High Court Dismisses Mahama’s Review Application

The Supreme Court has excused previous President John Dramani Mahama’s application which was requesting that the court audit its choice that prohibited him from asking the Electoral Commission (EC) 12 inquiries in the 2020 official political race appeal.

The court in its decision Thursday [January 28, 2021] said the candidate had not met the limit to apply for survey and was in this way excused.

Two extra judges, Justice Imoro Tanko and Justice Henrietta Mensah Bonsu were added to the prior seven-part board for the audit application.

The seven different judges on the board hearing the appeal to decide if President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is the truly chosen 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 official competitor of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr John Dramani Mahama, is testing the revelation of President Akufo-Addo as the champ of the 2020 official political race.

Unsettled applications struck out

Prior Thursday morning, the Supreme Court struck out two separate applications by Mr. Mahama and the Electoral Commission (EC).

The applications incorporated a stay of procedures recorded by Mr. Mahama and a concise edition of time documented by the EC which asked the court to hear the candidate’s survey application on Tuesday, January 26, as opposed to January 28 which was set by the court to hear the application for audit.

At the conference Thursday, advises for Mr. Mahama and the EC pulled out their applications and were in like manner excused by the seven-part board of the summit court before it improved its board to nine to hear a few movements documented by the candidate in regard of the audit.

The movement that was documented in regard to this was likewise excused.

The extra ground of survey

The Supreme Court additionally excused an application by Mr. Mahama which tried to document an extra ground of audit, supplant section 28 of the first assertion of the case, and record an enhancement of the assertion of the case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: