Decision by Cape Coast High Court on Assin North is a travesty of justice.
1.The Constitution (Article 94) expressly refers to allegiance, it doesn’t say dual citizenship.
- Citizenship of a nation ONLY raises a presumption of allegiance, it is not conclusive evidence of allegiance, otherwise there would not be treason ( acting against the interest of your own country)
- If the Constitution intended to forbid dual citizenship, it would have said so expressly
- In any case, how could someone who had set in motion processes and showed clear intention to denounce his citizenship of a country be said to owe allegiance to that other country?
- There is a legal concept called Public Interest which may form the ONLY basis a judge can sidestep technicalities of the law to provide substantial justice and the Cape Coast judge had it in abundance because:
(a) It is extremely expensive to re-run a parliamentary election, especially so if the only reason for the rerun is occasioned by the late issuance of a certificate of renunciation by a foreign government which the MP had absolutely no control over the process
(b) It’s not in the public interest to re-run an election during the 3rd wave of deadly delta Covid
(c) Violence, arms, threats to security and human costs are associated with our elections especially when the stakes are so high in a single Constituency election–Ayawaso West Wuogon is a prime example.
(d) It is certainly not in the public interest that the majority of the Assin North voters who ELECTED their MP and are happily represented in Parliament should have their mandate overturned by a SINGLE Judge because a certificate of renunciation of arrived late.
The law should be used as an instrument to solve problems, not make them worse.
By: Lawyer Rainer Akumperigya
