A spokesperson for former President John Dramani Mahama on the presidential petition, lawyer Dominic Ayine has expressed displeasure at the Supreme Court for unanimously dismissing a request to have the Electoral Commission admit to some errors
According to him, the ruling by the court shocked some of them because they dismissed a request for them to bring a motion for interrogatories.
Speaking to the media after sitting on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, he said the ruling by the panel was based on the rules on an election petition, a situation he found worrying.
He said that was surprising to them as lawyers because basically what the court did was overrule its own decision in the 2013 petition that accorded reasons to the constitution and existing practices and precedence.
He indicated that the court sidestepped the basic issues that were brought before it because the issues were relevant.
The motion he added goes into the integrity of the case as well as the respective answers.
The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the motion filed by former President John Dramani Mahama asking that EC Chairperson admits she made errors during her declaration of election results.
The motion and facts related to Jean Mensa’s declaration of results on December 9.
Mr. Mahama wanted the EC Chairperson to admit that she did declare the results on December 9 which was broadcast live on radio, television, and online platforms.
Mr. Mahama also asked the Apex court to direct the EC Chairperson to admit to certain facts.
He asked the court to direct the EC Chairperson Jean Mensa to admit that she had not made any other declaration of results.
He further wanted the EC Chairperson to admit that the figures and percentages announced by her during this declaration if collated will come to 100.3% instead of 100%.
He also wanted the EC Chairperson to admit that the subsequent correction of results in statements issued by the EC is different from what candidates obtained as captured in the summary of results sheets published by the EC.
Lawyer for Mr. Mahama Tsatsu Tsikata argued in court that there was a precedent in granting interrogatories in the 2013 election petition.
However, the lawyers for the EC opposed the motion saying the answers the petitioner was seeking for would-be answered through cross-examination when the EC Chair takes to dock.
But by a unanimous decision, the court dismissed the motion.
The seven-member panel in their ruling said the motion failed and the questions that they had wanted answers to should relate to the issues raised and reliefs sought in the petition filed.
The panel chaired by Justice Anin-Yeboah said interrogatories must relate to the matters in controversy between the parties.
He said the court was of the opinion that the crucial issue of relevancy was not established by the petitioner.
He said the reference made to 2013 could not hold because, after 2013, several amendments had been made by C.I 99 of 2016 which restricted the practice and procedure of the court with regards to the election petition.
He added that rule 69 C4 and the Supreme Court Amendment directs the expeditious disposal of the petition and set timelines for this court to dispose of the petition
This Implies that even amendments not ought to be granted as well as joinder of parties.
But reacting, lawyer Ayine maintained the ruling was shocking and legally untenable.
He said they will advise themselves on what to do next.
He said they will look at the ruling carefully in line with existing precedence and the statutes that were cited by the court itself.
He hinted they may ask the court to take a second look at its own decision.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
