Supreme Court dismisses Mahama again

The Supreme Court has thrown out the application filed by John Dramani Mahama through his legal team, seeking for a review of an earlier ruling by the apex court on questions the presidential election petitioner wants to ask the first respondent.

This is the second time this issue about interrogatories has been shot down by the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the nine justices hearing the review application dismissed the case saying they were not satisfied with the arguments proffered by Mahama’s legal team.

The apex court on January 2021 also dismissed a supplementary application brought to it by the petitioner seeking additional ground of review to the review application on the interrogatories.

In dismissing the case the Supreme Court explained that: “We have considered the submissions canvassed for and in opposition for this application. We notice that this application before this court is brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to file additional grounds of review and replace paragraph 28 of the original statement of the case and to file a supplement to the statement of the case. The application which was argued before us is not sanctioned by any provisions in C.I. 16, specifically from rules 54 to 60 of the Supreme Court rule C.I. 16 of 1996.

“In law and by the settled practise of this court, it should be noted that, review and appeals are conceptually different and the rules governing the application in either of them are very distinct and this court has in several cases exhibited remarkable consistency. All the other cases referred by the counsel for the applicant are based on original jurisdictions and civil appeals.

“The Tamakloe case does not in any way discuss the grant of an application for the reliefs sought before us. In civil appeals and original jurisdiction matters before this court, there are express provisions to grant the reliefs sought in this application and the court may in appropriate cases grant such applications in the interest of delivering justice under rule 15 of sub-rule 11 and 51 of C.I.16, 1996. To grant this application would be tantamount to expanding the scope of jurisdiction of review which jurisdiction is not provided under this court by the rules. We find that our inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked under the circumstances of the case when the rules of the court have made clear provisions in the exercise of our jurisdiction in this matter. We accordingly dismiss the application.”