Private legal practitioner and accounting professor, Professor Kwaku Azar has said it is sad that the petitioner in the ongoing election petition has failed to file his written statements as ordered by the court.
To him, it is not enough for the petitioner to use the filing of the application for review as an excuse to disregard the court order.
He believes it would have been prudent for the petitioner to have filed a provisional statement and told the court they will later file a revised one.
”The better action, in my opinion, is to file a provisional statement with a caveat that it is incomplete and will be substantially revised after it has called the election manager into the box.”
He further opined that the court was needlessly shielding the EC boss.
”The Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined.
The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross-examine on it.
The election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner.”
Read his full post below
It is disturbing that the petitioner has failed to file its closing statements as ordered by the Court.
I understand that the petitioner has filed a review and a stay. But I do not think this is enough for it to ignore the Court order.
The better action, in my opinion, is to file a provisional statement with a caveat that it is incomplete and will be substantially revised after it has called the election manager into the box.
Having said that, I also strongly believe that the petitioner is entitled to examine the election manager on Form 13 and the changing total votes cast.
The many unanimous decisions by the Court to deny the petitioner’s prayer remain unconvincing and weak.
The Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined.
The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross examine on it.
The election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner.
I strongly believe that more harm will be done by her failure to do so. It is also procedurally unfair for any petitioner to be denied some of these basic requests.
#SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament. Will anyone be held accountable or it will be another fa ma nyame?
Da Yie!
By: Rainbowradioonline.com
