The Supreme Court has been invited by the 2020 Presidential Election Petitioner to offer him the opportunity to re-open his case to enable the chairperson of the Electoral Commission testify in the ongoing petition hearing.
In a motion filed on Thursday, lawyers for John Dramani Mahama argued that “it has become necessary in the interest of justice and for fairness in the adjudication of this case, for my Counsel to seek the order herein being sought.”
This application forms part of efforts mounted by former President John Dramani Mahama to contest the outcome of the January 7, 2020, Presidential Elections results as declared by the Electoral Commission at the Supreme Court.
He contends that neither him nor President Akufo-Addo, who was declared the winner in that elections had enough votes to be announced the winner as stipulated by the constitution.
The president’s predecessor wants an annulment of that verdict and in its place, another round of the election organised between himself and the president.
The latest application is influenced by the ruling of the Supreme Court Thursday which upheld the decision of the 1st and Second Respondents to close their cases without leading further evidence despite an earlier impression to do so.
Addressing the Supreme Court on Monday, the commission’s lawyer said the evidence before the court is sufficient for it to reach a verdict without the EC leading any further evidence.
“My lords with respect, it is our submission that given the evidence led by the witnesses of the petitioner and our cross-examination so far, speaking for the 1st Respondent, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence before the court for this petition to be determined.
“We do not wish to lead any further evidence and therefore we are praying that this matter proceeds under Order 36, Rule 43 and CI 87 Rule 3E5. We hereby on that basis close our case,” Mr Justin Amenuvor argued.
The former President, who had earlier been turned down by the Supreme Court to serve the Electoral Commission interrogatories, with the excuse that such questions can be directed at the chairperson of the Commission when she mounts the witness box felt surprised at the sudden turn of events.
Unfortunately, lawyers for the petitioner had closed their case when the decision not to have the EC chair cross-examined was made.
“As a result of the ruling of the court on Thursday, 11th February 2021, it has become necessary, I am advised and verily believe, that my Counsel use the subpoena powers of the Court under Order 38t rule 1o of C. I .47 to compel the attendance of the Chairperson of 1’Respondent to appear and testify in court,” the motion file by lawyer Tony Lithur explained.
The motion as filed in the Supreme court is attached.