Legal team for the petitioner in the ongoing election petition has filed two new applications at the Supreme Court following the dismissal of a leave seeking to reopen the case.
The petitioner, John Mahama was seeking to subpoena the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, to testify in the ongoing election petition.
But reading the ruling of the court, yesterday Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, said the petitioner’s legal team has failed to indicate how the evidence they intend to solicit from the EC Chairperson will help to determine the case.
Again, the Chief Justice explained that the EC Chairperson is not on trial hence she cannot be asked to vindicate herself adding that the success of the petitioner’s case is dependent on his own evidence.
But objecting to the ruling by the 7-member panel of judges made up of Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah; Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Professor Ashie Kotei, Mariama Owusu, Nene Amegatcher, and Gertrude Tokonor, Lawyer Tsikata said the new applications were being filed while the Chief Justice was reading out the ruling on the reopening of case.
These new motions, he said included a review of the ruling by the court on February 11, that the EC Chair cannot be compelled to mount the witness box and a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the review application.
Acknowledging the submission, Chief Justice Anin Yeboah said the court will move the motions for the two applications filed by the petitioner after a date has been given by the registrar.
He subsequently adjourned hearing to Wednesday February 17, 2021.
On the other hand, Dr. Dominic Ayine, one of the spokespersons of Mr. Mahama, the apex court used wrong legal premises in ruling on the matter.
He said, although his team is disappointed with the ruling, they are bound to respect it.
“This morning the Supreme Court gave a ruling in respect of our motion to reopen the petitioner’s case. That motion was filed a few days ago with a view to having the opportunity to reopen our case and have the chairperson of the EC, Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa testify in our case. We wanted her to come and testify as an adverse witness which is allowed under the rules.”
“It was our strategy to serve a subpoena on her since she has decided not to give a testimony even after filing a witness statement. But the Supreme Court has given a decision in which it basically said she’ll not be compelled to testify. In our view, the court was wrong and the reasons of the court were based on wrong legal premises, but the Supreme Court is the final decision maker when it comes to the law in the country, and we are bound by what it has said.”
