The Supreme Court has thrown out a case challenging the removal of Charlotte Osei as Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC).
The suit was filed by Editor in- chief of the Crusading Guide, Mr Abdul Malik Kweku Baako Junior, challenging the impeachment of former chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Ms Charlotte Osei.
Mr Baako’s argument was that Mrs Osei was not impeached based on the performance of her core functions as the EC Chairperson.
He, therefore, wanted an interpretation of Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, from the court to that effect.
The seven-member panel presided over by Justice Julius Ansah, ruled that the case by veteran journalist Kweku Baako raises no issues for constitutional interpretation or enforcement.
The writ, which was filed on Tuesday, July 10, 2019, also wanted the apex court to hold that the Chief Justice’s prima facie determination against Mrs Osei was inconsistent and in violation of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution.
The 18 reliefs that were being sought by Mr Baako included a declaration that upon a true and proper construction of Article 146 (1) of the 1992 Constitution, a petition for the removal of the chairperson of the EC, pursuant to the provisions of Article 146, was only valid if such a petition alleged stated misbehaviour or incompetence relating to the performance of the core constitutional functions of the chairperson of the EC
He was also seeking a declaration that the finding by the Chief Justice (CJ) that a prima facie case had been made out in respect of six allegations contained in the petition for the removal of Mrs Osei pursuant to Article 146 of the Constitution and which allegations were not founded on acts of stated misbehaviour or incompetence against Mrs Osei in the performance of her core functions as Chairperson of the EC was unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect.
The same act was inconsistent with and in violation of the provisions of Article 296 Clause (c) of the 1992 Constitution and accordingly arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Mr Baako further prayed the court to rule that the CJ exercised an administrative rather than the functions and duties of a judge or judicial officer.
Another relief that was sought was a declaration that in exercising the constitutional functions and duties of a committee constituted by the CJ under Article 146 (4) of the 1992 Constitution, the committee so established exercised an administrative rather than the functions and duties of a judge or judicial officer and that the committee was required to act in accordance with regulations governing the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 146 (4) of the 1992 Constitution.