Commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling, Esq. Carruthers Tetteh, a legal expert and Law Lecturer at the University of Cape Coast, highlighted the Court’s constitutional powers in upholding procedural integrity.
The Supreme Court recently nullified some High Court decisions on re-collation and declaration of election results while affirming others.
Tetteh explained that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to review decisions by public bodies, including lower courts, particularly in cases of procedural breaches. This ensures that justice is not only delivered but is also seen as fair.
“Judicial review is critical in addressing procedural breaches. A common example is the breach of natural justice, such as when one party is denied the opportunity to be heard. Natural justice is founded on two key principles: audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and Nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be a judge in their own case).
“If, after a case has been decided, it is discovered that these principles were violated, the aggrieved party has the right to seek redress. This is usually done through an appellate court, but in some cases, the Supreme Court can directly review the matter”.
Esq. Carruthers Tetteh
In an interview with the Vaultz News, Tetteh explained that such reviews do not evaluate the merits of a case but instead focus on whether the procedures adhered to legal standards.
He noted that the Supreme Court, when it identifies procedural irregularities, has the authority to overturn decisions and refer cases back to lower courts.
Esq. Tetteh stressed that in some instances, as demonstrated in the NDC case, the Court may recommend that a different judge handle the matter to uphold impartiality.
Focusing on the Electoral Commission’s role and limitations in handling electoral disputes, Tetteh stated that the EC is constitutionally mandated to organize elections and declare results.
He noted, however, that the Commission lacks the authority to adjudicate electoral disputes or address conflicts that arise after the results are declared. Such responsibilities are exclusively reserved for the courts. “Electoral disputes, especially concerning parliamentary elections, are governed by clear constitutional procedures“.
Tetteh explained that challenges to parliamentary election results must initially be brought before the High Court.
He added that if a party is dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, they can appeal to the Court of Appeal, which serves as the final appellate body for such cases. “The law ensures that disputes over collation, declaration, or related electoral issues are resolved judicially.”
He emphasized that the courts evaluate both the facts and evidence presented, acknowledging that, although cases may seem similar, each has distinct elements that require separate consideration.
Supreme Court’s Ruling Reinforces Judicial Independence
Moreover, Esq. Carruthers Tetteh explained that by overturning the High Court’s orders in certain constituencies, the Supreme Court reinforced its role in correcting procedural errors and upholding legal standards.
He noted that this decision should strengthen public trust in the judiciary by showcasing its independence and ability to operate free from political influence.
According to Tetteh, if political bias had played a role, the Supreme Court would have upheld all the High Court’s orders. Instead, its actions highlight a commitment to justice and adherence to the rule of law.
“The judiciary’s independence is further highlighted by its [Supreme Court’s] willingness to revisit decisions and rectify errors. This dynamic process is a hallmark of a robust legal system.
“Judges make decisions based on their interpretation of the law, and higher courts have the authority to review and overturn those decisions when necessary. Such instances contribute to the growth of legal jurisprudence and the refinement of judicial processes”.
Esq. Carruthers Tetteh
Tetteh further stated that assigning a different judge to rehear certain cases demonstrates the judiciary’s awareness of public perception and its dedication to fairness.
He noted that in matters of significant public interest, the courts often take extra measures to ensure transparency and impartiality. “This helps build public trust and reinforces the judiciary’s role as an unbiased arbiter of justice”.
Tetteh asserted that, in this case, the Supreme Court’s actions are consistent with its constitutional mandate and the fundamental principles of natural justice.
He noted that by addressing procedural breaches and ensuring that cases are reheard when necessary, the Court has established a precedent that will inform future cases.
According to him, this reflects the dynamic nature of the law and the judiciary’s ability to adapt to new challenges.
He explained that judicial reviews and appeals are standard procedures within the legal system.
Accordingly, he emphasized that when a High Court judge’s decision is overturned, it does not diminish the judge’s credibility; rather, it highlights the nature of the legal process. “The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter…provides guidance for similar cases in the future”.
Tetteh emphasized that judicial reviews and appeals should not be seen as personal critiques of judges but as integral components of the system’s checks and balances.
He indicated that judges make decisions based on the evidence and legal principles presented, while higher courts provide an additional layer of oversight to ensure justice is maintained.
Tetteh reiterated that the Supreme Court’s actions in this case underscore its crucial role in upholding the Constitution and ensuring procedural integrity.
He noted that this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s essential function in protecting democratic principles and the importance of preserving public trust in the legal system.
READ ALSO: South Korea Declares Seven-Day National Mourning Period Over Plane Crash
