The New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament for the Tolon constituency, Habib Iddrisu, says he is unaware of a suit filed against him by the Ashanti Regional Deputy Youth Organiser of the National Democratic Congress, Yaw Brogya Genfi.
Brogya Genfi in a writ filed at the Supreme Court on Monday, November 7, 2022, argued that the legislator was allegedly convicted of fraud in Australia prior to the 2020 election and, therefore, was not qualified to be a legislator per Article 94(2) (c) (i) of the 1992 Constitution.
The writ, invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce the 1992 Constitution, named Mr Iddrisu, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Attorney-General (A-G) as defendants.
But reacting to the suit against him for the first time on The Big Issue on Citi TV on Saturday, Habib Iddrisu said he has only seen comments about the suit on social media and is yet to be served.
“I have also been hearing it on social media, that is all to it. I have not been served, so whatever I hear, I have to be served to know what it is about,” Iddrisu told host Selorm Adonoo.
The Tolon MP also urged his constituents not to panic over reports of the suit against him, adding that he is innocent of all the allegations.
“But you see, my constituents shouldn’t be worried…the allegations against me, I am innocent of it.”
Article 94(2)(c) (i) of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that a person shall not be qualified to be an MP, if he has been convicted for “high crime under this Constitution or high treason or treason or for an offence involving the security of the State, fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude.”
Mr Genfi’s case focuses on the fraud and dishonesty aspect of the above constitutional provision.
However, per Article 94 (5) of the 1992 Constitution, a person caught under Article 94(2)(c) (i) would not be disqualified to be a legislator 10 years after he had served his or her sentence.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that Mr Iddrisu, who is a legislator on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), prior to contesting as an MP, was a resident of Australia.
The Plaintiff claims that he has evidence to the effect that while in Australia, Mr Iddrisu allegedly fraudulently used the credit card of one Mr Gideon Tafon to make purchases, for which he was charged and convicted.
“The Plaintiff asserts that while resident in Australia, the first defendant (Mr Iddrisu) was charged with one count of forgery and 10 counts of fraud and stood trial before the Perth Magistrates Court. The first defendant pleaded guilty to all the charges.”
“In a letter dated December 5, 2011, the Western Australia Police, Murdoch Police Station wrote to Mr Gideon Tafon to inform him that an order of restitution of an amount of $4,999 was made by the magistrate in Mr Gideon Tafon’s favour after the conviction of the first defendant by the magistrate.”
Mr Genfi is, therefore, asking the Supreme Court to use its powers under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution to nullify the election and swearing in of Mr Iddrisu as unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void on the basis that it violated Article 94(2)(c) (i) of the 1992 Constitution.
He is also seeking a declaration from the apex court that the EC acted unconstitutionally by permitting Mr Iddrisu to contest the 2020 election because he did not meet the qualification criterion under Article 94(2) (c) (i) of the 1992 Constitution.
