Tsikata Seeks Review Of Supreme Court’s Decision On EC Boss

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata is looking for a survey of the choice by the Supreme Court reaffirming the position of the main respondent (EC Chairperson) not to affirm in the progressing Election Petition preliminary.

Mr Tsikata, Counsel for the Petitioner, (previous President John Dramani Mahama), said the Court made crucial blunders of law in the February 11 choice and same had occasioned “an unsuccessful labor of equity against him (the Petitioner).”

The Petitioner said those key blunders of law established an uncommon situation to warrant the survey application.

On February 11, 2021, the Supreme Court excused an application by the Petitioner to force the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC) to mount the observer box to be questioned on her observer articulation.

The Petitioner, subsequent to shutting his case, needed the Court to urge the principal respondent, Mrs Jean Mensa, and second respondent, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, to mount the observer box to be interrogated after they had shut their cases.

The Court, notwithstanding, in a consistent choice, held that in common preliminary, it couldn’t propel involved with mount the observer box.

The seven part board said the Court’s inborn locale didn’t expect it to expand its forces past what the law had expressed.

It further noticed that albeit the EC Boss had been commanded to play a protected obligation, another arrangement of rules of court couldn’t be set for her.

“We won’t respect guidance’s challenge to propel the first and second respondents to mount the observer box,” the Court said.

Attorneys for the EC and President Akufo-Addo had said they had shut their case and were not calling any observer in the preliminary after the Petitioner had called three observers and shut his case, however they had recorded observer explanations.

Mr Justine Amenuvor, the Lead Counsel for the EC, refered to Order 36 Rule 43 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 87 Rule 3(e)5, Section 62 subsection (2) of the Evidence Act to help his position.

He said the EC would not need additional proof to decide the matter under the watchful eye of the Court after the Petitioner shut his case.

He contended that it was the Petitioner who carried them to court, driven proof, and shut his case subsequent to calling three observers.

“We don’t think we have anything to say. On the off chance that he has a decent case, he should feel free to be glad moving. We supplicate the Court to maintain our application,” he said.

Mr Akoto Ampaw, the Lead Counsel for President Akufo-Addo, related himself with the EC Counsel’s entries, contending that the Petitioner’s Counsel’s contentions, restricting the activity not to call observers, were “misconstrued.”

He said the stand taken by his customer rather worked for the Petitioner.

Under the English Law, a gathering could raise or advise the court that “it doesn’t mean to cite proof in a preliminary” and same ought to be done luckily, he said.

“We are of the view that in the light of CI 37, we are qualified not for show proof. The Petitioner could delicate our observer proclamation as prattle proof,” Mr Ampaw said.

Mr Tsikata, nonetheless, protested the EC’s position, which he saw as “avoidance of questioning,” adding that Mrs Mensa, who addressed the EC, had spread the word about it for the Court that she would mount the observer box to be interrogated.

He said the EC Chairperson unequivocally expressed that in her testimony contrary to the Petitioner’s visit of procedures and application for interrogatories.

“The EC administrator made portrayals to the Court and she can’t leave those portrayals,” he said.

Mr Tsikata said Mrs Mensa had completed a specific obligation of directing political race 2020 and she should deliver represent that.

On Monday, February 8, the Petitioner shut his case in the wake of calling three observers; Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the NDC General Secretary, Dr Michael Kpessa-Whyte and Mr Robert Joseph Mettle Nunoo, the two individuals from the National Democratic Congress.

The first and second respondents likewise shut their cases saying considering the proof cited through the Petitioner’s observers, they would presently don’t call any observers since they accepted that the weight of evidence had not moved for them to open any guard.

The Petitioner is in court testing the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential political decision results pronounced by the EC Boss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: