GH Radio 1

Daily News

Kofi Adams sued! – Adomonline.com


Kofi Adams

Thirteen persons in the Oti Region have filed a suit challenging the election of the former National Organiser of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Kofi Adams as Member of Parliament for the Buem Constituency.

The petitioners in their suit argue that, they were disenfranchised given that parliamentary elections were not held in 13 electoral areas of Satrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe, where they were expected to cast their ballot.

The petitioners are therefore seeking an “order of perpetual injunction restraining Kofi Adams from holding himself out as Member of Parliament-elect for the constituency and or presenting himself to be sworn in as such.”

They are also seeking a cancellation of the elections held in the constituency and the conduct of a new one which will include the 13 electoral areas.

Kofi Adams was declared Member of Parliament-Elect for the Buem Constituency having polled 18,560 votes of the valid votes cast whiles Lawrence Kwame Aziale of the New Patriotic Party polled 6,854 votes, a voter difference of 11,706 votes.

But the petitioners contend that the total registered voters for the 13 Electoral Areas in the traditional areas of SALL are 17,764 voters.

“In the circumstance, the Petitioners will contend that if the said 17,764 voters inclusive of their good selves had not been denied their inalienable and constitutionally guaranteed right to select a Member of Parliament of their choice the outcome of the elections in the Buem Constituency could have been substantially different.”

The Petitioners will also contend that unless this Court if the demands are not met, they will be “saddled with a Member of Parliament they had no say in electing.”

The filing of the suit follows an ex parte application filed by residents in the Guan district who were not given the opportunity to vote in parliamentary elections.

But the State challenged the order of the Ho High Court granting the injunction against the swearing-in saying that court did not have the capacity to hear the case.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *