Election Petition: Petitioner despondent as Respondents offer to close their case

Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, a Spokesperson for the Petitioner in the 2020 Presidential Election Petition says the explanation behind the demand that the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission should mount the observer box in light of the fact that the “preliminary is of public interest.”

He affirmed that the Petitioner, previous President John Dramani Mahama, was at the Court for himself as well as for the public interest.

The representative said the issues had to do with the affirmation of results that should mirror the sovereign will of individuals of the country. Anyway per the procedures so far the candidate has so far not had the option to release its weight of confirmation as laid out by counsel for the two respondents at the preliminary up until this point.

Dr Ayine, who was talking at the post-preliminary media instructions, likewise claimed that the Petitioner was additionally in court to manage Article 1 of the 1992 Constitution, which says “the sway of Ghana lives in individuals, in whose name and for whose government assistance the forces of government should be worked out.”

The Petitioner and Respondents on Tuesday, February 9, progressed contentions regarding whether the observers for the Respondents need to mount the testimony box to be sworn and interviewed by Counsel for the Petitioner.

Mr Akoto Ampaw, the Lead Counsel for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the Second Respondent, contended that the Petitioner had not released the weight of confirmation in the preliminary and that they were qualified not for illustrate any proof and to call any observer.

He said they needed to delicate their observer explanation as gossip proof, adding that “we supplicate our application will be maintained.”

Mr Justin Amenuvor, the Lead Counsel for the Electoral Commission said taking a gander at the proof and interrogation of the Petitioner’s observers, they didn’t plan to call any observer.

Dr Ayine said for the Chairperson to announce that the sovereign will of the Country as communicated on December 7, 2020, chosen Nana Akufo-Addo as President of the Country, she had a Constitutional obligation to record to individuals on how she come to that end result.

He claimed that sacred obligation implied that the Chairperson couldn’t under any condition be permitted not to be interviewed in light of the fact that interrogation was one of the instruments permitted by law for admonishing responsibility of disputants.

“She is certainly not a conventional disputant but instead a Constitutional Officeholder,” he added.

Dr Ayine said the Chairperson, who is additionally the Returning official of the 2020 Presidential Election, should stand up and be questioned on an observer articulation, she intentionally recorded under the watchful eye of the Court. The Spokesperson said when the Petitioner applied for interrogatories and needed to direct 12 inquiries to Electoral Commission executive, she swore sworn statements in which she said the interrogatories ought not be permitted and that it very well may be finished during questioning.

Dr Ayine said when the Petitioner notified the EC to examine unique records in the guardianship of the Commission, which filled in as the bases for the affirmation on December 9, 2020, Mrs Mensa swore sworn statements that the Court ought not concede the Petitioner leave to investigate the archives.

He claimed that this was the bases that with regards to interrogation, they would proceed in indicting her believability in taking a gander at those records and its pertinence.

Dr Ayine said during case the executives interaction, orders were given by the court for observers to document their assertions and once more, the EC Mrs Mensa recorded an observer articulation in the matter essentially, saying she planned to give proof.

He asserted that the point their lead Counsel, Mr Tsikata, was attempting to make was that there was proof on record, indicating that the EC executive had “chose” to give proof and this implies that she must be interrogated on the observer explanation that she documented.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: