Lawyers for 2020 NDC Presidential Candidate John Dramani Mahama have filed fresh documents attacking the Supreme Court’s ruling on his interrogatories for the Electoral Commission.
They argue that the court’s ruling was characterized by a lack of due regard to the law or facts relating to the election petition.
The legal team had earlier in a formal application for a review explained that the ruling was riddled with fundamental errors of law that has resulted in a grave injustice.
Former President John Mahama who lost Ghana’s 2020 presidential elections to Nana Akufo-Addo has filed an election petition at the Supreme Court seeking to have the results annulled.
His lawyers had asked that the Supreme Court allows the EC Chairperson to answer 12 questions also known as 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 presidential 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.
But giving its ruling 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 on Monday, January 25 filed another process asking to be permitted to file additional ground to support the review requested.
This ground seeks to argue that the court’s ruling was characterized by a lack of due regard to the law or facts (per incuriam) relative to article 129 (4) of the constitution and the court’s decision in Ex Parte Magna International Transport Ltd and Bernard Mornah v AG.
129(4) states that; “For the purposes of hearing and determining a matter within its jurisdiction and the amendment, execution or the enforcement of a judgment or order made on any matter, and for the purposes of any other authority, expressly or by necessary implication given to the Supreme Court by this Constitution or any other law, the Supreme Court shall have all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in any court established by this Constitution or any other law.”
They also want to replace paragraph 28 of the original statement of case (that of the review) and additionally file a supplement to the statement of case.
Paragraph 28 in the initial review document stated among others “there is no reference in rule 69(c) 4 of CI 99 to amendments.
It is rather 69 A (6) which provides as follows ….”.
The proposed new paragraph in the bit about “it is rather” quoted 68(7) instead of the 69A(6) quoted earlier.
