One of Ghana’s finest legal brain and a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ghana, Dr. Raymond Atuguba has silenced critics vehemently opposed to his staunch position that the apex court of the land cannot order the Electoral Commission to automatically delete names of NHI registrants without recourse to due process.
Following last week’s decision by the Supreme Court to clarify its May 5 judgment ordering the EC to delete names of NHI registrants but, must first be given the opportunity to be re-registered, the Harvard trained lawyer in a 22 page article noted that court has affirmed his position that it “cannot order the automatic deletion of names from the register.
The new judgment on the NHI registrants re-affirmed the May 5 judgment that the said registrants should be deleted “forthwith”, and that the EC should “give adequate notice to those affected by the order of the processes of deletion and re-registration…”
While Dr. Atuguba believes the new judgment favors his position that the court cannot order automatic deletion of names, his critics and those who believe that the court ordered automatic deletion of NHI registrants disagreed.
According to those opposed to Dr Atuguba’s position on the Supreme Court’s order that the EC should delete NHI registrants without recourse to CI 91 was enough proof that the apex court ordered automatic deletion of names.
However, in a short but crisp write-up to explained what ‘automatic deletion’ of names meant, Dr Atuguba who doubles as team leader at Law and Development Associates, wrote “The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, like the good old Oxford Dictionary, defines automatic as “happening or done without deliberate thought or effort” or “attention”.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Electoral Commission to give “deliberate thought” and “attention” to the exercise of deleting the names of NHIS card registrants by:
1. Developing “modalities” for the exercise; 2. Indicating the “steps” to be used for the exercise; 3. Ensuring that “those affected by the order” are given “adequate notice…of the processes of deletion”; 4. Ensuring that they know about the “processes” for “re-registration”; 5. Ensuring that all these processes take place “early enough” so that they are able “to take part in the 2016 general elections”; 6. Generally ensuring that they are not “disenfranchised”. How can such a “deliberate”, “though[ful]” process be automatic? The day automaticity becomes engrained in our legal jurisprudence and our governance systems, that day our liberties and happiness will be at an end.
Get over it. The Supreme Court CANNOT and DID NOT order automatic deletion of the names of NHIS card registrants; and if the EC deletes those names from the register automatically, and contrary to the due process safeguards outlined by the Supreme Court and noted above, they will be opening themselves up for another stream of legal challenges.”
<<Print>>