All fingers remain crossed as the Supreme court docket is expected to provide a ruling on Thursday as as to if or no longer the chairperson of the EC which happens to be the first respondent and has filed a witness remark should still be move-examined through the petitioner's attorneys concerning the remark.
Former President John Dramani Mahama has petitioned the apex court challenging the announcement of the December 7 last 12 months's election. He argues that none of the candidates together with himself that took part within the election acquired the constitutionally required 50%+1 votes, so the assertion of President Nana Akufo-Addo should still be nullified.
On Monday, February 8, 2021, the petitioner's prison group closed its case after the respondents' attorneys had pass-examined the former's three witnesses.
The respondents' lawyers then indicated to the court that they did not intend to call any witnesses, urging the court docket to proceed with the evidence before it.
study also: "The battle is the Lord's" – Koku Anyidoho reacts to suspension from NDC
They relied on Order 36 (four) sub-rule three of the high courtroom (Civil system Rule), C. I forty seven, which they argued allowed them to decide no longer to adduce any proof.
in response to them, having cross-examined the petitioner's witnesses and considered the witness statements filed earlier than the court docket, as smartly as the reliefs being sought by using everything of the petition, they didn't feel the petitioners have made any groundbreaking case which warrants them calling any witnesses.
however, Tsatsu Tsikata, the petitioner's lead tips insisted that the first respondent's chairperson had already "elected" to testify, so it changed into too late to trade her mind.
Mr. Tsikata argued that by using the constitutional responsibility imposed on the Electoral Commissioner as a public servant, she is required to render an account to Ghanaians as to how she carried out that obligation of declaring who duly won the 2020 presidential election.
He further argued that by way of the witness observation of the first respondent which its chairperson signed and, in several affidavits filed to the court docket according to the petitioner's refused utility to serve interrogatories on her among others, she had indicated that she would be attainable to provide the solutions being sought all through pass-examination when she mounts the witness box.
Even before the Supreme courtroom makes a pronouncement on the controversy, some legal professionals have been sharing their views.
talking in an interview with NEAT FM's morning display 'Ghana Montie', Maurice Ampaw, noted a biblical illustration of how Jesus Christ refused to reply questions at the palace of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate to buttress his view.
"this is not the primary time a respondent can come to a decision no longer to reply questions. you could remain silent even on the fringe of demise. Jesus Christ did the equal. In front of Pontius Pilate when asked if he is the Messiah, he remained silent," he said, arguing "The case of the primary respondent is that we do not want to adduce any evidence. Our case is closed."
No comments:
Post a Comment