Home > Politics
PNC’s Ramadan heads to court; wants Supreme Court's decision on Monarh reversed
From: Ghana | Myjoyonline.com          Published On: May 31, 2013, 00:41 GMT
  Comments ()     Email     Print  


PNC’s Ramadan heads to court; wants Supreme Court's decision on Monarh reversed

Abu Ramadan

The National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention (PNC), Mr Abu Ramadan, has filed a writ at the Supreme Court asking the court to review its decision to allow any party aggrieved with the judgement of a presidential petition to file for a review.

He is also praying the court to review its decision not to sit on public holidays and weekends on a presidential petition.

The court had on April 30, 2013, ruled that the directive by Rule 69 C (5) of Constitutional Instrument 74, which provides in part that "the court shall sit from day to day, including public holidays, when hearing a presidential election petition”, was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

The court again ruled that Rule 71B of C.I. 74 which provides that the decision of the Supreme Court in respect of a petition presented to challenge the election of a President cannot be reviewed, was also unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect.

Interestingly, that writ was filed by the General Secretary of the same party, PNC, Bernard Monarh.

But Mr Ramadan told Joy News he had “waited in patience” for the Attorney General to go back to seek a review but realised the AG would not do that anytime soon, "and for that matter time is running out".

He therefore decided to invoke his rights as stipulated under Articles 2 and 3 under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana to seek a review.

According to him, he is “convinced” that issues they are going to put before the court “will stand under law”.

Mr Ramadan said he was moved by what he said is the slow manner the election petition hearing is travelling as well as the economic effect the petition is having on the people and does not want a repetition of the whole process irrespective of how the original case goes.

Comments ( ): Have Your Say >>