REPORT BY THE LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL MADE ON THE 8

TH

APRIL 2014

KOFI AWUAH Vs. SRC ELECTORAL COMMISSION

REPORT ON THE CASE BETWEEN RICHARD KOFI AWAUAH JNR. AND. S.R.C ELECTORAL COMMISSION On the 4th April, 2014, a candidate named Richard Kofi Awuah Jnr. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) petitioned the ean of !tudents Affairs to challen"e the results pro#ided $% the &ocal

'lectoral (ommission (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) on the )rd April, 2014. *he case was su$se+uentl% referred to the &e"al and isciplinar% (ommittee of the !tudents Representati#e (ouncil $% the ean of !tudent,s Affairs to find amica$le solutions to the issue. FIRST HEARING OF THE CASE *he (ommittee $e"an with proceedin"s on -th April, 2014 at 10.)0am in the !chool of Applied Arts (onference Room (mem$ers present ha#e $een anne/ed to this report as A00'1 23 2). *he (hairman of the (ommittee as4ed $oth parties to the case to present two spo4espersons for each side to $e sworn in. !po4espersons for the plaintiff included. Richard Kofi Awuah Jnr, the petitioner and 5a$riel A6on4or. !po4espersons for the defendants included. A"nes 7oaten" and Ko8o 7otsio. *he proceedin", upon the (hairman,s re+uest, was #ideotaped (anne/ed to this report as A00'1 23 22). 9ith reference to his dis+ualification $% the :ettin" (ommittee, the plaintiff demanded the followin" in his petition. 1. 9hether the $asis of his dis+ualification was constitutionall% mandated 2. 9hether the $asis of his dis+ualification was stipulated in the +ualifications e/pected of an aspirant as enshrined in the memorandum pasted $% the electoral commission ). *he criteria used $% the #ettin" committee in the collection of the results in as much as all the. a. ocuments

$. 2ndi#idual scores of the #ettin" committee c. Aptitude tests results

d. *he scripts of all the three presidential aspirants *he &e"al (ommittee first cross e/amined the defendant and came out with the followin". 1. *he plaintiff was ser#ed with a letter of dis+ualification on 4th April, 2014 (a da% after the notice had $een pasted) which pro#ided the "rounds for dis+ualification to include. a. ;ailure to meet the -0< score outlined in point (a) of the #ettin" re"ulations for '.( mem$ers anne/ed to this report as '3=272* 2 $. 0ro#ision of false document outlined in point ($) of the #ettin" re"ulations for '.( mem$ers c. (ampai"nin" $efore campai"n period outlined in point (e) of the #ettin" re"ulation for '.( mem$ers 2. *he defendants cited Article 21()) of the !.R.( constitution which stated >*he 'lectoral (ommission ma% ma4e Rule or Re"ulations for the e/ercise and e/ecution of its functions su$8ect to the Rules and Re"ulations hereinafter referred to as Rules and Re"ulations "o#ernin" the conduct of !R( elections anne/ed at schedule fi#e to the constitution?. *his constitutional pro#ision, the% claimed 8ustified '3=272* 2. ). A fourth point, which was not captured in the letter of dis+ualification presented to the plaintiff, was also included as a "round for the dis+ualification of the plaintiff. *he defendant alle"ed that the plaintiff was found to ha#e "i#en "ift or pro#ided somethin" of #alue to a #oter to induce the #oter to #ote in a certain wa% as outlined in point (f) of the #ettin" re"ulations for '.( mem$ers.

4. *he plaintiff was also alle"ed to ha#e pro#ided false information to the #ettin" committee on the da% of #ettin". *he $asis for this can $e referred to the (urriculum :itae pro#ided $% the plaintiff as part of the documents needed $% the 'lectoral (ommission. *he followin" dates were alle"ed $% the defendant to constitute false information. a. *he date for the 7asic !chool education was falsel% dated as 1@@4A200) as pro#ided in the report as '3=272* ). $. *he academic %ear for *a4oradi 0ol%technic !.R.(. 0.R.O (i.e. 2012A201)) was also falsel% dated $% the plaintiff (as anne/ed to this report as '372* )) *he defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not accept the fact that it was a mista4e on his part $ut upon consultation from the !.R.( 0resident who made it clear on the da% of the #ettin" that the academic %ear should rather $e 201)B2014, the plaintiff then accepted. *he% also claimed that the memo pasted $% them (defendants) included dis+ualification $ased on false information. -. *he defendants a"ain claimed that the plaintiff "a#e a #alua$le "ift for free to some #oters and that the "ifts were capa$le of inducin" the #oter to #ote in his fa#or. *wo e/amples were set $% the defendant. a. *hat the plaintiff mounted free li"ht poles at 7.C. $. *hat the plaintiff pro#ided free time ta$les for some classes. *his accordin" to the defendant was stopped $% the ean of !tudents Affairs *he &e"al (ommittee also cross e/amined the plaintiff and came out with the followin". 1. *he plaintiff claimed that the $asis for his dis+ualification $ased on the score was unconstitutional. =e first cited article 2) of the !.R.( constitution which states >*here

