It followed the filing of a suit by four candidates in the upcoming elections against the re-opening of nominations, arguing that the Election Committee erred.

The plaintiffs are Edmund Kofi Yeboah, an aspiring General Secretary, Francis Kokutse, an aspiring Vice President, Vance Azu, an aspiring Organising Secretary and Lloyd Evans, an aspiring president.

They subsequently applied to the court through Motion Ex parte, for an order for interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit.

Upon reading the affidavit of Lloyd Evans on behalf of the other plaintiffs on Friday, the court, presided over by Justice Daniel Mensah ordered that the defendants, Ben Batabe Assorrow, the GJA Election Committee Chairman and the others whether by themselves, their agents and privies and howsoever described are restrained from re-opening nominations for the GJA elections for 2017 until the determination of the suit.

The Oder is to be in effect for 10 days and that the defendants upon being served with the order, if need be may apply to have the order set aside, and in the same vein, the plaintiffs may also repeat the application on notice to the defendant.

Why the court action

Following an earlier disqualification of some candidates including Lloyd Evans and Mathew Mac Kwame, in the upcoming association elections, they petitioned the Elections Dispute Adjudication Committee (EDAC) and because of the short period to hear the petitions, the election was postponed indefinitely from the March 31, 2017 date at the request of the EDAC.

After hearing the petitions, the EDAC said "candidates who were disqualified from contesting the elections on the basis other than (i) not being members or (ii) whose membership was below three years should be given the opportunity to contest the elections."

That meant that, Mr Lloyd Evans and Mr Mathew Mac Kwame, were to be given the opportunity to contest.

Before the postponement, all aspirants had been vetted but on Monday May 15, 2017 however, the Election Committee issued a statement and announced that it was re-opening nominations for all prospective candidates.

This, the plaintiffs said was “unconstitutional” since the EDAC, whose pronouncement according to the GJA constitution was final did not say the process should start afresh but said it should continue.

They argued the manner the Election Committee was handling affairs was problematic and therefore decided to challenge the decision to re-open nominations after the EDAC had pronounced that the process should continue.