Ghanaian News

Supreme Court’s ‘fundamental errors’ a miscarriage of justice against me – Mahama

The December 7 Elections Petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, has told the Supreme Court that it erred in its ruling on Thursday, February 11, 2021, allowing the respondents not to call their witnesses for cross-examination.

Seeking a review of the decision, Mr. Mahama says the Court “made fundamental errors of law, including the ruling being per incuriam of statute and previous decisions of the Supreme Court”.

He adds that “these fundamental errors have occasioned a miscarriage of justice against me, as are set out in the Statement of Case herewith attached”.

On Monday, February 8, lawyers of the Electoral Commission, Ghana (EC) and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo – the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively – closed their cases by electing not to present their witnesses for cross-examination.

There had been high hopes of the cross-examination of the Chair of the Commission, Jean Adukwei Mensa, by the petitioner’s lead counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, that some of the members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) were calling for a holiday.

Declare day Tsatsu cross-examines Jean Mensa a holiday – Amaliba suggests
Mr Tsikata, in arguing his case, had said Mrs. Mensa could not skip cross-examination.

“It is our respectful submission that by filing its witness statement, the First Respondent has clearly crossed the bridge as far as opening the witness up for cross-examination is concerned. That bridge has been crossed, the ship has already been sailed.”

But after arguments were heard on Tuesday, February 9, the Supreme Court ruled that neither Mrs. Mensa nor Peter Mac Manu can be compelled to appear in the witness box.

The ruling was by a unanimous decision.

But the petitioner on Tuesday, February 16 filed for review of that ruling, having hinted of same on that day.

“I am further advised and verily believe that these fundamental errors of law, which have occasioned a miscarriage of justice, constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant the Court reviewing its own decision.”

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button