Electoral Commission going to now resource and support political parties to make sure that they reach everywhere there will be a Ghanaian to campaign and to track the process or in other words to present party agents? We still insist that the law as it is, is very difficult to implement.”

We’re excited about judgement 

Despite Mr. Adams’ concerns, the New Patriotic Party’s Branch Acting Organiser in the United States, Issa Balla Saeed, told Citi News that both the party and the Ghanaian community are happy about the judgment.

“The NPP members in particular and Ghanaians in general were very excited about this. I should say this has been out there for some time during Kufuor’s administration. Both NPP and Ghanaians, in general, are happy about the judgement.”

Court’s ruling

Delivering the judgement, Justice Anthony Yeboah said the EC had for the last ten years breached the rights of Ghanaians living abroad by failing to give them an opportunity to vote.

He thus condemned the EC’s failure to address challenges preventing Ghanaians living abroad from voting, and specifically asked them to ensure that arrangements are made for such people to vote in the 2020 elections.

He said the ROPAA law was passed by Parliament, and that the EC can cause the same Parliament to approve funding for them for the implementation.

The ROPAA law seeks to empower eligible Ghanaians abroad to vote in national elections. Successive governments have failed to ensure its implementation, since its passage in 2006.

The applicants were praying the court to declare a violation of their human rights with the non-implementation of the law, and a subsequent order for them to take part in general elections and national referenda while residing abroad.

EC’s arguments

The Electoral Commission at the last hearing prayed the court to allow it prove it was in the process of implementing the law, but failed to provide enough evidence to that effect.

The EC primarily argued that, it had plans to implement the law and should not be compelled to do so.

It also challenged the process by which the applicants invoked the court’s jurisdiction as wrong, while insisting that the right to vote is not a human right.

State Attorneys representing the 2nd Respondent in court had at the start of the case also told the court that they will associate themselves with arguments of lawyers of the 1st Respondent (EC), throughout the entire process.

The case was originally filed in 2016, but withdrawn ahead of the elections and refiled after the elections.

The applicants are Kofi A. Boateng, Nellie Kemevor, Obed Danquah, Christiana Sillim and Agyenim Boateng, all residing in New York State and Kentucky in the USA.

Reliefs as spelt out by the applicants are listed below:

The Applicants who are all members of the Progressive Alliance Movement (PAM) a New York State incorporated nonprofit organization, were seeking from the Court “a Declaration that Applicants have fundamental human rights under Articles 17(2), 42 and 33(5), of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2006 [Act 699] Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article 25 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Protocol 1 (article 3) of the European Convention on Human Rights

a) “to be registered as voter[s]” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

b) to be issued voters Identity Cards “to enable” them “to vote in public elections and referenda” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centres close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

c) “to vote in public elections and referenda” particularly Presidential and Parliamentary elections while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centres close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

d) A Declaration that the non-compliance of 1st Respondent in particular to operationalize the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

e) A Declaration 2nd Respondent’s failure, neglect or refusal to uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalization of the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

f) A Declaration that each of the Applicant’s “right to vote and entitle[ment] to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda” in light of the Act 699 and said various laws and legal instruments is not subject to any condition precedent aside the article 42 age and sanity of mind criteria;

g) A Declaration that it is discriminatory for Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to continue to register abroad and ensure that a category of citizens studying abroad or working in Ghana’s Missions/Embassies abroad vote in public elections and referenda while in abroad to exclusion of the Applicants.

h) An Order of mandamus directed at Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to forthwith, uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalisation of the Act 699.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Implementation of ROPAA will be difficult – Kofi Adams appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The High Court in Accra, Human Rights Division, presided over by His Lordship Justice Anthony K. Yeboah, today [Monday], ordered the Electoral Commission to implement within 12 months, the Representation of the People Amendment Act also known as the ROPAA law, 2006 [Act 699].

[contextly_sidebar id=”wug15FEGcUvVDWP5TXPepi2PoaFxgM0M”]Justice Anthony Yeboah said the EC had for the last ten years breached the rights of Ghanaians living abroad by failing to give them an opportunity to vote.

He thus condemned the EC’s failure to address challenges preventing Ghanaians living abroad from voting, and specifically asked them to ensure that arrangements are made for such people to vote in the 2020 elections.

He said the ROPAA law was passed by Parliament, and that the EC can cause the same Parliament to approve funding for them for the implementation.

The ROPAA law seeks to empower eligible Ghanaians abroad to vote in national elections. Successive governments have failed to ensure its implementation, since its passage in 2006.

The applicants were praying the court to declare a violation of their human rights with the non-implementation of the law, and a subsequent order for them to take part in general elections and national referenda while residing abroad.

