[ad_1]
The petitioner’s lead counsel in the ongoing Supreme Court trial on the 2020 presidential elections, Tsatsu Tsikata, has asked the judges to rule on the matter in accordance with his conscience.
“Let each of your lordships decide according to their conscience and their judicial oath,” he told the court during his request for review of permission to reopen his case.
He also quoted a verse from Hosea 8: 7 in the Bible to defend his case.
“Because they sow the wind and they will reap the whirlwind. He who has an ear, let him hear ”.
On February 16, 2021, the Supreme Court, chaired by Judge Kwasi Anin Yeboah, dismissed the lawsuit in which the petitioner requested that he be allowed to rewrite his case and summon the president of the Electoral Commission (EC) to mount the witness stand as your “hostile witness.”
This was after EC attorneys, 1st respondent and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, 2nd respondent waived their rights to present evidence.
The unanimous decision of the higher court was in the sense that the petitioner has not shown any exceptional reason that justifies the court exercising its discretion in his favor.
However, in a motion for review that was presented for a hearing on Monday, February 22, the petitioner in his affidavit in support of the motion affirmed that the fundamental errors have caused a judicial error against him.
Below is the full affidavit in support of the motion for review.
PLEASE NOTE that this Honorable Court will be moved by an Attorney on behalf of the Petitioner / Applicant in this document (Applicant), praying for an order from the Court to review its Judgment issued on February 16, 2021 regarding an Applicant’s request to return open your case; FOR the reasons established in the Statement of the case and the attached sworn statement, and by other orders or other orders that the Honorable Court deems appropriate.
AFFORDABLE STATEMENT
He, JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA, of House No. 33 Chain Homes, Airport Valley Drive, Accra, takes an oath and says the following:
I am the petitioner and the applicant here. The facts in this affidavit, unless otherwise stated, are within my personal knowledge, information, or belief.
On February 16, 2021, this Court unanimously rejected an application of mine to reopen my case in order to have a summons issued and Ms. Jean Adukwei Mensa ordered to appear in court to be questioned by my lawyer. The decision is attached to this affidavit and is marked as Annex “3rd REVIEW 1”.
At the hearing of this application, through my Attorney, I will request authorization from this Honorable Court to refer to all the processes presented in this case up to the date of the hearing of the application.
With respect to Annex 3 Review 1 ″, the Counsel has informed me and I sincerely believe that the Court made fundamental errors of law, including the ruling for incurring constitutional provisions, statutes and previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
Among these errors, the Counsel warns me and I sincerely believe, it is an error by which the Court subordinates a provision of the Evidence Act to a rule in the subsidiary legislation of the Court’s Rules Committee.
Attached hereto, marked as Annex 3 RD REVIEW 2 ″ and 3 RD REVIEW 3 ″ are the two affidavits of the President of the 1st Respondent, Ms. Jean Adukwei Mensa, whose legal effect (by virtue of the Evidence Law ), the ruling attempts to circumvent by resorting to subsidiary legislation.
The fundamental errors that have led to a judicial error against me are set out in the attached case brief.
I am warned and I truly believe that these constitute exceptional circumstances that justify the Tribunal reviewing its own decision.
THEREFORE, I swear by this affidavit in support of the request in this document.
— starrfm
