PNC congress in limbo as 3 seek injunction



The National Delegates Congress of the People’s National Convention (PNC) scheduled for this weekend in the Upper East Regional capital, Bolgatanga may not come off as planned.

This is because some aggrieved members of the party have gone to court over what they say is the refusal of the party’s Congress Committee to disqualify one of the aspirants, Bernard Mornah.

The angry party members want Bernard Mornah, an aspiring chairman disqualified from the race for issuing a post-dated cheque.

They claimed that the party executives were unable to cash the cheque before the deadline for filing nomination forms hence Mr. Mornah must be automatically barred from contesting.

The plaintiffs; David Apasera, Abubakar Sadiq Kwashie Ebla and Henry Haruna, want the court to stop the congress from being held since several appeals to the party has yielded no positive results.

They are however seeking the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that all prospective candidates for National Executive positions of the 1st defendants [PNC] were (mandatorily) obliged by the party to pay their nomination fee by the close of nomination on 13th November, 2015.
b. A further declaration that failure of any prospective candidate to pay his or her filing fee by the close of nomination on 13th November, 2015 was automatically disqualified.

c. A declaration again that the 2nd defendant [Bernard Mornah] was automatically disqualified from contesting the position of National Chairman of the 1st defendant party when at the close of nomination on 13th November, 2015 he had not paid his filing fee.

d. A declaration that the permission granted by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant to pay his filing fee after the close of the nomination on 13th November, 2015 is null and void and therefore had not operated to make the 2nd defendant an aspirant eligible to contest the impending election for the position of National Chairman.

e. A declaration again that the conduct of 1st defendant allowing 2nd defendant who did not pay his filing fee at the close of nomination to contest them 1st and 2nd plaintiff who paid their filing fee at the close of nomination is wrongful, discriminatory, unfair, bias, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to democratic principles.
f. An order of court setting aside the purported payment of filing fees by the 2nd defendant on 23rd November, 2015 and accepted by the 1st defendants as void.

g. An order of court that the 1st defendant should not include the 2nd defendant’s name in the list of aspirant and further on the ballot papers or any other election material to be used for the contest of the upcoming election for the position of National Chairman or any other date that the election shall take place.

h. An order of court that the 2nd defendant should not put himself up or in anyway allow himself to be voted for in the upcoming election or at any other date the election shall take place.

i. An order of injunction restraining the 1st defendant whether by itself, servants, officers, committees, sub-committees whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from in any way allowing the 2nd defendant to take part in the upcoming election or any order date that the election shall take place.

j. An order of injunction restraining the 2nd defendant whether by himself, supporters, privies, assigns, workman, committees whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from in anyway taking part in the election for the position for National Chairman, campaigning, assisting, sponsoring, financing voting for the 2nd defendant to take part in the upcoming election or at any order date that the election shall take place.

k. An order restraining the 3rd defendant from conducting and supervising the upcoming election or at any other date the election shall take place at which the 2nd defendant shall take part or shall be allowed to

1. Any other order(s) as the court may deem fit.

By: Godwin A. Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana

Comments