We act with law, not compassion---Supreme Court tells Tsatsu in the comedy of reckless petitions

The Presidential election hearing is getting interesting every day. The court ruled on Mahama’s motion to reopen his case with the view to asking the Court to subpoena Jean Mensah to testify.

Once again, the Supreme Court has proven to be consistent and coherent in this ruling by unanimously dismissing the motion as baseless and unconvincing.

According to the Court, the application is neither grounded in law nor meets the legal threshold for adducing fresh evidence in the manner the intended subpoena seeks to achieve. More so, Tsatsu has not proven the relevance of Jean Mensah’s testimony to the case of the petitioner. In reading the ruling, the Court clearly told Tsatsu and John Mahama that they have been slothful, lazy, incompetent and reckless litigants.

The Court has demonstrated that it is not going to grant this hollow application on compassionate grounds to help a petitioner who has failed to marshal his facts carefully or failed to conduct his case properly by presenting proper evidence at the trial or failed to conduct the necessary investigation for his case. In simple terms, it is foolishness on the part of John Mahama to come to court empty-handed hoping to rely on his opponent to prove his case.

On the argument of the petitioner on the need for Jean Mensah to account to Ghanaians about her constitutional duty. The Court asked if Tsatsu insists Jean Mensah is not a party to the case, why the need for her to be in the witness box to account to the people of Ghana when she is not a party in the suit? The court held that they cannot invoke its Election Petition jurisdiction to seek accountability. In effect, if they want Jean Mensah to account for her Constitutional duty, they should sue her by invoking the appropriate jurisdiction and at the appropriate court.

On the issue of the petitioner seeking to clear doubts about the election, the court ruled that Jean Mensah has not testified in the court so on what basis do they want the court to force her to be in the witness box for them to clarify something or clear their doubt?

If you have a doubt, it is your duty to demonstrate the basis of your doubt. Jean Mensah is not a magician to read their mind’s construction on their faces. It is not the duty of the Court to make Ghanaians know the truth. That burden of truth is on the petitioner who claims something untoward has happened or there is another truth somewhere other than what the EC Chair has declared to Ghanaians in December.

More so, the Supreme Court is not a Truth Commission in this instant jurisdiction. If they think the EC Boss is hiding some truth in the performance of its constitutional and administrative duty, I believe CHRAJ or Parliament could be better options.

Immediately after the reading of the ruling, Tsatsu rose and indicated to the Court that he has already started filing a motion about 30 minutes before the ruling to seek review of the Court’s ruling on 11th February which made it impossible to compel Jean Mensah as a witness to testify. He also indicated his intention to file a motion for a stay of proceedings. This is a clear testimony that Tsatsu knew his argument to reopen his case was dead on arrival yet they keep on deceiving and inciting their supporters against the judges. This is completely irresponsible and unacceptable

The Court insists Counsels for the Petitioner and Respondents must submit their addresses by 17^th February 2021 as already directed. However, if Tsatsu is lucky and gets a date early enough to hear the new petition, the court will sit to hear accordingly.

For purpose of our education, the written addresses basically involve citing judicial authorities to persuade the judges to rule in your favour. Any of the Counsels have the right not to submit his written address and in the same way, the court is not bound by the written addresses submitted by the Counsels. The written address is important because it offers a party in a suit the opportunity to showcase the legal strength of his case and to weaken the legal argument of your opponent.

The Supreme Court acts with law and evidence and has no time to entertain comedies of reckless petitions to appease injured feelings of a lazy lawyer and an incompetent petitioner. Meanwhile, let’s see what happens in court today 18th February 2021 at 10.30 am.

James McKeown

Helsinki

#Facebooklawyers

#Supremecourtdiaries