Henry Nana Boakye, National Youth Organiser, NPP
A spokesperson of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s legal team in the ongoing presidential election petition, Henry Nana Boakye, has urged the Supreme Court to summon Dr Dominic Ayine, a spokesperson for the petitioner, over what he describes as “contemptuous comments directed at scandalizing the court and bringing its image into disrepute”.
According to Mr Boakye, who is also the National Youth Organiser of the governing NPP, while it is normal to disagree with the court, it does not warrant actions and comments that drag the image of the apex court in the mud.
“It is normal to disagree with the court, and you have every right to state that you don’t subscribe to the ruling of the court. However, impugning ill motive to the ruling of the court and asserting that the Justices are engaging in unethical practices by frantically striving to hide the truth, without any basis, is irresponsible and must be condemned.
“Running down the apex court of the land over a ruling grounded in law and procedural rules is a grave sin that can’t be overlooked. He must be summoned before the court, and if found guilty, the appropriate sanctions given to him to serve us deterrent to others who may be tempted to scandalize the court or drag it image in the mud,” he said.
Nana B, as the NPP youth organizer is affectionately called, was reacting to comments made by Dr Ayine on Tuesday, following the dismissal of an application by the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, to re-open his case by the court.
“It is contemptuous for a former Deputy AG to assert that the court had a pre-determined rule against the application to re-open the case of the petitioner. Right thinking members of society have been alarmed, and rightly so, by his baseless accusations to the effect that the seven Justices of the Supreme Court have resolved to conceal the truth by protecting Madam Jean Mensa from mounting the witness box.”
Pre-determined agenda
Dr Ayine, on Tuesday, at a post-court-sitting press briefing, accused the seven-member Supreme Court panel of executing “a pre-determined agenda” to rule the case against the NDC flagbearer in the 2020 general election.
Dr Ayine’s accusation followed the dismissal of an application by lawyers for the petitioner that was seeking leave of the court to re-open his case in order to subpoena the Electoral Commission Chairperson, Jean Mensa, to mount the witness box.
The NDC MP for Bolga East said he was surprised that the “Supreme Court itself, having set out five key issues to be determined, is now reducing the issues to one, which is whether and the extent to which the evidence that we have led shows that no one got more than 50 per cent of the votes in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution.”
“But we have made [it] abundantly clear in the petition that there were a number of infractions. We are contesting even the constitutionality of the declaration that was made. We are saying that she violated Article 23 of the constitution because she is an administrative body.
“We have also said her exercise of discretion was contrary to Article 296 of the constitution. These are all germane issues under the constitution and laws of Ghana. To reduce the petition into a single issue petition is rather unfortunate and smack (sic) of a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in this matter,” he said.
He continued: “For the court to say that we were bound by law to make our evidence available for it to assess before allowing us to re-open our case is a legally problematic proposition; therefore we disagree with the court.”
“We think that the court by this decision has not done the people of this country a great service in the sense that Ghanaians are interested in knowing the truth. Our constitution is very clear that justice emanates from the people and must be exercised in the name of and the welfare of the people.
“The Justices today have not given us a reason to believe that they want the people of this country to know the truth about what happened,” he added.
The petitioner is challenging the declaration of the second respondent, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, by the first respondent, the Electoral Commission, as the winner of the December 7, 2020 general election.
Meanwhile, the court is expected to continue with its hearing of the case today.
About The Author
