The Supreme Court has dismissed former President John Dramani Mahama's application which was asking the court to review its decision that disallowed him from asking the Electoral Commission (EC) 12 questions in the 2020 presidential election petition.
The court in its ruling Thursday [January 28, 2021] said the applicant had not met the threshold to apply for review and was subsequently dismissed.
Two additional justices, Justice Imoro Tanko and Justice Henrietta Mensah Bonsu were added to the earlier seven-member panel for the review application.
The seven other justices on the panel hearing the petition to determine whether or not President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is the validly elected President of Ghana are the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Justice Yaw Apau, Justice Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Justice Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Nene A. O. Amegatcher, Justice Gertrude Torkonoo and Justice Mariama Owusu
The presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr John Dramani Mahama, is challenging the declaration of President Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.
Moot applications struck out
Earlier Thursday morning, the Supreme Court struck out two separate applications by Mr. Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC).
The applications included a stay of proceedings filed by Mr. Mahama and an abridgment of time filed by the EC which urged the court to hear the petitioner's review application on Tuesday, January 26, rather than January 28 which was set by the court to hear the application for review.
At the hearing Thursday, counsels for Mr. Mahama and the EC withdrew their applications and were accordingly dismissed by the seven-member panel of the apex court before it enhanced its panel to nine in order to hear some motions filed by the petitioner in respect of the review.
The motion that was filed in respect to this was also dismissed.
The additional ground of review
The Supreme Court also dismissed an application by Mr. Mahama which sought to file an additional ground of review, replace paragraph 28 of the original statement of the case, and file a supplement of the statement of the case.
Source: Graphiconline.com
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
well said
Tsatsu was eloquent and sounded compelling but he failed for the following reasons 1. On the application for amendment and adding a supplementary statement of case he first went on a long journey with too many authorities on instances in which the courts have accepted supplementary statements of case when that wasn’t the fundamental question before the court . The fundamental question was whether the amendment to the review should be entertained in the place . Then afterwards the statement of case comes into play ..... Even the authority he cited with respect to a judgement by Atuguba JSC was hollow because Atuguba JSC merely mentioned supplementary statement of case but reasons for allowing the supplementary statement of case were not discussed in that case . 2. He should have focused on authorities on amendment rather than authorities on supplementary statement of case . 3. When you address the bench and you use the word “absurdity” to describe the earlier decision of virtually the same composition of judges you are sure to get several 9-0 rulings against you. Tsatsu used that word both in his written and oral submissions ! That is not a mark of brilliance but of arrogance . It is different when you are before and entirely different panel of judges. 4. While he was trying to convince d judges on accepting his review application 95% of his authorities were on appeals. There is a vast difference between appeals and reviews . One justice drew his attention to it but he refused to take a queue from the bench . 5. On the interrogatories he took off on a skewed tangent saying that his Lordships had impliedly repealed Order 22 of CI 47 by their earlier ruling . That was an unnecessary inference into the ruling . What is his appreciation of the discretion Powers of the Supreme Court ? 6. He was on a campaign platform and not in court when he said how can what was allowed for Nana ADDO yesterday be disallowed today because it is Mahama asking for it ! The least said about that particular submission the better . 7. Tsatsu consistently showed utter disrespect for the bench in his choice of words and body language. Humility is attractive and you win hearts by having a humble disposition even in circumstances where you need to be firm . You can be firm without being arrogant . 8. On the issue of relevance Tsatsu must see that in the first place the witness statements and the petition itself do not depose to facts that have the relevant ingredients to overturn the election results . Where your entire petition is hollow and the witness statements are hollow do you think you can convince a court court your interrogatories are relevant?? 9. Nana Addo’s petition was very clear in everybody’s mind . He had his 4 categories of pink sheets that he asked the court to strike out or annul . I ) pink sheets with over-voting ii) unsigned pink sheets iii) pink sheets without serial numbers IV) pink sheets from polling stations that were created less than 42 days before the elections .... TSATSU HAS NONE OF THESE WEAPONS NANA ADDO HAD IN 2013 so his case was dead on arrival . He will continue to get 9-0 over and over again !!