The Supreme Court has struck out an interrogatory applications filed by former President John Dramani Mahama to compel the Electoral Commission (EC) to make certain disclosures, which, he claims, would fast-track the election petition hearing.
In the said interrogatory application, the former President, through his lead counsel, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, had wanted to know whether a previous convention whereby the collation of presidential results was conducted in the Commission’s strong room was followed.
Similarly, the petitioner wanted answers to the question as whether the December 7 presidential election was the first time regional collation centres had been introduced between collation centers of constituencies and the headquarters of the EC.
Mr Tsikata further asked how the results were transmitted from the collation centers of the constituencies to the regional collation centres, and whether the National Communication Authority (NCA) facilitated, in anyway, the transmission of results to the headquarters of the EC.
He also wanted to know when the Chairperson of the Commission, Mrs Jean Mensa, first realised that there were errors in the figure she announced on December 9, 2020, adding, “This is a question, she is the only person in the world who can answer.”
The counsel further pushed hard to know how the Chairperson got to know there were errors in the figures announced, and in respect of the purported “corrections” made to the figures, and whether there was any prior process of conferring with the any of the agents of the presidential candidates.
The petitioner again wanted to find out whether the Chairperson presented Form 13 of the declaration of the presidential results to all the presidential candidates to sign, and if so, did all the agents of the presidential candidates sign?
Mr Mahama’s counsel punched holes in the affidavit in opposition filed by the EC, stating that it lacked merit, since it did not provide any justification for why the petitioner’s questions should not be answered.
However, lawyer for the EC, Mr Justin Amewuvor, also contended that whatever the petitioner was seeking had been provided for in the Commission’s response to the petition, and moreover, Mr Mahama’s agents had signed 13 out of the Form 13.
He added that what they were seeking would unduly cause a delay of the trial, hence, the interrogatories must be denied.
Mr Akoto Ampaw, lawyer for the second respondent, also raised the concern that what the petitioner was seeking could be asked during cross-examination, but Mr Tsikata refuted same, saying that because they do not want to cause delays in the trial that was why they wanted these discoveries to be made. Mr Tsikata insisted that the clear purpose of discovery was to narrow down the issues before this court.
Nonetheless, the seven-member panel, presided over by Chief Justice Anin-Yeboah, ruled out the interrogatories on the grounds that the petitioner based his request on C.I. 47 when there is an amendment of the rules in C.I. 99.
Other members on the panel are Justice Yaw Appau, Justice Samuel K. Marfu-Sau, Nene Abayaateye Ofoe Amegatcher, Justice Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Mariama Owusu and Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
I did not target Mrs Jean Mensa
In the course of Mr Tsikata’s submission, he was cautioned by Nene Amegatcher to avoid using the name Mrs Jean Mensa when referring to the 1st Respondent, but he refused.
He argued vehemently that there was only one Returning Officer for the presidential election, and that person was not the EC, but the Returning Officer who is the Chairperson, and asked whether he was being prohibited from mentioning the name of the Chairperson.
Meanwhile, the judge indicated that “reading through your petition, the constant emphasis on the name; but what I am telling you is that we will be satisfied just by the designation, because in her absence, any of her deputies could act in that position. So if it is an election petition and you are challenging the election of the president, it is sufficient that the institution charged with the responsibility of conducting that election had done their work, the Chairperson, who is the head, represents that institution and not the personality.”
This, Mr Tsikata responded: “My lord, with the greatest respect, I believe that the constitutional requirement regarding the Returning Officer, and the particular circumstances that we are dealing with in this case, do not make it possible to have the situation that you… That when somebody else steps in as the Chairperson.
“The Constitution makes the Chairperson the only Returning Officer. And in the circumstances of this case, that Chairperson happens to be the person that we are referring to in the petition.”
According to him, that Chairperson actually was the person who undertook her responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution and legal provisions of the law, therefore, mentioning her name was not by any means targeting an individual, and that is very far from it.
“My lord, when I cited before you a decision of the Supreme Court, and I cited the decision of Justice Gbedegbe as an individual judge, he read the unanimous decision of the whole court. I did not target Justice Gbedegbe when I mentioned his name, because he happened to read that judgement. She is not a target,” Tsatsu said.
The post Mahama Punched Down appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS