A nine member review panel of the Supreme Court has dismissed an application by lawyers of former president John Mahama seeking a review if the court’s earlier decision to dismiss the application for interrogatories.
The court in its ruling said the lawyers failed to show reasons why the review application should be granted.
The nine member panel chaired by Justice Anin-Yeboah said the application failed to satisfy the threshold for consideration.
He said this a special jurisdiction provided for by the court and threshold are (a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in the miscarriage of justice, (b) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence could not be achieved at the time the decision was given.
He said after careful consideration by the panel, they were not satisfied that the applicant has met the statutory requirement of rule 54 (a) of C.I 16 in order to succeed in the application for the review of the January 19, 2021 ruling.
The court had earlier dismissed a supplementary application the petitioners were seeking to push through to support their request for a review of the ruling on the interrogatories.
The Justices of the Supreme Court in throwing out the supplementary application explained that: We have considered the submissions canvassed for and in opposition for this application. We notice that this application before this court is brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to file additional grounds of review and replace paragraph 28 of the original statement of the case and to file a supplement to the statement of the case. The application which was argued before us is not sanctioned by any provisions in C.I. 16, specifically from rules 54 to 60 of the Supreme Court rule C.I. 16 of 1996.”
“In law and by the settled practise of this court, it should be noted that, review and appeals are conceptually different and the rules governing the application in either of them are very distinct and this court has in several cases exhibited remarkable consistency. All the other cases referred by the counsel for the applicant are based on original jurisdictions and civil appeals.”
“The Tamakloe case does not in any way discuss the grant of an application for the reliefs sought before us. In civil appeals and original jurisdiction matters before this court, there are express provisions to grant the reliefs sought in this application and the court may in appropriate cases grant such applications in the interest of delivering justice under rule 15 of sub-rule 11 and 51 of C.I.16, 1996. To grant this application would be tantamount to expanding the scope of jurisdiction of review which jurisdiction is not provided under this court by the rules. We find that our inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked under the circumstances of the case when the rules of the court have made clear provisions in the exercise of our jurisdiction in this matter. We accordingly dismiss the application.”
The panel also include Justice Yaw Appau, Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, Justice Nene Amegartcher, Justice Prof Nii Ashie Kotey, Juatice Gertrude Torkornoo, Justice Mariama Owusu.
Justice Amadu Tanko and Justce Harrieta Mensah-Bonsu are the new judges added to the enhanced panel.
Meanwhile, the petitioner has been asked to prepare his witnesses for hearing tomorrow Friday, January 29, 2021.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
