IN THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

LAW STUDENTS’ UNION

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

CAPE COAST

AD 2021

SUIT NO. JC/LSU/001/2021

8TH APRIL, 2021

DZIDZOR ASAMOAH (PRESIDING)

SANDRA ASANTE (MEMBER)

WILLIAM GABRIEL ACKON (MEMBER)

IN THE MATTER OF:

EDWARD TUOPARE 1ST APPLICANT

LATIF L. JORHOWIE 2ND APPLICANT

VRS

ELECTORAL COMMISSION 1ST RESPONDENT

LAW STUDENTS UNION 2ND RESPONDENT

A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT

 JUDGMENT
FACTS
1. On the 29th of March, 2021, the applicants filed a writ for enforcement and interpretation
under Article 17 of the LSU Constitution. The plaintiff asserted that the LSU General
Elections Regulations, 2021, Regulation 28, as made by the Electoral Commission of the
LSU was inconsistent with article 2(2)(a) and 10(3) of the LSU Constitution and
therefore sought an interpretation to that effect.
INTERPRETATIVE POWER OF THE COMMITTEE
2. Article 17(1)(a) of the LSU Constitution provides that, “All matters relating to the
interpretation and enforcement of any provision of this Constitution shall be referred to
the Judicial Committee of the Union.” And (b) states that, “The decision of the panel
shall be binding on all parties subject to an appeal to the full bench of the Judicial
Committee”.
3. There are various modes of interpreting a Constitution, and it is the discretion of the
Court to adopt any of these means. In interpreting the LSU Constitution, we do not only
look at the letter, but also the spirit of the Constitution as well as the purpose and intent
of the framers of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
4. The plaintiffs argued that Regulation 28 of the LSU General Elections Regulations, 2021,
sought to redefine who a member was under Article 2(2)(a) and 10(3) of the LSU
Constitution.
5. The 1st Respondents argued that the LSU General Elections Regulations, 2021 was made
in exercise of the power conferred on the Electoral Commission under Article 10(2)(i) of
the LSU Constitution to make regulations for the conduct of elections to all elective post
under the LSU Constitution.
6. The 2nd Respondents argued that the matter had already been adjudicated upon in Sammy
Dommeh and John Folitse v the Executive Board of the Law Students Union and as
such this matter was res judicata. They also argued that restricting voting to members in
good standing was the most viable means of ensuring payment of dues by members.
ISSUE OF PRECEDENT
7. The 2017 judgment in the matter of Sammy Dommeh and John Folitse v the Executive
Board of the Law Students Union is not binding on the Judicial Committee because the
facts of that case are not sufficiently similar to this instant case for the Committee to
consider it as binding on them. Therefore, the claim of res judicata by the counsel for the
2nd Respondent is dismissed. Also, the claim of the applicants that the judgment in that
case was made in error of law is also dismissed since there is no precedent for the
applicants to claim an error.
MEMBERSHIP
8. Regulation 28 of the LSU General Elections 2021, does not seek to redefine who a
member is under Article 2(2) (a) and (b) of the LSU Constitution.
9. Article 2(2) (a) of the LSU Constitution states that, “Every student admitted to the
Faculty of Law, of the University of Cape Coast shall be a member of the Union.” Article
2(2)(b) also states that, “Subject to the provisions of article 12(2) any other student of the
University of Cape Coast, duly registered with the Union shall become an Associate
member of the Union.”
10. Regulation 28 states that, “A person who is to vote must also be a member of the Union
in good standing meaning, the person must have fully paid the Union dues.”
11. In Mensima v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court upheld section 7 of the Statutory
Instruments Act, 1959 (No 52 of 1959) which provides that “An enactment conferring
power to make a statutory instrument shall not be taken to authorize the inclusion in the
instrument of any provision amending, repealing or conflicting with the enactment
except as may be expressly stated in the enactment conferring the said power."
12. Regulation 28 does not seek to amend the definition of a member given in Article 2(2) (a)
and (b) of the LSU Constitution. Neither does it seek to repeal it or conflict with it.
13. Notice should be taken of Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana which provides
that voting is an inherent right of all Ghanaians who are 18 and above. However, the
Electoral Commission of Ghana has the right to determine who votes by issuing voter IDs
as well as subsequently verifying them.
POWER OF THE EC TO REGULATE ELECTIONS
14. Article 10(2) of the LSU Constitution provides that, “The Electoral Commissioner shall
have power, subject to the provisions of this constitution, to make regulations for the
conduct of elections to all elective posts under this constitution.”
15. Article 10(3) of the LSU Constitution provides that, “Voting and election shall be
restricted to members only.”
16. Is there a difference between members only and all members? It is the submission of the
Committee that there is. If the wording of 10(3) was “all members”, voting could have
been regarded as an absolute, unqualified right for all members, whether paid or unpaid.
However, “members only” just gives the class of people who are to be considered as
prospective voters during LSU Elections.
RESTRICTION ON VOTING SUBJECT TO DUES PAYMENT.
17. In the Sammy Dommeh case, the Committee as constituted at that time held that all
members under Article 2(2)(a) and 2(2)(b), without exception are subject to Article 12(2)
of the LSU Constitution and as such, payment of dues is mandatory. This Committee
considers itself to be bound by that decision.
RULING
18. The reliefs sought by the applicants were;
I. A declaration that the LSU General Elections Regulations, 2021, Regulation 28,
as made by the Electoral Commission of the LSU is inconsistent with article 2(2)
(a) and 10(3) of the LSU Constitution
II. A declaration that all Law Students, duly admitted into the Faculty of Law, UCC,
are entitled to participate and vote in the upcoming election organized by the
Electoral Commission of the LSU.
III. An injunction restraining the Electoral Commission or any of its agents from
organizing any election pending the determination of this matter.
IV. Any other relief that this honorable Court may deem necessary

19. On the above issues, the Committee rules as follows;

I. The Committee will not grant the first relief because Regulation 28 is not in
contravention with Articles 2(2)(a) and 10(3) of the LSU Constitution.
II. The 2nd relief will be granted in part. All law students, duly admitted into the
Faculty of Law, UCC, are entitled to participate in all Faculty activities. However,
the right to vote in LSU elections is subject to any regulations made by the
Electoral Commission in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the LSU
Constitution.
III. The 3rd relief will not be granted since the matter has been decided prior to the
2021 LSU General Elections.
IV. There will be no order for costs. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Counsels:
Edward Tuopare and Latif L. Jorhowie for the Applicants
Gideon A. Alangyam and Mensah Kweku Opare for the 1st Respondent
Joel Tetteh Zutah (Lead Counsel) for the 2nd Respondent.
Accompanied by Francis Amo-Afriyie and Nana Agyeman