Kumasi High Court Dismisses Petition Against Sekyere East DCE

A Kumasi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the confirmation of Ms. Mary Boatemaa Marfo as the District Chief Executive (DCE) for Sekyere East in the Ashanti region.

The court, presided over by Justice Charles Adjei Wilson, said a marginal clerical error should not be a justification to declare an election which was not tainted with any fraud, null and void.

It therefore described the case of the plaintiff challenging the election results that led to the confirmation of the defendant as the DCE weak, and upheld the results of the elections as declared by the Electoral Commission (EC) on May 5, 2017.

The plaintiff, Francis Gyasi Boateng and two others, who are members of the assembly, had filed the petition at the high court seeking to set aside the results of the elections and the confirmation of Ms. Marfo as DCE, null and void on the grounds that she did not obtain the two-thirds majority stipulated by law.

They were also seeking a declaration that the purported swearing in of Ms. Marfo on May 8, 2017 by the Ashanti Regional Minister, Mr Simon Osei Mensah is null and void.

The case of the plaintiffs was that, on May 5, 2017, the Sekyere East District Office of the EC conducted an election for the district assembly to confirm the President’s nomination of Ms. Marfo as the District Chief Executive for the area.

Thirty seven (37), out of the total of 38 Assembly members were present and voted on that day.

Twenty five (25) members voted “YES” in favour of the nominee while 13 voted “NO” against her.

The plaintiffs claimed that since the nominee obtained 25 votes of the total 38 votes, it did not constitute the required two-thirds majority, which was supposed to be 26 votes and therefore, it was wrong for the EC to declare and certify her confirmation.

However, counsel for the defendant Mr E. Anaglate, submitted that per the 37 members who were present and voted, the 25 votes secured by the defendant were far more than the two-thirds required.

He argued that a proxy voting by one Zakaria Usman, which made the total votes cast to 38, violated the provisions of the Local Government Act 1992, Act 426.

Mr Anaglate was of the view that, the Act makes no provision for proxy voting in such elections, and that the proxy voting in the case was an act illegality.

Source: GNA