[ad_1]
General news for Monday, February 22, 2021
Source: FM class
2021-02-22
Former President John Mahama’s legal team in court
The Supreme Court of Ghana is prepared to hear the latest request for review from former President John Dramani Mahama in the ongoing electoral petition in which he challenges the results of the 2020 presidential elections.
Mahama requested a review of the court’s decision not to reopen his case.
The court, on Tuesday February 16, 2021, unanimously ruled that Mr. Mahama could not reopen his case for the sole purpose of subpoenaing the star EC witness and using her as an “adverse” witness.
Chief Justice Anin Yeboah read the ruling, which summoned various authorities to reinforce the court’s position.
“Simply presenting a witness statement is not a choice to testify,” said Judge Anin Yeboah.
He continued: “As we have already indicated in this judgment supra, the petitioner in this request has not given us an idea of the new or fresh evidence that he wants to bring to the fore through the President of the first defendant and how that evidence could help the court to do justice to the issues under consideration in this petition, nor has it disclosed how that evidence will advance the cause of your petition.
“For the reasons set forth above, we do not find any merit or favor in the petitioner’s request to reopen his case for the sole purpose of compelling the intended witness of his adversaries to testify by subpoena without indicating the type of evidence he intends to request from the said witness and how that evidence will help the court resolve the dispute before us. Consequently, we reject the application and proceed without hesitation to reject it, “said the ruling.
However, Mahama, in his request for review presented by his lawyers, said that the court made errors of law in its ruling.
“I was advised by a lawyer and I sincerely believe that the court made fundamental errors of law, including the ruling by incurring constitutional provisions, statutes and previous decisions of the Supreme Court,” it is said in parts of the lawsuit.
“Among these errors, I am warned by a lawyer and I truly believe that it is an error whereby the courts subordinate a provision in the Evidence Act to a rule in the subsidiary legislation of the Court’s Rules Committee,” he said.
According to him, “the fundamental errors, which have caused a judicial error, are set out in the attached brief.”
“I am warned and I truly believe that they constitute exceptional circumstances that justify the court reviewing its own decision,” he argued.
