18 Sep Noah Ephraem Tetteh Adamtey V. The Electoral Commission, Supreme Court, J1/11/2024, 16th February 2025
“….is it feasible in any democratic dispensation for the Defendant [Electoral Commission] to undertake the registration exercise, remove duplicate names from the register, settle disputes that may arise from the registration exercise as a result of removal of names from the register, undertake exhibition exercise for registrants to confirm their details in the register before finalizing the register to make them available to the political parties all year round?
My Lords, it does not take much probing, from even a casual consideration of the above question, to realize how untenable and how unrealistic it will be to hold the Electoral Commission to the standards set for it, by the Plaintiff’s expansive interpretation of its constitutional duties in this case.”
Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution
“Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter for the purposes of public elections and referenda.”
Article 45 of the 1992 Constitution
The Electoral Commission shall have the following functions—
- to compile the register of voters and revise it at such periods as may be determined by law;
- to demarcate the electoral boundaries for both national and local government elections;
- to conduct and supervise all public elections and referenda;
- to educate the people on the electoral process and its purpose;
- to undertake programmes for the expansion of the registration of voters; and(f)to perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
On 12th March 2024, the Plaintiff issued a writ invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for, among other reliefs, a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 42 and 45 of the 1992 Constitution, the Electoral Commission’s (EC) failure to make provision to register all sound-minded Ghanaians who would be 18 years or above at the time of the 2024 elections is unconstitutional.
According to the Plaintiff, the Electoral Commission (EC) announced a voter registration exercise in a press statement dated 11th September 2022, which was only open to Ghanaians who had turned 18 years by the time of the exercise. The Plaintiff claimed that EC failed to register Ghanaians who turned 18th after the exercise but before the 2024 Elections. The Plaintiff argued that, on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 42 and 45 of the 1992 Constitution, the EC was constitutionally required to make provision for Ghanaians who were below 18 at the time of the voter registration exercise but would attain that age by the time of the election to be registered to enable them to vote at the election.
The Electoral Commission, on the other hand, argued that it was not feasible for the EC to undertake a voter registration exercise continuously until elections, as the register had to be finalized before elections.
The central issue for determination was whether the Electoral Commission have a constitutional obligation to ensure the continuous update of the voter register, accurately reflecting daily changes in voter eligibility due to age, up until the scheduled election date.
The Supreme Court recognized that the case involved competing considerations. On the one hand was the citizen’s constitutional right to participate in elections. On the other hand was the EC’s constitutional responsibility to administer elections and its independence under Article 46 and 51 of the 1992 Constitution.
The Court reasoned that it would not be feasible to expect the Electoral Commission to undertake, all year round, the registration exercise, remove duplicate names from the register, resolve disputes arising from the registration exercise, and engage in exhibition exercises for registrants to confirm the details in the register before finalizing the register to make the register available to the political parties. The Court considered such a process as practically untenable and unrealistic. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission has consistently provided a mechanism for individuals 18 years and above to register and vote in elections and referenda through both Continuing Registration, available year-round, and Limited Registration, conducted as needed.
Based on the above, the Supreme Court rejected the Plaintiff’s interpretation, which the Court said was rooted in an unrealistic vision of constitutional governance, rather than a nuanced understanding of its practical implications. Accordingly, the Court dismissed in entirety all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff.
Insight
Article 42 and 45 do not impose a constitutional obligation on the EC to continuously update the voters’ register up to the date of an election to capture persons who attain 18 after the registration exercise.