Supreme Court to continue hearing Mahama’s petition tomorrow

The Supreme Court is expected to resume sittings tomorrow to continue the hearing of the 2020 Election Petition case filed by the Presidential Candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), John Dramani Mahama.

Mr. Mahama is contesting the validity of the December 9, 2020, declaration of presidential election results by the Electoral Commission (EC), and the validity of President Nana Akufo-Addo’s election as {resident.

Read More:

The petitioner (Mr. Mahama) has already called two witnesses [Mr. Johnson Asiedu Nketiah and Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte] to testify for him and his lawyers have indicated his readiness to call a third witness.

The lawyers however requested an in-camera hearing on the status of this third witness due to ill-health.

It remains unclear, however, whether the said witness will be testifying tomorrow, Friday, February 5, 2021, or not.

What happened during the last hearing?

The apex court heard and dismissed an application filed by Mr. Mahama requesting to inspect documents of the Electoral Commission at the last hearing on Wednesday, February 3, 2021.

The documents Mr. Mahama had wanted to inspect included the original constituency presidential election result collation forms for all constituencies, constituency presidential election results summary sheet, regional presidential election summary sheets for all regions, and the declaration of the presidential results form.

During the hearing, his lead lawyer for the petitioner, Mr.Tsatsu Tsikata argued that his client was entitled to inspect the documents of the 1st Respondent due to the differences in the number of total valid votes cast and other results in the declared results.

He insisted that inspection of the said documents will enable the petitioner to confirm whether their documents are the same as those in the custody of the 1st Respondent, the Electoral Commission.

But the application was objected to by the lawyers of the respondents.

They described the application as misconceived.

The lawyer for the 1st Respondent argued that the petitioner has all carbonated copies of the said documents hence such a request was untenable.

Also, the lead counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Akoto Ampaw objected to the application saying the burden of proof is on the petitioner and that he cannot use the backdoor to adduce evidence from the respondents.

Akoto Ampaw further argued that the timing of the application and the failure of the petitioner to produce documents and evidence of his own denies him the right to the application.

The ruling

The apex court in ruling on the application dismissed same saying the threshold of necessity has not been met by lawyers of John Mahama.

Source: Citinewsroom.com