EC’s arguments

The Electoral Commission at the last hearing prayed the court to allow it prove it was in the process of implementing the law, but failed to provide enough evidence to that effect.

The EC primarily argued that, it had plans to implement the law and should not be compelled to do so.

It also challenged the process by which the applicants invoked the court’s jurisdiction as wrong, while insisting that the right to vote is not a human right.

State Attorneys representing the 2nd Respondent in court had at the start of the case also told the court that they will associate themselves with arguments of lawyers of the 1st Respondent (EC), throughout the entire process.

The case was originally filed in 2016, but withdrawn ahead of the elections and refiled after the elections.

The applicants are Kofi A. Boateng, Nellie Kemevor, Obed Danquah, Christiana Sillim and Agyenim Boateng, all residing in New York State and Kentucky in the USA.

Reliefs as spelt out by the applicants are listed below:

The Applicants who are all members of the Progressive Alliance Movement (PAM) a New York State incorporated nonprofit organization, were seeking from the Court “a Declaration that Applicants have fundamental human rights under Articles 17(2), 42 and 33(5), of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2006 [Act 699] Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article 25 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Protocol 1 (article 3) of the European Convention on Human Rights

a) “to be registered as voter[s]” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;
b) to be issued voters Identity Cards “to enable” them “to vote in public elections and referenda” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centres close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

c) “to vote in public elections and referenda” particularly Presidential and Parliamentary elections while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centres close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

d) A Declaration that the non-compliance of 1st Respondent in particular to operationalize the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

e) A Declaration 2nd Respondent’s failure, neglect or refusal to uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalization of the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;
f) A Declaration that each of the Applicant’s “right to vote and entitle[ment] to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda” in light of the Act 699 and said various laws and legal instruments is not subject to any condition precedent aside the article 42 age and sanity of mind criteria;

g) A Declaration that it is discriminatory for Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to continue to register abroad and ensure that a category of citizens studying abroad or working in Ghana’s Missions/Embassies abroad vote in public elections and referenda while in abroad to exclusion of the Applicants.

h) An Order of mandamus directed at Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to forthwith, uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalisation of the Act 699.
–
By: citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post Court clears Ghanaians abroad to vote in 2020 polls appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Justice Anthony Yeboah said the EC had for the last ten years breached the rights of Ghanaians living abroad by failing to give them an opportunity to vote.

He thus condemned the EC’s failure to address challenges preventing Ghanaians living abroad from voting, and specifically asked them to ensure that arrangements are made for such people to vote in the 2020 elections.

He said the ROPAA law was passed by Parliament, and that the EC can cause the same Parliament to approve funding for them to ensure the implementation.

The ROPAA law seeks to empower eligible Ghanaians abroad to vote in national elections. Successive governments have failed to ensure its implementation, since its passage in 2006.

The applicants were praying the court to declare a violation of their human rights with the non-implementation of the law, and a subsequent order for them to take part in general elections and national referenda while residing abroad.

EC’s arguments

The Electoral Commission at the last hearing prayed the court to allow it prove it was in the process of implementing the law, but failed to provide enough evidence to that effect.

The EC, primarily argued that, it had plans to implement the law and should not be compelled to do so.

It also challenged the process by which the applicants invoked the court’s jurisdiction as wrong, while insisting that the right to vote is not a human right.

State Attorneys representing the 2nd Respondent in court had at the start of the case also told the court that they will associate themselves with arguments of lawyers of the 1st Respondent (EC), throughout the entire process.

The case was originally filed in 2016, but withdrawn ahead of the elections and refiled after the elections.

The applicants are Kofi A. Boateng, Nellie Kemevor, Obed Danquah, Christiana Sillim and Agyenim Boateng, all residing in New York State and Kentucky in the USA.

Reliefs as spelt out by the applicants are listed below :

The Applicants who are all members of the Progressive Alliance Movement (PAM) a New York State incorporated nonprofit organization, were seeking from the Court “a Declaration that Applicants have fundamental human rights under Articles 17(2), 42 and 33(5), of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2006 [Act 699] Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article 25 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Protocol 1 (article 3) of the European Convention on Human Rights

a) “to be registered as voter[s]” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

b) to be issued voters Identity Cards “to enable” them “to vote in public elections and referenda” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

c) “to vote in public elections and referenda” particularly Presidential and Parliamentary elections while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

d) A Declaration that the non-compliance of 1st Respondent in particular to operationalize the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

e) A Declaration 2nd Respondent’s failure, neglect or refusal to uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalization of the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

f) A Declaration that each of the Applicant’s “right to vote and entitle[ment] to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda” in light of the Act 699 and said various laws and legal instruments is not subject to any condition precedent aside the article 42 age and sanity of mind criteria;

g) A Declaration that it is discriminatory for Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to continue to register abroad and ensure that a category of citizens studying abroad or working in Ghana’s Missions/Embassies abroad vote in public elections and referenda while in abroad to exclusion of the Applicants.

h) An Order of mandamus directed at Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to forthwith, uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalisation of the Act 699.

