Ghana’s Supreme Court has rejected a review application filed by John Mahama affirming the right of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission to testify in the ongoing election petition case.
Mr Mahama’s legal team were seeking to get the court to overturn an earlier ruling o get Mrs Jean Mensa to mount the witness box.
The Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah who read the decision on behalf of the court ruled that the petitioner failed to convince the court after advancing his arguments.
“The applicant has failed to satisfy the court that a new or important matter resulted from the reference to the constitutional provisions referred to [in the earlier ruling]. In the result, the application fails, and it is hereby dismissed,” he said.
Read More: How Oppong Nkrumah and Nana B are inciting the Supreme Court against the NDC
There were no noted dissents from any of the Justices of the Apex court in Thursday, February 18, ruling.
The court on February 11, 2021, ruled that the Chairperson of the EC, could not be compelled to testify and be cross-examined as a witness in the election petition hearing.
The court also dismissed Mr. Mahama’s application to re-open his case to enable him subpoena Jean Mensa to testify as a hostile witness.
Mahama’s legal counsel subsequently filed an application for a review of the court’s earlier ruling disallowing Jean Mensa from mounting the witness box.
The team also filed an application for stay of proceedings.
Mr. Akoto Ampaw, the lead lawyer for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, 2nd respondent in the election petition case, had earlier asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the review application filed by the petitioner.
He argued that the application was an abuse of the court processes and must not be countenanced.
“My lords, I believe, and we submit that this application is completely unmeritorious and does not satisfy the very strict conditions for review laid out in Article 133 and rule 54 of this court.”
“We accordingly pray that this application be dismissed as an abuse of court processes and even though we are all aware that in constitutional matters like this, no cost is awarded, but I think this is a proper occasion for a cost to be awarded,” he insisted.
Source: Daily Mail GH with additional files from citinewsroom.com
