Tuesday, 20 September 2016

PPP sues EC over ‘arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable’ filing fees

The Progressive People’s Party (PPP) has sued the Electoral Commission (EC) over the filing fees of both Presidential and Parliamentary candidates in the December polls.

The suit which was filed at the Accra High Court Monday cited the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General as a co-defendant.
The PPP is seeking five reliefs which include;

(a) A declaration that the Presidential and Parliamentary Filing Fees and or Deposits as announced by the 1st Defendant on September 8, 2016, for the conduct of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections 2016 in the Republic of Ghana is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

(b) A declaration that regulation 45 of C.I.94 is discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

(c) A declaration that the entire C.I.94 does not contain the appropriate relevant provisions that meet the intendment of article 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

(d) A declaration that the proper instrument within the meaning of the relevant laws of the Republic of Ghana in charging a deposit and or fees for conducting a Presidential and Parliamentary Elections by Electoral Commission is a statutory instrument and not constitutional instrument.

(e) An order that at the Defendants to desist from collecting and or receiving the said deposit or fees for the conduct of the 2016 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections until the appropriate statutory instruments have been passed in accordance with an appropriate legal regime.

The decision by Ghana’s electoral body to increase the filing fee for both Presidential and Parliamentary candidates to GH¢50,000 and GH¢10,000 respectively has been criticised by some political parties.

The nomination fee for parliamentary candidates during the 2012 general elections was GH¢1,000 and GH¢10,000 for presidential candidates.

The PPP, New Patriotic Party (NPP), Convention People’s Party (CPP) and the People’s National Convention (PNC) said the increment was unfair and discriminatory.

They indicated their preparedness to challenge the Commission in order to have the decision rescinded.
Read full suit below: