There’s obviously a lot of confusion over the decision of the Supreme Court. Even lawyers are scratching their heads in disbelief because the Supreme Court hasn’t helped matters.
Before I proceed please answer this question for me. If a by-election is to be held today, which voters’ register will be used?
The answer is obvious! It’s the current register! So what’s the meaning of the decision of the Supreme Court?
This is not an academic review of the decision of the court but some basic pointers to help you appreciate how the SC has embarrassed itself. Yes embarrassed!
Your right to register and vote is guaranteed under article 42 of the constitution, 1992. Pursuant to this, the Electoral Commission is enjoined to compile a register of voters under article 51. The EC cannot just do so, therefore the constitution prescribes that it does so through Regulations (CIs).
In 2012, the EC enacted CI 91 that repealed CI 72, the law then in force for voters registration(take note). This means that the register compiled under CI72 was completely discarded upon coming into force of the new register under CI 91. This was done with the appropriate savings and repeal provisions in CI 91.
At present, the only voters register available is the one compiled under CI 91 (take note).
What is CI 126?
This regulation that was passed by the EC only amended regulations 9 and 32 of CI 91 by changing the registration requirement of voters as well as the guarantors form and the registration form.
CI 126 has not repealed or revoked CI 91. It stands to reason that the current voters register is valid. The amendments do not invalidate the current register. At best, the amendments can apply to only subsequent registration of voters and in this case during limited registration.
So if the court agrees with reliefs 2 and 3 of the NDC and states that it should be subject to CI 126, what does that really mean? I doubt that the respected judges really ready CI 126.
Note again that unlike CI 91 that repealed the entire CI 72 and discarded the register compiled under that law, CI 126 has not done same. So the current register is valid. CI 126 cannot take retroactive effect.
Note also that at the time that the plaintiffs went to court CI 126 had not matured so the rights of persons who registered under CI 91 cannot suddenly be waived arbitrarily such that CI 126 will be applied to such persons to reregister under the new law.