The Klottey Korle MP who lost to Dr. Zanetor Rawlings in the November primaries says the Supreme Court’s decision did not consider the governing party’s constitution in its May 19, 2016 ruling.
While Nii Armah expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings hailed the decision after she applied to the Supreme Court to stop the High Court from hearing Nii Armah’s case against her.
Dr. Zanetor had wanted the High Court to dismiss the case against her. But aftertwo failed attempts, her lawyers said the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it requires constitutional interpretation.
She maintained that the High Court usurped the powers of the Supreme Court when its trial judge Justice Kwaku T. Ackah Boafo interpreted Article 94 (1)(a) of the constitution.
This article is at the heart of the legal drama surrounding the election of Dr. Zanetor Rawlings during the governing National Democratic Congress' parliamentary primaries in November last year.
The provision states: (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament (MP) unless; (a) he is a citizen of Ghana, has attained the age of twenty-one years and is a registered voter;
The incumbent Klottey Korle MP, Nii Armah Ashittey who went to court in January 2016 after losing the November 2015 primaries, insists that Dr. Zanetor Rawlings was not a registered voter before the elections and therefore did not qualify to contest the elections.
Dr. Zanetor was unsucessful in attempts to get the case dismissed as her lawyers believed it lacked merit. The trial judge, Justice Kweku Ackaah-Boafoawarded the cost of ¢2,500 against Dr Zanetor for wasting the court's time with “frivolous motions”.
After two High Court rulings in favour of Nii Armah, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings escalated the matter to the Supreme Court and won a decisive preliminary ruling.
Nii Armah wants the case brought back to the High Court. Dr. Zanetor wants the case to stay at the Supreme Court.
Her lawyers have been asked to file a response to the request for a review by June 10,2016.
The Chief Justice would be expected to reconstitute the panel to hear the review application. The court is expected to sit on June 15, 2016.