The confusion surrounding the October 6, 2020 election that selected president and others for the Western Regional House of Chiefs (WRHC) continues unabated.
The latest twist to the drama is that a Sekondi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr Richmond Osei Hwere, has nullified the disputed election that elected Tetretteh Okuamoah Sekyim, Omanhene of Wassa Akropong as president.
The Court also nullified the election of the Vice President and five representatives, who were elected to represent the House at the National House of Chiefs (NHC).
The decision of the court followed a writ filed by Omanhene of Eastern Nzema, Awulae Amihere (1st plaintiff), Kwesi Agyemang, Omanhene of Lower Dixcove (2nd plaintiff) and Awulae Attibrukusu, Omanhene of Lower Axim (3rd plaintiff) challenging the election.
The defendants in the suit were the Registrar of the House (1st defendant), Electoral Commission (2nd Defendant) and Awulae Angamatuo Gyan, Omanhene of Gwira (3rd defendant), who is also the Vice president of the House and Tetretteh Okuamoah Sekyim (4th defendant).
It was the case of the plaintiffs, Amihere Kpanyile, Kwesi Agyemang and Awulae Attibrukusu III that the number of chiefs required to participate in the 6th October, 2020 disputed election fell short of the required number, making the election a nullity.
The plaintiffs argued that the meeting, which culminated into the conduct of the election, did not form a quorum.
The Defendants, however, argued that 1st defendant (Registrar) gave out names of all persons qualified for the election to 2nd defendant, who read it out. It was the case of the defendant that, 1st plaintiff’s name was mentioned as a contestant, but he, together with other chiefs, boycotted the election by refusing to cast their votes.
ISSUES SET DOWN FOR TRIAL BY COURT
The issues set out for trial were whether or not the election of the President, Vice and five others to represent the House at the NHC, was or is nullity, or lacks quorum and should be set aside.
Plaintiff’s Counsel, John Mercer, argued on the strength of the Chieftaincy Act, on the quorum requirement.
He told the court there might have been a quorum at the inception of the meeting, but there was no quorum at the election.
However, Israel Ackah, Counsel for the defendants, argued that there was a quorum of eleven chiefs attending the meeting and that, the agenda of the day was for election purposes and that 9 out of the 11 membership formed a quorum.
Counsel rooted his argument in the strength of the Company Act 992.
BY COURT
The court, in arriving at the judgement, defined quorum as the minimum members of a group, who must be present to conduct a meeting.
However, whether the quorum is to be maintained throughout the meeting, was the crux of the dispute, Justice Dr. Richmond Osei Hwere wrote in his over one hour judgement.
In arriving at the decision, the court relied on Chieftaincy Act 759, as the Act that holds the key to the resolution of the dispute.
A quorum, the Judge observed, must be maintained at all time. For this reason, defendant’s assertion that plaintiffs walked out of the meeting was inconsequential.
Video evidence (Exhibit A) tendered showed that nine members were present – 1st plaintiff was mentioned to have voted, but persuaded others not to vote.
That apart, minutes of the meeting as tendered in evidence, also showed 9 members were present when the meeting commenced.
To the court, it was obvious plaintiffs walked out of the meeting before the election was conducted. So defendants’ argument that plaintiffs were present, but failed to vote, was not consistent with what the minutes of the 6th October, 2020 meeting had captured.
The Court said Exhibit A was an authentic document produced by 1st defendant and that the validity of Exhibit A was not questioned.
COURT OPINION
Contrary to the position by defendant that there was a quorum as required by Act 759 and that, plaintiffs left the meeting, five members remaining at the meeting could not form a quorum to undertake election.
“The existence of quorum at the beginning of a meeting does not suffice. The quorum must exist during the meeting”, Justice Osei Hwere argued in his judgement.
The court contended that the only option was to have adjourned the October 6, 2020 meeting.
Again, it would have been different if plaintiffs had sat in the meeting and refused to vote.
For this reason, the court pronounced the 6th October, 2020 election as a nullity.
The election of other positions -Vice President and 5 representatives to the NHC have also been set aside.
The 3rd and 4th respondents (Angamatu Gyan/ Tetretteh Okuamoah Sekyim) have also been restrained from holding themselves out as president and vice president of the House.
