[ 2021-02-23 ]

Supreme Court’s 8 unanimous decisions against Mahama’s lawyers
The seven justices and at times nine judges
hearing the 2020 Election Petition have been
called upon on 11 occasions to rule on various
issues.

These are matters that have seen lawyers
representing the Respondents (EC and President
Akufo-Addo) take positions contrary to the
position of the petitioner, John Mahama.

The seven judges hearing the case are Chief
Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Justices Yaw Appau,
Marful Sau, Nene Amegatcher, Prof. Kotey, Mariama
Owusu, and Gertrude Torkonoo .

They have on three occasions been joined by
Justices Amadu Tanko (all three occasions) and
Prof Henrietta Mensa Bonsu (twice) and
Avril-Lovelace Johnson (once).

The rulings so far

All the court’s decisions in the last few weeks
have been unanimous 7-0 and 9-0 on four
occasions.

First it unanimously granted the petitioners
request to amend the petition Ie correct minor
mistakes that did not affect the substance of the
petition.
Mahama’s lawyers move to correct errors in 2020
election petition



2. It unanimously dismissed a request for
interrogatories to be served. These were 12
questions they wanted the EC Chairperson to
answer

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s 12
interrogatories for the EC

3. Constituted as a 9 member panel, it unanimously
dismissed a request to substitute a paragraph and
add additional ground in a push by the petitioner
to have the interrogatories ruling reviewed.

Allow me to demonstrate further that your ruling
was contrary to law – Mahama to Supreme Court

4. This 9 member panel also unanimously dismissed
the review of interrogatories ruling itself.

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s application to
review ruling on interrogatories

5. The original 7 member panel by a unanimous
decision struck out portions of the petitioner’s
witness (Asiedu Nketia) statement (7 paragraphs)
while maintaining 3 parts following a request by
the Respondents.

Election petition: Supreme Court strikes out 7
portions of Asiedu Nketia’s statement

6. This panel also unanimously dismissed a request
by the petitioner for documents to be inspected.

Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s application to
inspect 6 EC documents

7. The panel unanimously struck out 5 parts of 32
paragraphs of the petitioner’s witness statement
(Mettle-Nunoo)

Supreme Court strikes out 5 paragraphs from
Mettle-Nunoo’s witness statement; 27 maintained



8. The panel unanimously rejected the
petitioner’s request to compel the EC to call
Jean Mensa to testify

We cannot compel Jean Mensa to give evidence –
Supreme Court judges

9. The panel unanimously dismissed the petitioners
request to reopen his case

You cannot reopen your case – Supreme Court
dismisses Mahama’s application

10. The enhanced 9 member panel dismissed the
petitioner’s request that it reviews its
decision not to compel Jean Mensa to testify.

Jean Mensa cannot be compelled to testify –
Supreme Court affirms earlier ruling

11. An enhanced 9 member panel dismissed a request
that it reviews its decision not to allow the
petitioner reopen his case

Review jurisdiction should not be used as
emotional reaction to unfavourable judgment –
Supreme Court dismisses Mahama’s latest
application

From the above, it is only on one occasion that a
request by the petitioner has been wholly
granted.

This was the request to correct mistakes.

The petitioner’s viewpoint has been partly
upheld on two occasions when it came to striking
out portions of witness statements.

The legal arguments of the Respondents have
however swayed the judges 8 times.

Source - Joyfm

... go Back