The Supreme Court has set 4 March 2021 to determine the final outcome of the Election 2020 petition hearing, the president of the seven-member panel sitting on the case, Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, announced on Monday.
Before he announced the date for the judgment, a nine-member Supreme Court review panel dismissed an application by the petitioner praying the court to reopen his case to subpoena the chair of the Electoral Commission, Jean Mensa, to testify as a hostile (adverse) witness.
In its ruling on 16 February 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s application to reopen his case on the grounds that he has not shown just cause why leave to do so should be granted.
Not satisfied with the decision by the seven-member Supreme Court panel, the lawyer for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, filed a review motion to overturn the court’s earlier decision.
Grounds for review
In his review motion, the petitioner said that the grounds for seeking the review are that:
a) The ruling by the court was per incuriam Section 72 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) and has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant;
b) The ruling of the court was in fundamental error in subjecting statutory provisions in the Evidence Act 1975 to the provisions of subsidiary legislation, specifically Order 38 rule 3E(5) of Cl47, as amended by Cl87, and has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant;
c) The court fundamentally erred in its interpretation of Order 38 rule 3E(5) of Cl 47, as amended by Cl 87;
d) The ruling of the court was per incuriam Order 38 rule 10 of Cl 47 and Section 58 of the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459);
e) The court’s ruling was per incuriam Article 19 (13) of the constitution and has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant;
f) The ruling by the court was in breach of Article 296 of the constitution and has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant.
The two lead lawyers for the respondents in the petition – Justin Amenuvor (for the Electoral Commission, the first respondent) and Akoto Ampaw (for Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the second respondent) – both opposed the application.
EC lawyer’s opposing arguments
The lead counsel for the first respondent argued that the petitioner has failed to present any exceptional circumstance as required by Section 131 (1) of the 1992 constitution when it comes to the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Justin Amenuvor further argued that the petitioner, in his application, has not given an inkling of new or fresh evidence he wants to bring to the fore through the chairperson of the first respondent, and how that evidence would assist the court to do justice in the matters under consideration in the petition.
“Neither has he disclosed how that evidence would advance the cause of his petition. For the above stated reasons, we find no merit whatsoever in the petitioner’s application,” Amenuvor said.
He added that the third review application by the petitioner since the petition was filed “is a gross abuse of the processes of this Honourable Court and should not be entertained”.
“My Lords, it is for these reasons that we urge Your Lordships to dismiss this application,” Amenuvor said.
Second respondent’s arguments
The lead lawyer for the second respondent observed in his submission that the chief counsel for the petitioner, in referring to Section 72 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) in his application, deliberately omitted the last part of the provision, which covers evidence.
He said the petitioner knows that, should he quote Section 72 of the Evidence Act in full, it will render the entire review application moot.
To this end, Akoto Ampaw argued that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves summary dismissal by the court.
Review ruling
The Supreme Court review panel, comprising Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, together with Justices Yaw Appau, Samuel Marful-Sau, Nene Amegatcher, Nii Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, Amadu Tanko and Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, dismissed the application.
The judges said the application was not supported by any law or any settled practice. The court also noted that the mere fact that a ruling or judgment by the Supreme Court can be criticised should not be sufficient grounds to ask the apex court to review its decision.
The judges said that the Supreme Court is a court of law and not a forum for supposition.
“Accepting what is being urged on us will open a Pandora’s box and lead to abuse of the court processes. We dismiss the instant application as being wholly without merit,” said Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, reading the decision by the court.
Judgment day
Once the review application was disposed of, the court first struck out a stay of proceedings application filed by the petitioner after he withdrew the application.
The court further granted leave to the petitioner to file his closing address by close of Tuesday 23 February 2021.
It will return on 4 March 2021 to give final judgment.
Wilberforce Asare
Asaase Radio 99.5 – tune in or log on to broadcasts online
Follow us on Twitter: @asaaseradio995
#asaaseradio #TVOL
