<<Print>>

Former Attorney General, Ayikoi Otoo has described the Supreme Court�s ruling in favour of General Secretary of the People�s National Convention (PNC), Bernard Mornah as unfortunate. �It leaves much to be desired when it comes to Election Petition because election petitions are very peculiar so the laws are made peculiarly to the elections. They are done in such a way that we avoid delays�therefore to ask people to sit on public holiday and weekends is just to ensure that we avoid delays so it is a most unfortunate ruling,� he stated. Bernard Mornah filed a petition challenging the Court�s earlier ruling allowing the hearing of a petition against a presidential election on a daily basis, including public holidays. Speaking on Citi Eyewitness News, Lawyer Otoo revealed that the constitutional instrument was meant to ensure that the case was heard at a quick pace to prevent the loser of the election from serving his full term of office. �The idea behind it is to avoid unnecessary delay where the loser goes to appeal and says because there is an appeal and says because there is an appeal pending, stay where you are and then the appeal will drag on until all the four years are over so I find it a bit serious,� he stated. Meanwhile, Member of Parliament and lawyer for Bernard Mornah, James Agalga described the ruling as �proper and has served its purpose well. According to Mr. Agalga, �the point is that parliament in its wisdom enacted the Public Holidays Act and clearly stated that public holidays should be observed as such and even goes on to prescribe payment for flouting the rule so when the CI 74 purported to mandate the Supreme Court to sit on a daily basis clearly, we had a problem there. Having an expeditious trial does not necessarily mean that the court should sit on a daily basis. So what happens if one of the Justices were taken ill? Will the court still sit?� The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that it was unconstitutional to sit on holidays and further declared that Article 71B as well as Constitutional Instruments (CI) 71 and 65, are unconstitutional. The Court also ruled that parties involved in election dispute can appeal the final determination of the case.