A Cape Coast High Court has thrown out the case of 23 Assembly members seeking to annul the approval and confirmation of the Metropolitan Chief Executive for Cape Coast, Ernest Arthur.
The presiding judge, Justice Kwasi Boakye, held that the petitioners’ case (the 23 Assembly members) was without legal basis since it was premised on a repealed law.
On November 3, last year, one Godfred Abraham and 22 others, the Petitioners, caused an action to be instituted against the MCE for Cape Coast, Ernest Arthur and two others.
In the said action, the Petitioners who described themselves as current elected members representing some of the Electoral Areas within the Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly (CCMA), claimed in a declaration that in the matters of the approval and confirmation of the MCE for Cape Coast, the conduct of the MCE, the Presiding Officer and the Electoral Commission were in material breach of Article 243  of the 1992 Constitution and the Representation of People Law, 1992, [PNDCL 284] as amended and section 20  of the Local Government Act, 1993, [Act 462].
They were seeking a declaration that the conduct of the said election to confirm the re-nomination of the MCE, Ernest Arthur, as the Metropolitan Chief Executive (MCE) for the Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly [CCMA], was fundamentally flawed to amount to a nullity, among others.
The progeny of the Petition was that according to the Petitioners, the election conducted on 17th November 2021 during which the 1st Respondent, the MCE, was allegedly confirmed and or approved by the Assembly Members as the MCE for the CCMA was a sham and same was fraudulent.
Incidentally, on the same day, the Petitioners filed an application on notice praying the Court for an interlocutory order to restrain the Respondents, their agents, representatives, etc. from ‘holding, conveying and or carrying on a meeting of the CCMA to ratify, approve and or endorse the illegal confirmation of the 2nd Respondent and to restrain the 1st and 2nd Respondents (The Presiding Member and the Electoral Commission) from attending any such meeting to ratify, approve and or endorsing the illegal confirmation of the 2nd Respondent pending the determination of the substantive Petition.
Upon service of copies on the Respondents at various times, the 3rd Respondent entered a conditional appearance. Notably, the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not follow suit.
According to the presiding judge, in line with the Rules of Court, the Respondents on different dates filed separate motions on notice to strike out the 2nd and 3rd Respondent as parties to the suit and or to set aside the Petition and to strike out the suit in that order.