The review application filed by Tsatsu Tsikata challenging Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the orders of Ho High Court, which placed an injunction on the gazetting of John Peter Amewu as Member of Parliament-elect for the Hohoe Constituency in the Volta Region has been dismissed.
A seven member review panel of the Apex Court presided over by Justice Yaw Appau in a short ruling said the application for review failed and added that reasons for its ruling would be made available by the close of the day.
Tsatsu Tsikata’s application filed, contended that the Supreme Court committed errors of law which occasioned miscarriage of justice and ought to be reversed.
Moving the application, Mr. Tsikata argued that the grounds for the applications disclosed fundamental errors which required the review to be granted in the interest of justice.
He contended that the Supreme Court in its decision left it to the Ho High Court to determine whether or not the right to vote was a fundamental right and this constituted a fundamental error because the Supreme Court in many decided cases which were not referred to in the ruling had acknowledged that the right to vote was a fundamental right.
The review is also challenging the holding of the court that its jurisdiction does not extend to the consideration of the constitutionality of Representation of the People (Parliamentary Constituencies) Instrument, 2020 (C.I. 128).
According to Mr. Tsikata, although C.I.128 was not part of the basis of the case before the Ho High Court or the Supreme Court, once it came up and they contended that the Instrument was unconstitutional, the court should have gone ahead to determine the constitutionality or otherwise of C.I. 128.
The application was opposed by Grace Awu, a Senior State Attorney who argued that the issues raised in the review application had already been determined by the court and no new issues had been raised.
She conceded that the right to vote was a fundamental right as stated by the authorities and cited by Mr. Tsikata but added that the other issues raised by the application were just a rehash of issues that had already been determined by the court.
She added that the application did not properly invoke the review jurisdiction of the court.