The Attorney-General (A-G) has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to quash the decision of a Ho High Court on December 23, this year, in respect of an injunction against John Peter Amewu, Hohoe MP Elect from holding himself up as representing the constituency.
The Ho High Court presided over by Mr Justice George Buadi in an ex-parte application, restrained the MP-elect from taking his seat as Member of Parliament for the constituency.
The A-G is seeking an order restraining the High Court from hearing or conducting proceedings in the suit before it.
According to the AG the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution matter in a parliamentary election petition and grant any reliefs, interim, interlocutory or whatsoever.
The A-G is seeking an order of certiorari directed at the Ho High Court, the AG said the Court’s decision on December 23, was void and same violates Article 99 of the constitution.
Meanwhile, the AG in an ex-parte application has asked for abridgement of time within which the interested parties to the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may respond.
The ex-parte application for abridgement of time would be heard on December 30, this year.
The state held that the orders of the High Court dated on December 23 constituted a “patent error on the face of the record to the extent that it purportedly confer on the applicants (interested parties herein), non-existent voting rights in respect of the Hohoe Constituency in the Volta Region”.
The case of the AG were that on December 7, this year, Presidential and Parliamentary elections were held nationwide.
According to state, the Parliamentary election in the Hohoe Constituency in the Volta Region, John Peter Amewu who stood on the ticket of the NPP was declared winner after obtaining 55.18 per cent.
“That the results of the Parliamentary elections were duly gazetted by the Electoral Commission on December 22, this year.”
According to the state on December 23, this year, interested parties led by the losing parliamentary candidate of the National Democratic Congress in the Hohoe Constituency invoked the jurisdiction of the Ho High Court under Article 33 claiming a violation of “their human rights in the conduct of the parliamentary election in the Hohoe Constituency and prayed the court for a number of reliefs.
It is, thus, beyond doubt that the action at the High Court, Ho is a palpable abuse of the process. The wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by Justice Buadi, was a serious error apparent on the face of the record. This Court ought to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to prevent a situation where the interested parties will, through the backdoor, surreptitiously seek to assert the right to vote in a manner which is constitutionally frowned upon.
“The interested parties’ case is borne out of mischief and an attempt to judicially sanction an unconstitutionality.
It is merely a vile attempt to upset the hard-won electoral victory of the winner of the parliamentary election in Hohoe constituency through an unjustified invocation of the court’s human rights jurisdiction,” the state held.