Documents filed by lawyers for 2020 NDC Presidential Candidate John Dramani Mahama describes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court as riddled with fundamental errors of law that has resulted in grave injustice.
Mr. Mahama who lost Ghana’s 2020 elections to Nana Akufo-Addo has filed an election petition at the Supreme Court seeking to have the results annulled.
He alleges Mr. Akufo-Addo benefited from vote padding and computational errors supervised and carried out by the Electoral Commission.https://cdn.jwplayer.com/players/pB3GIEQL-bOZsmy48.html
His lawyers asked that the Supreme Court allows the EC Chairperson to answer 12 questions. (Interrogatories).
Lead Counsel Tsatsu Tsikata said the interrogatories were critical as it would help the apex court determine the authenticity of the results that saw the NPP presidential candidate, emerging as the winner of the 2020 polls.
Among others, lawyers for the petitioner had asked that the EC answers if the National Communications Authority (NCA) played any role or facilitated in any way, the transmission of the election results to its headquarters.
Again, Mr Mahama wanted to know how the Chairperson of the EC, Jean Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring candidate Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential poll.
Giving its verdict on the motion, the Supreme Court held the view that Lawyer Tsatsu was relying on CI 47 while the current rule in force relating to the Supreme Court is the CI 99.
Also, the request requires the exercise of discretionary power that is granted when a case for relevance is made but since this has not been established hence the decision to dismiss the motion.
Review
Mr. Mahama’s lawyers on January 20, 2021 filed a motion asking that the court reviews its decision.
They say the court erred when it ruled that CI 47 was not applicable. They also argue that the court should have exercised its discretionary powers in accordance with article 296 of the constitution.
This provision requires an authority vested with discretionary power to be fair and candid. They further state that the court got it wrong yet again when it took the view that the current rules requiring expeditious trial mean even amendments are not allowed.
Mr. Mahama’s team explains the Supreme Court is bound by its 2012/2013 rulings in the Election Petition filed by Nana Akufo-Addo. They say in that case the court applied CI 47 in the absence of specific rules provided for in law for the Supreme Court.
They insist the court then allowed Mr.Akufo-Addo to serve interrogatories on the EC and this should not change according to the person who is the petitioner.
They again attacked the court’s decision by arguing that nothing in the current rule CI 99 supports the view the court took that interrogatories are not permitted. They conclude by asking that the court should in the interest of justice allow for the interrogatories to be served.
