The governing NPP has described as “plain lies”, a statement released by the opposition NDC suggesting that some members of second respondent (President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo) in the ongoing Presidential Election Petition are inciting the Supreme Court against members of the Petitioner’s (John Mahama) legal team, particularly Dr Dominic Ayine.
The NPP has also described the suggestion by the NDC as an insult to the Justices of the Supreme Court.
The NDC in a statement, last week, called on the spokespersons of the legal team of President Akufo-Addo, particularly Kojo Oppong Nkrumah and Henry Nana Boakye, to desist from inciting the supreme Court against members of their team. They further urged the two to halt the attempt of belittling the lead counsel for the petitioner, Tsatsu Tsikata.
Attack on the Supreme Court
But the NPP, in a statement signed by its National Communications Director, Yaw Buaben Asamoa, noted that the unfortunate comments from Dr Dominic Ayine against the court were voluntarily uttered and he is, therefore, solely responsible for its consequences.
Dr Ayine had accused the court of a “pre-determined agenda” against the petitioner.
“For the Supreme Court to reduce the petition into a single issue petition is rather unfortunate and smacks of a predetermined agenda to rule against the petitioner in this matter…,” Dr Ayine said at a post-hearing press conference following the dismissal of the petitioner’s application to re-open his case.
Attacks on Tsatsu
The NPP further stated that “the suggestion that the Lawyers and Spokespersons of the second Respondent have been attacking, insulting and belittling the lead Counsel of the Petitioner is a plain falsehood, mischievously crafted to solicit public sympathy for the legal team of the Petitioner to conceal their poor performance, evident from the dismissals almost every major motion/application they have filed has suffered thus far.”
“The regrettable attitude of the lead Counsel of the Petitioner towards the bench has been a matter of public outrage and it is not correct to suggest that it is the lawyers or spokespersons of the second Respondent that have made a case out of it.
“It is utterly shocking for the National Communications Officer of the NDC who, over the years, have persistently insulted and disrespected President Akufo-Addo – someone whose legal and political achievements, the former may never be able to attain in his entire life – to lament and suggest that the spokespersons of the second Respondent ought to show deference to seniors at the Bar when in actual fact, there hasn’t been any act of disrespect on the part of the second Respondent’s team towards the Petitioner’s lawyers or spokespersons,” the statement said.
“The Spokespersons for the second Respondent’s legal team will remain forthright and continuously inform the public on the truth about developments in court and not hesitate to respond adequately to the NDC propaganda,” the statement added.
Meanwhile, counsel for Mr Mahama have filed a new application for review of the Supreme Court’s ruling that prevented him from re-opening his client’s case.
Mr Tsikata moved the motion, saying they were taken by surprise when the EC Chairperson opted not to testify after submitting a witness statement, hence the decision to re-open the case and ask for a subpoena.
According to him, there are also allegations that came up during the cross-examination of their witnesses and these are matters only the EC Chairperson can speak to.
The seven-member Supreme Court panel had earlier dismissed the application and maintained that the petitioner had not indicated how the evidence he intended to solicit from the EC Chairperson would help to determine the case.
Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah argued that the success of the petitioner’s case is dependent on his evidence and therefore the decision to close his case was not based on the fact that Madam Jean Mensa had filed a witness statement and was to testify.
He also stated that the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner were the same as those raised in the objection to the first respondent’s decision not to call a witness.
The Chief Justice concluded by explaining that the EC Chairperson is not on trial, hence she cannot be asked to vindicate herself.
But Mr Mahama’s counsel say the apex court made fundamental errors of law in its earlier decisions.
“Among these errors, I am advised by counsel and verily believe, is an error whereby the court subordinates a provision in the Evidence Act to a rule in subsidiary legislation by the Rules of Court Committee.
“I am advised by counsel and verily believe the court made fundamental errors of law including the ruling being per incuriam of constitutional provisions, statutes and previous decisions of the Supreme Court,” the application stated.