When I returned to the courtroom, lawyer Justin Amenuvor was on his feet.
Lawyer Justin Amenuvor took over from Thaddeus Sory as the Counsel for the Electoral Commission of Ghana after the change of guard which brought in Jean Mensa as Chairperson.
His presence in court on July 3, 2019 was to defend the EC against a case brought by three teenagers challenging the organization of the limited voter registration exercise.
When Lawyer Amenuvor stood on his feet, the judge expected an update on efforts towards filing the EC’s appearance in the matter but he had other business.
His business was to push for the immediate and total dismissal of the case.
The EC lawyer’s argument was simple; lawyer Elikplim Agbemava who was representing the three teenagers had filed an incompetent application.
As at the time, he was moving the application for the dismissal of the case, lawyer Agbemava, had filed a motion to amend portions of his original application.
The motion to amend was to seek the permission of the court for lawyer Agbemava to make some changes to the reliefs he sought in the original application because the EC had ignored the application including the one for an injunction to undertake the exercise.
Lawyer Elikplim Agbemava is now seeking mandamus to compel the EC to reopen the limited voter registration exercise in areas not properly covered because of the EC’s decision to use its district electoral offices rather than the electoral areas.
Counsel for the EC Justin Amenuvor however forcefully argued, on his feet in court on July 3, that the court should not grant the permission for Elikplim Agbemava to carry out the amendments.
He was of the opinion that the action in its current state does not merit an amendment but an outright dismissal.
He however had a back up plan in case the court disagreed with him and that is simple: that the court suspends hearing of the case.
Lawyer Justin Amenuvor in his backup plan drew the attention of the court to a case pending at the Supreme Court regarding the limited voter registration exercise and argued that the two cases are similar.
Pending before the Supreme Court is a case in which a Ghanaian citizen Umar Ayuba is challenging the decision of the EC to hold the just ended limited voter registration at district electoral offices instead of electoral areas.
Having concluded that the application filed by lawyer Agbemava and the one filed at the Supreme Court by Umar Ayubaare are similar based on their reliefs, lawyer Amenuvor said the High Court had no choice than to stay its hearing and await the decision of the Supreme Court.
Justin Amenuvor said the application for the case to be stayed was borne out of the fact that he believes the two actions at the Supreme and High courts were similar on “all fours”.
When his turn came to respond, lawyer for the three teenagers Elikplim Agbemava had only one response; the application filed by lawyer Amenuvor asking the court to strike out or stay their case on the ground of incompetence, is itself incompetent.
Elikplim Agbemava in defence of his stance drew the attention of the court to the failure of the EC to clearly state the rules under which the application was being brought or whether it was invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Elikplim Agbemava also drew the attention of the court to the fact that EC’s lawyer did not allege that the three teenagers did not have the capacity to file the action hence was surprised that an application was being moved for the dismissal of their action.
Under Order 11, Rule 18 of the High Court rules the EC’s lawyer was required to demonstrate that the action brought by the teenagers was either vexatious, frivolous or scandalous to merit its dismissal.
Elikplim Agbemava said Justin Amenuvor in his arguments and application failed to demonstrate that the case filed on behalf of the teenagers did not meet the necessary requirement hence the request to dismiss should not be granted.
On the issue of the similarity of the action of his clients to the one filed by Umar Ayuba at the Supreme Court, Elikplim Agbemava stated that his clients action was separate and unique.
According to him, to argue that the action in the High Court is similar on “all fours” to the one at the Supreme Court, the EC’s lawyer needed to demonstrate that the reliefs, plaintiffs and the issues are all the same.
Lawyer Agbemava disclosed that Umar Ayuba is not a plaintiff in the matter in the High Court neither is his clients involved in anyway in the case at the Supreme Court.
In addition, lawyer Agbemava said his clients unlike in the case at the Supreme Court, are seeking an enforcement of the laws of Ghana that regulate the organization of the limited voter registration exercise not the interpretation of any portion of the constitution.
He said Article 130 of the 1992 constitution clearly states the circumstances under which a request can be made for a case in the High Court can be stayed and referred to the High Court.
The lawyer for three teenagers was of the opinion that those circumstances did not exist in the action filed by the three teenagers.
Lawyer Elikplim Agbemava therefore dismissed the comparison to the case at the Supreme Court and pleaded with the High Court to throw out the EC’s application and allow him to file his amended process in order for the case to be heard and determined.
The court has set July 19 to rule on the EC’s application.
Story by: Sena Nombo/Radiogoldlive.com
Discussion about this post