-Advertisement-

-Advertisement-

Supreme Court strikes out Mahama’s stay of proceedings

The Supreme Court has struck out the motion by NDC flagbearer John Dramani Mahama to stay proceedings on the ongoing December 7 election petition.

In its ruling on Thursday, the panel presided over by the Chief Justice Anin Yeboah announced that the motion has been struck out.

This was after counsel for the petitioner Tsatsu Tsikata withdrew the motion regarding the stay of proceedings it had filed on January 21, 2021.

“In respect of the motion for stay of proceedings, your Lordships may appreciate that we indicated that it was for stay pending the determination of the review application.

“If, your Lordships, are going to proceed to hear the review application then clearly that motion for stay is removed,” Mr Tsikata said.

It was the case of the court that once the petitioner has already filed it witness statements for the hearing to continue, the application for stay would no longer hold.

As it stands now, the application for stay of proceedings has been withdrawn and the application for abridgement of time has also been withdrawn.

The apex court will now continue with the election petition hearing in accordance to C.I. 99, that provides the court with strict timelines regarding election adjudication.

On January 21, the NDC Flagbearer John Mahama filed for a stay of proceedings on the ongoing election petition at the apex court.

With just three days into the hearing, the legal team wanted the court to halt its hearing on grounds that it first makes a determination of Mr Mahama’s interrogatories review application filed on January 20.

A stay of proceedings is an order to stop or suspend a proceeding or trial temporarily or indefinitely.

The former President, who is challenging the result of the 2020 presidential election, wants the court to reconsider its decision not to allow Mr Mahama’s legal team to drag the EC Chairperson, Jean Mensa, to the witnesses box to answer questions that it says underpins its case.

In a flurry of exchanges on January 20, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, lead Counsel for Mr Mahama, and some panel members of the Supreme Court said Mr Mahama’s review application did not constitute a stay of proceedings.

The court, therefore, waved on the parties to file their witness statements as it closed the chapter on case management–a procedure that allows the court to narrow down specific issues for hearing as well as the timeliness.

The petitioners were directed to file their witness statements by noon Thursday, January 21, 2021. The defied that order on the set date but filed it subsequently.

The stay of proceedings comes after the apex court dismissed an application that sought to order the Electoral Commissioner to specifically respond to questions regarding anomalies that characterised the December 7, 2020, elections.

In a unanimous decision, on the preliminary issue, the apex court presided over by Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah said the court rules had been amended with respect to interrogatories.

Interrogatories are a formal set of written questions propounded by one litigant and required to be answered by the opposing party or parties in order to clarify matters of fact and help to determine in advance what facts will be presented at any trial in the case.

The Chief Justice said the new regime did not afford the court the laxity of time to respond to allow such questions to be answered before the trial begins.

The court explained that “reference was made to the 2013 [presidential election] petition in which an application for interrogatories was granted by the Supreme Court.

“However, subsequent to 2013, several statutory amendments have been made by C.I. 99 of 2016 which has restricted the practice and procedure of this court as regards Election Petition.

“Indeed, Rule 69 of the Supreme Court amendment in C.I. 99 directs the expeditious disposal of petitions and sets timelines for this court to dispose off the petition. The amendments provide us [court] with new procedural regime and strict timelines.

We are strictly bound to comply with C.I. 90 and therefore we will not apply Order 22 of C.I. 45 of 2004 in this circumstances. We, accordingly, refuse to grant the application and same is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

It was the case of the apex court that the petitioners simply wanted to delay the process.

READ ASLO: Am I not allowed to mention Jean Mensa’s name

                      We are not superhumans” – Tsatsu to Supreme Court

                      Roadmap for election petition hearing announced

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on January 20, announced the roadmap for the election petition hearing that will determine if President Nana Akufo-Addo was duly elected.

In setting out the timeliness, it said it would not tolerate time-wasting as it took a cue from the 2012 election petition which travelled for more than eight months.

The roadmap announced will see parties making their case to determine if indeed there were some anomalies with the results that saw the NPP presidential candidate emerging winner of the 2020 polls.

You might also like
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.