Chief Justice Anin Yeboah
The Supreme Court yesterday re-issued its directive for the petitioner in the ongoing 2020 election petition, John Dramani Mahama, to file his witness statements and respond to the preliminary legal objection by respondents by close of day today, Wednesday January 27.
The apex court of the land further threatened that should the lawyers of the 2020 presidential candidate of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) fail to file his statements, it would invoke its powers to dismiss the petition as stipulated by CI 99.
The seven-member panel hearing the case yesterday gave the petitioner a second opportunity to file his witness statements, in compliance with the orders of the court which were issued on last week Wednesday, January 20.
John Dramani Mahama is challenging the declaration of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as the winner of the December 7, 2020 general election.
Witness statement
The court last week instructed him to file his witness statements by 12 noon on the Thursday January 21. The respondents were also ordered to file their witness statements by close of day on Friday January 22.
The respondents last Friday, accordingly, filed their witness statements following the directives by the court.
President Akufo-Addo also filed his preliminary objection statement in which he noted that some of Mr Mahama’s arguments are exaggerated and absurd, urging the court to dismiss the case since it is a waste of time.
Defiance
However, lawyers for the petitioner failed to comply with the orders of the court, and rather filed an application for stay of proceedings, pending the determination of a review application they (lawyers of the petitioner) had filed on their dismissed application to serve interrogatories on the 1st respondent (Electoral Commission).
During yesterday’s sitting, the visibly unhappy Justices of the Supreme Court expressed their displeasure at the blatant disregard for their orders by the petitioners.
They questioned Tony Lithur, one of the lawyers for the petitioner, on the reason behind their refusal to file their witness statement.
Mr Lithur argued that the refusal was occasioned by their application for stay of proceedings.
“You say ‘stay’ means not to file processes but, even yesterday you filed processes, so you choose and pick what to file. Let me understand you, by filing ‘stay’ are you saying you need not file the witness statements and the written submission?” the court asked.
“You filed the petition, you came to this court and submitted your cause of action and reliefs, you said you had five witnesses and we ordered all counsel to file their witness statements. Why have you not filed?” the court queried further.
Second chance
After series of questions, the court rose for about 30 minutes for deliberations and returned with orders, which essentially gave the petitioner another chance to file his witness statements.
According to the Supreme Court, it relied solely on Rule 69 (4B) of the Constitutional Instrument (C. I. 99), which states: “The Court may (a) dismiss the petition, where the petitioner fails to file the processes regarding the petition within the specified time; or (b) hear and determine the petition, where the respondents fail to file their answers or the processes regarding their answer within the specified time.”
It is expected that the petitioner will be filing about five witness statements as indicated in his December 30, 2020 petition filed at the court.
About The Author
