The Electoral Commission Chairperson Jean Mensa has sued the Chief Justice and the Attorney General over a petition seeking her removal from office.
The suit comes on the back of a petition to President Nana Akufo-Addo demanding the head of the EC Chairperson over the inability of the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe (SALL) residents to vote for a representative in parliament.
Currently, SALL, which is in the Guan District, has no representation in parliament.
Jean Mensa is joined in the suit by her two deputies — Dr Bossman Eric Asare and Mr Samuel Tettey.
Aside from Chief Justice Anin Yeboah and Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, Convenor for the #FixTheCountry Movement Oliver Barker-Vormawor is the first respondent.
Convenor of the #FixTheCountry movement, who submitted the petition to the president, had argued that the conduct of the EC officials in the SALL matter “meets the threshold of stated misbehaviour and, or incompetence as required under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution for the removal of these officials”.
They insist the actions and inactions of the EC boss caused the people of SALL to lose their fundamental human rights.
There are 46 signatories to the petition, including residents of SALL.
But the EC boss and her deputies intend to fight the petition head-on, and thus the suit at the highest court of the land, Supreme Court.
Below are the reliefs
1. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 146(8)of the Constitution 1992, 1st defendant’s publication in the media (traditional and social) of the contents of Petitioners’ Petition to His Excellency, The President of the Republic, for the removal of 1st, 2nd & 3rd plaintiffs from office for stated misbehaviour and incompetence sins against article 146(8) of the Constitution 1992, and to that extent unconstitutional.
2. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 146(8) of the Constitution 1992, 2nd defendant is precluded from establishing a prima facie case or otherwise arising out of the contents of the said Petition lodged by the Petitioners.
3. A declaration that the airing of the contents of the petition by the first defendant to the media (traditional and social) has subjected 1st, 2nd& 3rd plaintiffs to public ridicule, hatred, odium and opprobrium and equally exposed them to unfair prejudice.
4. An order of perpetual injunction directed against 2nd defendant from determining, dealing, or having anything to do in any manner whatsoever and/or howsoever, with any issues arising out of the contents of Petitioners Petition or at all.
5. Any further orders and/or directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit to give effect or enable effect to be given to the orders of this court.