Jean Adukwei Mensa, the Chairperson of the first Respondent, that is the Electoral Commission, says that at no time did she educate John Dramani Mahama, the Petitioner in the continuous Election Petition suit at the Supreme Court, or his legal counselors, that she wants to affirm for the situation.
As per her, she has through her attorneys expressed completely that she would not affirm for the situation whose reliefs, among others, looks to cancel the affirmation made by Jean Mensa, Returning Officer for the Presidential Election that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the second Respondent, was the victor.
In an oath contrary to the movement for leave to resume the instance of the Petitioner refered to by GhanaWeb, the Returning Officer for the December 7 races showed that “the application isn’t justified by rule of law or strategy and the equivalent ought to be excused” by the board of Justices hearing the case.
In Paragraph 4 of her testimony, Jean Mensa expressed, “I see from the movement paper that the Petitioner-Applicant looks for leave of this Court to return the instance of the Petitioner-Applicant ‘to empower Chairperson of Electoral Commission to affirm’, making mistaken impression that this Application is made at my command. At no time have I educated the Petitioner or his legal counselors regarding my craving to affirm for this situation.”
John Dramani Mahama, the flagbearer of the NDC on Thursday, February 11, 2021, lost his offer to force Jean Mensa to take the observer box to be interrogated.
Tsatsu Tsikata, the lead counsel for the Petitioner educated the Supreme Court board that the Petitioner proposed to return the case with the leave of the Court so the EC Chairperson will be summoned to affirm.
Mahama has since recorded new reports demonstrating a craving to ask the Court on Monday to be permitted to return the case.
This, the Petitioner clarifies, is to permit him to summon Jean Mensa to mount the testimony box and affirm.
Yet, the EC Chairperson in her affirmation told the Court:
“I’m prompted and verily accept that the Application doesn’t show adequate explanation behind the Court to allow the Petitioner to return his case. I’m prompted that resuming a case isn’t a solution for the asking; the Applicant should demonstrate the damage to be endured if the case were not returned. The Petitioner avoided this necessity. Once more, I am prompted that the Petitioner’s legal counselors were sure when they shut his case without reservation and this Court should not to allow procedures before it to drag unduly based on a Party’s idea in retrospect and failure to demonstrate its case in Court. Further, I am prompted that the same old thing has ended up justifying the Petitioner re-opening his case. On eleventh February 2021, this Court decided that the first Respondent was qualified for choose not to affirm. I verily accept that the choice asserted a privilege vested in first Respondent at all material occasions, to when the first Respondent declared to the Court that it was practicing the right.”
Please share and comment below.