Interlocutory injunction not grounds for disqualification – Samson Anyenini on EC’s flawed decision
Private legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has argued that the Electoral Commission (EC) acted prematurely and outside its legal authority by disqualifying Joana Cudjoe, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate for Amenfi Central, based on an interlocutory injunction. Speaking on PM Express, Anyenini explained that an interlocutory injunction is a temporary measure and does not resolve the core legal dispute or determine the rights of the parties involved.
He emphasized that such injunctions are provisional and cannot be used as a definitive basis for disqualification. “An interlocutory injunction is not a perpetual injunction, and it does not determine the rights of the parties involved. So, to use that as the basis for disqualification is not only premature but also legally flawed,” Anyenini stated.
He highlighted the fact that the original May 2023 election, which was the subject of the injunction, had been annulled by the NDC. In its place, a new election was held in September 2024, which the EC supervised and declared Joana Cudjoe duly elected. This raised further questions about the EC’s decision. “The Electoral Commission supervised the September 2024 election and declared Joana Cudjoe duly elected. So, it’s baffling that they would later disqualify her based on an injunction tied to the annulled May election,” he remarked.
Anyenini stressed that the EC’s disqualification order lacked legal standing, given that the injunction related to an already annulled election. He argued that the Commission had likely acted in haste, not considering the legal nuances of the situation. He warned of the potential consequences should the injunction be vacated, which would render the EC’s decision baseless. “If the injunction is vacated tomorrow, what happens to the EC’s disqualification then? It simply shows that the EC jumped the gun,” he concluded.
In his view, the EC’s actions may amount to “unlawful conduct” and an “overreach” of its legal powers.
