GhanaHeadlineLegalNewsPolitics

Election 2020 petition: Dismiss Mahama’s “unwarranted” motion to reopen case, says EC

The Electoral Commission (EC) prays the Supreme Court to throw out John Mahama’s request to reopen his case

Story Highlights
  • "I verily believe that there are more convenient fora (forums) for ventilating the so-called public interest issues and further that this should not form the basis of the Petitioner re-opening his case in a Presidential Election Petition in Court."

The Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana says the latest application by John Dramani Mahama in the Election 2020 petition, seeking permission from the court to reopen his case in order to serve a subpoena on its chairperson, Jean Mensa, to testify, is not warranted in any rule of law.

The lead lawyer for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, filed the application on Thursday 11 February 2021.

This was after the Supreme Court had overruled his team’s objection to the decision by lawyers for the first and second respondents not to call their witnesses – Jean Mensa (for the first respondent) and Peter Mac Manu (for the second respondent) – to testify because they do not think that the petitioner had been able to establish a case against the validity of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

“The first respondent is opposed to the said application and says that the application is not warranted by any rule of law or procedure and the same should be dismissed by this Honourable Court,” the affidavit deposed to by the EC chair said.

“I am advised and verily believe that the application does not show sufficient reason for the court to permit the petitioner to reopen his case.

“I am advised that reopening a case is not a remedy for the asking; the applicant must show the harm to be suffered if the case were not reopened. The petitioner skipped this requirement.

“Again, I am advised that the petitioner’s lawyers were confident when they closed his case without reservation, and this court ought not to permit proceedings before it to drag unduly on the basis of a party’s afterthought and inability to prove its case in court,” the EC’s affidavit further said.

The EC argued that the “petitioner entered into the contest herein believing that he would testify if need be. It became clear too soon that the petitioner’s case drifted into departures from the Strong Room by the petitioner’s agent of his own volition and grievances that I had served ‘tea without biscuits’ to the petitioner’s agent who had left the Strong Room to be in my Secretariat.

“The first respondent [the Electoral Commission] decided that it would not waste time and effort over the tottering case, hence my decision not to testify because there was nothing to testify about.

“Again, the petitioner deposes in support of his case to matters concerning ‘the biometric verification process for which huge sums of taxpayers’ money was spent’. These are matters that that have sprung up in this application for the first time and do not form the basis of the petitioner’s petition.”

It added: “I verily believe that there are more convenient fora [forums] for ventilating the so-called public interest issues and further that this should not form the basis of the petitioner reopening his case in a presidential election petition in court.

“The petitioner deposes in the supporting affidavit further that this court has the power to summon me as a witness. I am advised and verily believe that the application is an abuse of this Honourable Court’s process in so far as it does not tell this court whether I am needed as a witness for the petitioner or for the first respondent or what I am required to say.

“I verily believe that this court has power to call a witness suo motu but not a party, let alone a party adjudged to have a vested right to decide not to testify.

“I am opposed to the petitioner being granted leave by this Honourable Court to reopen a case that he closed of his own volition without compulsion,” she said.

“I am advised that even if this court grants leave for the petitioner to reopen its case, it ought not cause a subpoena to be issued against me because a subpoena is issued with coercive effect.”

Wilberforce Asare

Asaase Radio 99.5 – tune in or log on to broadcasts online
Follow us on Twitter: @asaaseradio995
#asaaseradio
  #TVOL

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

ALLOW OUR ADS