You didn’t convince us – 'Unanimous' SC to Mahama on review application

The Supreme Court has in a unanimous decision dismissed an application filed by the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, seeking a review of an earlier ruling affirming the right of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC), Jean Mensa not to testify in the ongoing case.

Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah who read the ruling on behalf of the nine justices said, the bench was not convinced by the arguments advanced by the petitioner’s legal counsel to warrant a contrary decision.

“The applicant has failed to satisfy the court that a new or important matter resulted from the reference to the constitutional provisions referred to [in the earlier ruling]. In the result, the application fails, and it is hereby dismissed,” he said.

The apex court made the ruling on Thursday, February 18, 2021.

The court on February 11, 2021, ruled that the Chairperson of the EC, could not be compelled to testify and be cross-examined as a witness in the election petition hearing.

The court also dismissed Mr. Mahama's application to re-open his case to enable him subpoena Jean Mensa to testify as a hostile witness.

Mahama’s legal counsel subsequently filed an application for a review of the court's earlier ruling disallowing Jean Mensa from mounting the witness box.

The team also filed an application for stay of proceedings.

Mahama's review application an abuse of court processes – Akoto Ampaw

Mr. Akoto Ampaw, the lead lawyer for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, 2nd respondent in the election petition case, had earlier asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the review application filed by the petitioner.

He argued that the application was an abuse of the court processes and must not be countenanced.

“My lords, I believe, and we submit that this application is completely unmeritorious and does not satisfy the very strict conditions for review laid out in Article 133 and rule 54 of this court.”

“We accordingly pray that this application be dismissed as an abuse of court processes and even though we are all aware that in constitutional matters like this, no cost is awarded, but I think this is a proper occasion for a cost to be awarded,” he insisted.

---citinewsroom