shall $e a #ettin" committee which shall $e chaired $% the 'lectoral (ommissioner and $e responsi$le for ensurin" that candidates for an% election under this constitution satisf% the re+uirements pro#ided for in this constitution. *his #ettin" committee shall ha#e the power to dis+ualif% candidates for an% election under this constitution on the "rounds stated onl% in this constitution under chapter si/ (D)?. *he% a"ain cited Article 4E of the !.R.( constitution which stated that >'#er% committee shall, su$8ect to the pro#isions of this constitution resolution of the 5eneral (ouncil, re"ulate its own procedure for its acti#ities, and this shall not $e inconsistent with the pro#isions of this constitution?. *he% also made reference to Article 2(1) which states that >*his constitution shall $e the supreme constitution of all students, clu$s, associations or unions in the *a4oradi 0ol%technic, and an% other constitution found to $e inconsistent with an% pro#ision of this constitution shall, to the e/tent of its inconsistenc%, $e null and #oid?. Cpon further deli$erations, the chairman called for an ad8ournment of the meetin" to Dth April, 2014 at the !chool of Applied Arts (onference Room at ).)0pm. SECOND HEARING OF THE CASE *he second hearin" of the case $e"an with the (hairman swearin" in the spo4espersons for $oth sides. !po4espersons for the plaintiff included. Richard Kofi Awuah Jnr, the petitioner and 5a$riel A6on4or. !po4espersons for the defendants included. !hittu 2smaila !am$o and 'ric Annane. *he proceedin", upon the (hairman,s re+uest, was #ideotaped (anne/ed to this report as A00'1 23 22). *he (hairman welcomed su$missions from $oth parties to the case. *he followin" ar"uments were made.

1. *he plaintiff ar"ued that on the da% of the #ettin", he was under pressure so he couldn,t reco"ni6e that the information on his (: was wron". =e also alle"ed that upon the !.R( 0resident,s confirmation of the academic %ear (i.e. 201)B2014), he apolo"i6ed. 2. *he defendants ar"ued that under no circumstance should an aspirant "et information on his personal (: wron". ). On issues relatin" to campai"nin", the defendants outlined that the plaintiff was found in a 0urchasin" 2 class, campai"nin". *he lecturer present at that time, accordin" to the defendant was &aw%er Adin4rah. Fuestions were as4ed whether there was a proof or e#idence to esta$lish the case, howe#er, the defendant couldn,t produce a su$stanti#e proof. 4. *he defendants were as4ed to define false information, mista4en information, wron" information and misinformation. *he% ar"ued that false information, wron" information and misinformation was a deli$erate attempt to mislead the panel. *he% also hi"hli"hted that mista4en information is done accidentall% or unintentionall%. *he &e"al and isciplinar% (ommittee as4ed for the mar4in" scheme for the aptitude test from the defendants. =owe#er, the meetin" had to $e ad8ourned to Gth April, 2014 for the defendant to ma4e a#aila$le the information. THIRD HEARING OF THE CASE *he meetin" was commenced at -.)0pm at the !chool of Applied Arts (onference Room. *he (hairman as4ed the defendant to present the mar4in" scheme. ;inal comments were "i#en $% $oth parties to the case and the case was su$se+uentl% ad8ourned.

FINDINGS A :ice 0residential Aspirant named ;rancisca 7affoe applied for the position of the 0resident instead of the :ice 0resident. 7lan4 spaces which were meant for scores were found in the score sheet. :ice presidential candidate,s mar4s were not disclosed in the #ettin" results Rules and sanctions were not fairl% enforced for all aspirants Re"ulations made $% the defendant did not pass throu"h the le"al processes of the !.R.( Re"ulations made $% the defendant were not disclosed to the aspirants

E HIBITS MADE AVAILABLE DURING THE PROCESS :ettin" Results and documents relatin" to documentation Aptitude *ests results :ettin" Rules and Re"ulations made $% the defendants *he dis+ualification letter "i#en to the plaintiffA '/hi$it 4 !R( 'lectoral (ommission Hemorandum

DATED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL! 2014 AT TAKORADI POLYTECHNIC &e"al (ommittee Hem$ers 1ame &ord A6inah 1arte% *edd% Ra$lo aniel .=. ;iadonu Iaha%a *achie ;rancisca Owusu Ansah esi"nation (hairperson eput% (hairperson Hem$er Hem$er !ecretar%

THE VERDICT
DIS"UALIFICATION BASED ON #0$ MARK All - mem$ers on the (ommittee ruled a"ainst the '(,s dis+ualification $ased on failure of the plaintiff to ha#e met the -0< mar4 DIS"UALIFICATION BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION 2 mem$ers ruled in fa#or of dis+ualification $ased on false information ) ruled a"ainst dis+ualification $ased on false information

DIS"UALIFICATION BASED ON CAMPAGNING

All - mem$ers ruled a"ainst dis+ualification $ased on campai"nin"

CONCLUSION 7ased on these results, the &e"al (ommittee declares that the $asis for the dis+ualification is unconstitutional. *herefore, Richard Kofi Awuah Jnr is +ualified to contest for the !.R.( elections for 2014. DATED THIS %TH DAY OF APRIL! 2014 AT TAKORADI POLYTECHNIC &e"al (ommittee Hem$ers 1ame &ord A6inah 1arte% *edd% Ra$lo aniel .=. ;iadonu Iaha%a *achie ;rancisca Owusu Ansah esi"nation (hairperson eput% (hairperson Hem$er Hem$er !ecretar%