The Supreme Court will on October 19th deliver judgment in the case in which a businessman is challenging the authority of the Electoral Commission (EC) to create 45 new constituencies. The Court on Monday gave respective counsels the opportunity to argue their cases out. Mr Godfred Yeboah–Dame told the court that the EC owed Ghanaians the explanation as to why they did not publish the modalities and criteria for the creation of the 45 new constituencies. According to Mr Yeboah–Dame, the creation of the constituencies was not a simple matter, adding there were certain guidelines the EC should have followed. “The EC could have come out to tell us the reason for which a particular constituency was divided. It only went ahead to publish the list of the 45 new constituencies, but declined to give reasons for which they arrived at that decision,” he said. Mr James Quarshie-Idun, who represented the EC, noted that although Article 47 of the constitution spelt out the modalities to be used in demarcations, Article 48 remedy the issues concerning demarcations. According to him, a party aggrieved over the demarcation would have to appeal to a three member panel set up by the Chief Justice. Mr Cecil Adadevoh, who represented the Attorney General and Mr David Annan, who acted as a friend of the court relied on their statements of case. The court presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba had other Justices on the panel to include Ms Rose Owusu, Ms Sophia Adinyira, Professor Dateh Baah, Mr Anin Yeboah, Mrs Vida Akoto Bamfo and Mr Sule Gbadegbe. Mr Ransford Frances and his lawyers are praying the Supreme Court to declare the Constitutional Instrument 78 as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This was after the court had dismissed a writ for an interlocutory injunction filed by lawyers of the plaintiff seeking to prevent Parliament from passing the C.I. 78 that was intended to give legal backing to the creation of the 45 new constituencies. The businessman was challenging the power of the EC to go ahead with the creation of new constituencies without first laying it before Parliament, a Constitutional Instrument indicating clearly the mechanism, formula or modalities by which it intended to undertake that exercise. On July 16 this year, the plaintiff proceeded to the SC praying it to perpetually restrain the EC from laying before Parliament any Constitutional Instrument creating new constituencies or revoking the Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2004 [C.I. 46], until it lays before Parliament a Constitutional Instrument which clearly sets out the processes to be adopted by the EC.