A spokesperson for the legal team of petitioner John Dramani Mahama has described the unanimous ruling delivered by the seven-member panel hearing the election petition case as predetermined.
Lawyer Dr. Dominic Ayine addressing the press after the court delivered its ruling noted that the Electoral Commissioner is being treated as a private individual.
He indicated that in the view, the court was wrong and the reasons of the court were based on wrong legal premises in their decision.
He said although they are disappointed, the court is the highest judicial body.
He said the court also erred in asking itself and answering why the EC should testify in the case she is not a party to.
Dr. Dominic Ayine noted he was surprised that the court reduced the matters to be determined from five one of which is whether the evidence the petitioner has led shows that no one got more than 50% of the votes.
He stressed the petitioner has made it abundantly clear that there were several infractions in the 2020 general elections including the constitutionality of the declaration.
He added the petitioner has also raised a genuine issue of an abuse of discretion by the EC.
He posited that the ruling smacks a predetermined matter against the petitioner in the matter.
The former deputy attorney general went on to state that the EC boss was appointed under the constitution cannot explain to Ghanaians why the declaration changed without recourse to the law.
He said the EC coss is a public officer and paid with the taxpayers’ money and why is it that she cannot be called to testify? Why is she being treated as a private person?”
”We are highly disappointed with the decision of the court. Maybe the issues we have raised today, we feature in the review application we have brought before the court. We are also filling stay of execution pending the hearing of our application”.
The Supreme Court today, Tuesday, February 16, dismissed an application filed by former President John Mahama to have his case re-open.
The apex court panel of seven Chaired by Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah said they find no merit in the application and proceed with the ongoing case without any hesitation.
The Chair said the petitioner failed to convince the court on why the case should be reopened.
The petitioner through his legal representatives
moved a motion on Monday praying the court to allow them to reopen their case and also treat Mrs. Jean Mensa as a hostile witness.
He referred to Article 26 of the Evidence Act to support his argument but the court in its ruling said this section does not apply to the car before the court.
The court further reminded the lawyers for both sides that their earlier order for them to file their written addresses still stands.
Lawyer Tsikata then informed the court they have filed for a review on the ruling that dismissed the objection to have Mrs. Jean Mensa elect not to testify.
He said the petitioner has also filed a stay of execution pending the outcome of the review application.