–

By: Marian Ansah & Fred Djabanor/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah

The post Court orders EC to implement ROPAA in 12 months appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The law seeks to empower eligible Ghanaians abroad to vote in national elections. Successive governments have failed to ensure its implementation, since its passage in 2006.

The applicants are therefore praying the court to declare a violation of their human right with the non-implementation of the law, and a subsequent order for them to take part in general elections and national referenda while residing abroad.

EC’s arguments 

The Electoral Commission at the last hearing prayed the court to allow it prove it was in the process of implementing the law, but failed to provide enough evidence to that effect.

The EC, primarily argued that, it had plans to implement the law and should not be compelled to do so.

It also challenged the process by which the applicants invoked the court’s jurisdiction as wrong, while insisting that the right to vote is not a human right.

State Attorneys representing the 2^nd Respondent in court had at the start of the case also told the court that they will associate themselves with arguments of lawyers of the 1^st Respondent (EC), throughout the entire process.

The case was originally filed in 2016, but withdrawn ahead of the elections and refiled after the elections.

The applicants are Kofi A. Boateng, Nellie Kemevor, Obed Danquah, Christiana Sillim and Agyenim Boateng, all residing in New York State and Kentucky in the USA.

Reliefs as spelt out by the applicants are listed below :

The Applicants who are all members of the Progressive Alliance Movement (PAM) a New York State incorporated nonprofit organization, seek from the Court “a Declaration that Applicants have fundamental human rights under Articles 17(2), 42 and 33(5), of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2006 [Act 699] Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Article 25 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Protocol 1 (article 3) of the European Convention on Human Rights

a)    “to be registered as voter[s]” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

b)   to be issued voters Identity Cards “to enable” them “to vote in public elections and referenda” while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

c)    “to vote in public elections and referenda” particularly Presidential and Parliamentary elections while resident abroad and being outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana at the time of such elections, and doing so from/at their places of residence abroad or designated centers close to their places of residence abroad or from/at the Ghana Mission/Embassy within their jurisdiction abroad;

d)   A Declaration that the non-compliance of 1st Respondent in particular to operationalize the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

e)    A Declaration 2nd Respondent’s failure, neglect or refusal to uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalization of the Act 699 since same became law on the 24th day of February 2006 is a breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights under said various laws and legal instruments;

f)     A Declaration that each of the Applicant’s “right to vote and entitle[ment] to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda” in light of the Act 699  and said various laws and legal instruments is not subject to any condition precedent aside the article 42 age and sanity of mind criteria;

g)   A Declaration that it is discriminatory for Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to continue to register abroad and ensure that a category of citizens studying abroad or working in Ghana’s Missions/Embassies abroad vote in public elections and referenda while in abroad to exclusion of the Applicants.

h)   An Order of mandamus directed at Respondents particularly 1st Respondent to forthwith, uphold/ensure full compliance/operationalisation of the Act 699;

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post High Court to deliver verdict on ROPAA implementation today appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

They contend that the non-implementation of the law is a breach of their fundamental human rights under the laws of Ghana; particularly Articles 17(2), 42 and 33(5) of the 1992 constitution.

[contextly_sidebar id=”Bt5FMEEhyVgr1OKHyGtrjUHfUB6kbs83″]The applicants are thus praying the court to order the Electoral Commission to ensure compliance with Act 699.

The applicants had first filed a similar lawsuit in April 2016 but withdrew the application after the EC filed its affidavit in opposition.

They also withdrew the lawsuit because the EC attached certain documents which indicated a clear road-map for the effective implementation of Act 699.

The basis of their suit is Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution, which states: “Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.”

Among the other reliefs being sought, the plaintiffs are seeking “a declaration that each of the applicants’ ‘right to vote and entitlement to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda’ in light of the Act 699 and said various and legal instruments is not subject to any condition precedent aside the article 42 citizenship, age and sanity of mind criteria.”

They also want a declaration that “it is discriminatory for respondents, [particularly the Electoral Commission] to continue to register abroad and ensure that a category of citizens studying abroad or working in Ghana’s Missions/Embassies abroad vote in public elections and referenda while living abroad to the exclusion of the applicants.”

–

By: Fred Djabanor/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post US-based Ghanaians sue EC over ROPAA appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.