“Review Application Is An Emotional One – Does Not Meet Minimum Legal Requirement” – Akoto Ampaw

    1

    The respondents in the on-going election petition have thrown jabs at the petitioner’s request for a review of the Supreme Court’s ruling on February 11, preventing the EC boss Jean Mensa from testifying. 

    Counsel for the Electoral Commission Justin Amenuvor, who was the first to oppose the review application said the review application of Mr Mahama’s team was merely an opportunity for a second bite of the cherry.

    Throwing a soft jab, Mr Amenuvor claimed the petitioner’s team led by Tsatsu Tsikata are simply seeking an opportunity to fill gaps and lapses to strengthen its case.

    He added that Mr Tsikata’s decision to rely on the deposition filed by the EC Chairperson Jean Mensa was misconceived.

    In the case of the second respondent’s counsel Akoto Ampaw, he described the application as a fiction of the petitioner’s imagination.

    He said the review application was a classic case of an aggrieved person who had become emotional, and wants another forum to further argue its case.

    Mr Ampaw maintained that the application is an abuse of the court processes and must not be countenanced.

    He insisted that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the hearing and the determination of the petition.

    The duo, have, therefore urged, the nine-member panel of the apex court to dismiss the review application as it is not worthy of attention.

    To drum home the need for dismissal, Mr Ampaw added that the review application does not meet conditions of Article 133 and rule 54 of the processes of the Supreme Court.

    “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 added.

    Mr Tsikata on the other hand, said the court fundamentally erred when it gave its ruling because the ruling was given under the impression that the witness statement filed by the respondents will be used.

    He pointed out that the witness statement of the EC Chairperson Jean Mensa was still in full force as it had not been withdrawn by the first respondent or struck out by the court.

    The parties argument come after the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, in the 2020 election through his counsel filed a review and stay of proceedings application on February 16, 2021.

    The review application filed by the petitioner John Mahama’s team was for the court to take a second look at its ruling on February 11, which was the refusal to allow the EC boss to mount the box.

    The team also want the apex court to review its decision on the re-opening application delivered on Tuesday, February 16, 2021.

    The stay of proceedings means the court will have to make a determination of the substantive matter before it can hear the closing submissions from the three parties.

    Two additional justices, Imoro Tanko and Avril Lovelace Johnson had to be added to expand the panel, to hear the review.

    The initial panel hearing the case were seven namely: Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Yaw Apau, Samuel Kofi Marful-Sau, Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey, Nene A. O. Amegatcher, Gertrude Torkonoo and Mariama Owusu.

    Source:theghanareport.com