One of the spokesperson for the election petitioner’s lawyers, Dr Dominic Ayine, has said the petition filed by former President John Dramani Mahama is not frivolous.
President Akufo-Addo’s lawyers had earlier described the petition as incompetent.
They further said it was frivolous and vexatious and did not meet the threshold for invoking the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court and should therefore be dismissed.
An earlier statement signed by Frank Davies, Head, Legal Directorate for the president announcing spokesperson for the legal team to tackle the case in court said “The President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has through his Lawyers filed an Answer to the 2020 Presidential Elections Petition initiated by Mr. John Dramani Mahama, a candidate in that election.”
The statement said “The President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has through his Lawyers filed an Answer to the 2020 Presidential Elections Petition initiated by Mr. John Dramani Mahama, a candidate in that election.
“President Akufo-Addo in his Answer has provided the court with pleadings that showcase that Mr Mahama’s petition lacks material substance.
“Mr President has further invited the Supreme Court to determine that ‘the petition is incompetent, frivolous and vexatious, does not meet the threshold for invoking the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court and should therefore be dismissed,’.”
But speaking to journalists after hearing of the case on Tuesday January 26, Dr Ayine dismissed claims that then petition is frivolous.
He said “We also wish to make it clear that this is far from being frivolous and vexatious petition that His Excellency John Dramani Mahama has filed. The Impression being created by the NPP is that we came to court with a frivolous and empty petition and we are just seeking to engage in theatricals so that the petition will not be heard. HE John Dramani Mahama is far from being such a person.”
The court ordered the petitioner in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition, John Dramani Mahama, to file his witness statements and arguments in response to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents latest by Wednesday, January 27.
The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the petitioner and warned it will take appropriate actions against him if he fails to compile with the order to file the witness statements and arguments by the given deadline.
These actions, the court said could include the dismissal of the petition.
The court ordered during its last sitting on Wednesday, January 20, that all parties file their witness statement by Thursday noon, an order the counsel for the petitioner, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata contended was too short a time.
The petitioner had also filed a motion seeking a review of the ruling the court gave on the petitioner’s earlier application for interrogatories, but that motion was not granted.
Between the last sitting and yesterday, the petitioners again filed a motion insisting on a review of the court’s ruling on the interrogatories and also to amend paragraph 28 of the original petition as well as add to it.
The court adjourned the case to Thursday January 28.