<<Print>>

The Supreme Court has overruled former President John Mahama’s application for review of its earlier decision not to compel the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Madam Jean Mensa to testify.

Mahama, the petitioner in the ongoing election petition requested that the apex Court review its February 11 decision which indicated that “…simply put, we are not convinced and will not yield to the invitation being extended to us by counsel of the petitioner to order the respondents to enter the witness box to be cross-examined accordingly we hereby overrule the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner against the decision of the respondents declining to adduce evidence in this petition".

According to the lead counsel of the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata, said the Court made fundamental errors of law and that those errors had occasioned “a miscarriage of justice against me (the Petitioner).”

However, after hearing arguments from all parties during today's hearing, the 9-member panel dismissed the application.

The panel of 7 judges was reconstituted to 9 because it was a review hearing.

The ruling which was delivered by the Chief Justice said the review application has failed.

Stay of Proceeding

Meanwhile, the application to stay proceeding filed by the petitioner is now moot.

It may be recalled that lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata filed two new applications at the Supreme Court after the motion to reopen their case was dismissed: application to stay proceeding and application for review.

According to the Chief Justice, the stay of proceeding application has been struck out because it was pending the application for review and that has been dismissed.

The hearing has been adjourned to Monday 22rd February 2021.




Delayed Hearing

Today's hearing would have started at 9:30; however, the petitioner requested that it starts at 11:30 for adequate preparations.

A letter from Tony Lithur, a member of the counsel for the petitioner to the Chief Justice, explained that "I received a call from the Registrar of the Court close to midnight, notifying me of Respondents’ filed affidavits opposing petitioner’s application for review, soft copies of which he had sent to my email at 11:13 pm. I forwarded the processes to Lead Counsel for Petitioner at 11:30 pm".

“In order to allow Lead Counsel for petitioners reasonable time to factor the said affidavits into his arguments in support of the application for review, I would respectfully request that this morning’s proceedings be commence at 11:30 am instead of the scheduled 9.30 am” he requested.