[ 2021-02-18 ]

Supreme Court hears three issues today
The 2020 presidential election petition continues
today, with three main items on the bill — an
application for stay of proceedings, a review
application and the closing submissions of lawyers
for the parties.
At its sitting last Thursday, the court had also
announced that it would fix a date for judgment of
the petition today.



However, this will depend on how it deals with the
review application and the application for stay of
proceedings filed by the petitioner, former
President John Dramani Mahama.

The two applications were filed last Tuesday.

Review

The review application is challenging the ruling
of the court, dated February 11, this year, which
overruled an objection by the lawyer for the
petitioner, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, against the
decision of the Electoral Commission (EC) not to
adduce evidence.



The apex court held that it could not compel the
Chairperson of the EC, Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa, to
enter the witness box and testify because a party
to a case had the right not to adduce evidence.

With regard to the application for stay of
proceedings, the petitioner is urging the court to
put the petition on hold until the final
determination of the review application.

Stay of proceedings


By filing the application for stay of proceedings,
former President Mahama wants the court to suspend
its order for lawyers for the parties (Mr Mahama,
the EC and President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo)
to file their closing submissions.

Per the order, the lawyers were to simultaneously
file their written addresses on or before
yesterday and address the court on the highlights
of the addresses today.



Former President Mahama, however, argues in his
stay of proceedings application that he would
suffer greatly if the petition, including the
order to file closing addresses, is not put on
hold until his review application is determined.

“For us to have to file closing addresses when
there is a pending issue to be determined in the
review application about whether or not my lawyers
will cross-examine the Chairperson of the first
respondent will cause irreplaceable harm to the
conduct of my case,” he argued.

A private legal practitioner, Mr Martin Kpebu,
told the Daily Graphic that per decisions of the
Supreme Court, an application for stay of
proceedings did not automatically put court
proceedings on hold.

He said the Supreme Court order for the parties to
file their closing addresses stood, irrespective
of the application of stay of proceedings filed by
the petitioner.

He cited the Supreme Court decision in the case:
The Republic vrs High Court (Comm Division)
Tamale, Ex parte: Dakpem Zobogunaa Henry Kaleem,
delivered on June 4, 2015.

In the said decision, the court held that “the
fact that an application for stay of proceedings
has been filed does not operate as an automatic
stay”.

“The petitioner must comply with the order of
the court to file his closing address. That order
cannot be arrested by the filing of an application
for stay of proceedings,” Mr Kpebu explained.

Petitioner’s case

In his petition, former President Mahama contended
that no candidate won the 2020 presidential
election and, therefore, the declaration of
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the
winner of the election by Mrs Mensa was “null,
void, unconstitutional and of no legal effect”.

He argued that as per the results announced by Mrs
Mensa on December 9, 2020, no candidate garnered
more than 50 per cent of the total valid votes
cast, as required by Article 63(3) of the 1992
Constitution.

Former President Mahama, therefore, wants the
Supreme Court to declare the declaration on
December 9, 2020, as null and void and also order
the EC to conduct a run-off between him and
President Akufo-Addo.

He has also accused the EC of engaging in vote
padding by deducting some of his votes and adding
them to President Akufo-Addo’s.

Respondents’ answers

In their answers, President Nana Akufo-Addo and
the EC argued that the petition was incompetent,
lacked merit and raised no reasonable cause of
action.

It is their contention that the petition did not
even meet the requirement of a presidential
election petition, as stipulated in Article 64 (1)
of the 1992 Constitution, and was, therefore,
incompetent.

That, they argued, was because the petition made
no allegation of infractions in the election at
any of the 38,622 polling stations and 311 special
voting centres

Source - Graphic Online

... go Back