Zanetor wants High Court judge removed from hearing her case

Date published: Tuesday, 3rd May 2016

Dr. Zanetor Rawlings

NDC parliamentary nominee for Klottey Korle, Dr Zanetor Rawlings wants the Supreme Court to bar High Court judge Ackah-Boafo from hearing a case contesting her candidature.
According to Dr Zanetor's lawyer, Godwin Tamakloe, the judge erred in law when he wrongly assumed jurisdiction to interpret Article 94(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The judge had ruled that once Dr. Zanetor had put herself up as a contestant, she was caught by Article 94(1)(a) which required that she must be a registered voter at the time of her participation in the parliamentary primaries last November.

The function of interpretation of the Constitution is a Supreme Court responsibility that should not have been exercised by the High Court judge, the embattled nominee's lawyers argue.

Nii Armah Ashietey, the incumbent Member of Parliament who lost to Dr. Rawlings last year went to court in January, challenging  Zanetor's eligibility to participate in the November 11, 2015 primaries citing constitutional breaches.

According to Mr. Ashitey, Dr. Zanetor Rawlings did not qualify to be elected as the parliamentary nominee since at the time of the contest she was not a registered voter in the country.

Dr. Rawlings, however, registered last week Thursday after the Electoral Commission began a limited voter registration exercise.

With the case still pending at the High Court, Dr. Rawlings ran to the Supreme Court in February to ask it to stop the High Court judge from continuing with the case.

She says the High Court had on two occasions dismissed applications brought by her lawyers asking that the case be thrown out and on the second occasion awarded cost against her.

But running to the defence of the High Court judge, counsel for Nii Armah Ashitey, Gary Nimako said the judge did no wrong in his ruling.

Mr. Nimako has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the application by Dr. Zanetor. To him, it was just another ploy to waste the court's time.

The court has adjourned the case to April 19 for its ruling.


Related Articles