A retired justice of the Supreme Court William Atuguba has told parties in the ongoing election petition hearing that they should act within the framework of the law if they disagree with the court’s rulings.
Justice Atuguba who was part of the bench that handled the 2013 election petition hearing indicated that “court decisions on matters of this kind have various impacts and effects, depending on the circumstances in each country.
“What I will say is that even if anybody is aggrieved with the ruling, their reactions should be within the framework of the rule of law.”
“The Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice, have been vetted and approved by Parliament, who are the representatives of the people, so it is important for all actors, particularly the lawyers and the adjudicators, to bear in mind at all times that the decision of the court involves the sovereign welfare of the people of Ghana,” he told the Daily Graphic.
Ghana’s apex court is currently hearing the election petition brought before it by the Presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in last year’s elections.
Lead counsel of the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing Tsatsu Tsikata has yet again made a case for the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling on Tuesday, February 16.
The seven justices of the apex court of Ghana unanimously dismissed the application of the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, for the case to be re-opened in order to subpoena the Chair of the Electoral Commission, Ghana (EC), the First Respondent, to testify in court as a “hostile witness”.
On Monday, February 22, Mr Tsikata questioned the basis of the ruling, saying the justices themselves were surprised when the First Respondent closed its case without calling its witness, Jean Adukwei Mensah, to testify.
Mr Tsikata said the justices may have their reasons for the decision to dismiss the application but “it is the ruling of the panel that we are here to question”.
“I am not in the minds of the panel,” he stressed.
He further argued that for Mrs Mensa to have filed a witness statement meant that she was committed to mount the witness box.
“We have no reason to say she was not telling the truth,” he said.
For him, the Holy Bible should guide the nine justices reviewing the case, quoting Hosea 8:7.
For him, the Holy Bible should guide the nine justices reviewing the case, quoting Hosea 8:7.
It states: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.”
He concluded: “May each of the lordships decide based on your conscience and your judicial oath.”
Counsels for the respondents – Justin Amenuvor for the First Respondent and Akoto Ampaw for the Second Respondent – asked the Court to set aside the review application since it does not merit its prayer.
