It called on the EC to announce the time by which it would achieve compliance with the Supreme Court ruling before the general election is held.
“We believe the EC, with the right tools and determination, can achieve compliance with the judgement of the Supreme Court dated May 5, 2016.
“We hope to receive a feedback within seven days of the date of this letter the EC’s intention and willingness to carry out its mandate or risk being dragged to the same Supreme Court to be specifically called upon to carry out its mandate,’’ the letter stated.
It urged the EC to employ biometric technology to enable it to practically follow through the orders of the Supreme Court before the conduct of the 2016 general election.’
It further appealed to the EC to amend CI 91, the law governing the conduct of the 2016 general election, to enable it to implement the Supreme Court judgement.
“The EC can confirm the undeniable fact technically that CI 91 failed to enumerate the legal regulations for a biometric technology and, therefore, in dissonance in achieving reasonably credible biometric voters register for the general election,” it said.
The letter specifically urged the commission to amend the provisions of CI 91, which deals with exhibition of the electoral register, “so as to be able to delete technically and legally in order to implement the order of the Supreme Court to create a reasonably credible biometric voters register’.’
Political Parties Law
It also challenged the EC to strictly enforce the Political Parties Law (Act 574).
It claimed that compliance with Act 574 was a requirement under the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, any violation of the law was unconstitutional.
The letter also wants the EC to explain the extent to which a newly formed political party, the All People’s Congress (APC), complied with the law to warrant the commission to issue a final certificate for the party to operate.
There have been divided opinions on what the Supreme Court meant when it ordered the EC to take steps to clean the current electoral roll.
One school of thought is of the view that the apex court ordered the EC to delete the names of minors, the deceased and those who registered with National Health Insurance cards.
Another school claims that the order has been interpreted wrongly because the EC does not have the power to delete anybody’s name from the register, for which reason an exhibition of the register will help purge it of any unqualified persons.