With the petitioners in the progressing 2020 Election Petition case at the Supreme Court, ceaselessly losing all the applications they have documented at the court, there have been calls for them to record a motion to suspend the case.
On one side is the developing general assessment that the adjudicators sitting working on this issue are not giving a reasonable hearing to the petitioners, and on the opposite side, an individual from the National Democratic Congress and Member of Parliament for the South Dayi, Rockson-Nelson Este Kwami Dafeamekpor, believes that it is the ideal opportunity for John Dramani Mahama to pull out of the case.
He accepts that with the path Justices at the Supreme Court are tossing out motions recorded by the Counsels for the Petitioner, it obviously shows that the resistance is jeopardized and that “equity exudes from individuals” as upheld in the Constitution does not hold anymore.
Yet, a private lawful professional, Maurice Ampaw, has expressed that while that seems like a sensible choice to make, it is past the point of no return for them to do as such.
“When you go to the combat zone and you understand that the law isn’t your ally, the proof doesn’t support you, what do you do? You can quit however where we’ve gotten to, in the event that you quit, the court will proceed in light of the fact that you can’t simply suspend. You should state purposes behind which you need to suspend and the court can decline since where we’ve gotten to, they are going to condemn thus the thing are you fleeing from?” he said.
He thought about what it is that the petitioners will be fleeing from for a situation they brought to the actual court, looking for now to withdraw.
“Regardless of whether they go to document to suspend, we have passed that stage. You have driven proof, you have shut your case, the respondents have likewise frilled you and now, there is the ideal opportunity for addresses and afterward judgment. In this way, it’s past the point of no return in the day for you to say that you are withdrawing,” he expressed.
He further clarified why it seems the petitioners appear to be ‘losing’ the situation in court, putting it on the permeable idea of their case.
“You go to court and in oppressing your case, you ensure that you depend on your case, assemble a strong case, don’t think for your rival, truth be told, have a group where you partition your group: one represents the petitioner and one professes to represent the respondent. And afterward ensure that all the systems that the respondent is fit for utilizing against your case, you know it.
“You ought to likewise have as a top priority that the respondent can do two things; either the respondent can choose to react to your case, or to stay silent all in all, you should ask yourself that if the respondent chooses to stay silent, what will be your technique? Yet, you don’t go to the court without arranging your case well, not getting sorted out your considerations well, your legitimate contentions are not what can persuade the court, your realities and your proof so permeable,” he said.
Maurice Ampaw additionally exhorted individuals putting forth a defense about a reasonable hearing to appropriately comprehend the benefits of the case before they bluster about any such thing.
He clarified that the court works with proof and that precisely the thing it has been doing as such far.
“The individuals who are discussing reasonable hearing, what are they discussing? Reasonable hearing to the standard Ghanaian, the individuals who are keen on media preliminary, the individuals who are doing the situation in the general assessment, they don’t get it. Reasonable hearing by law is allowing everyone the chance to be heard. Did the court reject the petitioner’s hearing? Did they keep them from doing their case per the principles relating to the procedures?
“Thus, when we talk about reasonable hearing, it isn’t tied in with convincing someone the law secures. The law says that everyone has the option to stay quiet so should your entitlement to reasonable hearing abuse someone’s entitlement to stay quiet?
“The general assessment doesn’t make any difference. What the public figures, we couldn’t care less about it since that isn’t the law. People in general isn’t the law. The case was not documented in the court of popular assessment; the case was not recorded in the media – no one had a duplicate of the petition. The case was documented in a court of capable locale so there are rules and guidelines on how the case will be decided and overseen and that is actually what the Supreme Court is doing; they are engaged,” he said.
Please share and comment below.