[ad_1]
Documents were filed on behalf of President Akufo-Addo indicating his objection to a request by the NDC, John Dramani Mahama, to the Supreme Court to suspend the hearing of the election petition.
Mr. Mahama, through his lawyers, is asking that the hearings be suspended until the Supreme Court deals with a request for review he has filed.
Documents signed by one of Mr. Akufo-Addo’s attorneys, Kwaku Asirifi, describe Mr. Mahama’s request as “baseless and calculated to block the hearing of the petition.”
Mr Mahama is in Apex court challenging the 2020 election results.
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, the court ordered Mr. Mahama’s team to file their witness statements at the end of the day Thursday.
The petitioner’s lead lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, informed the court that they had filed a petition urging the court to reconsider its advance ruling rejecting a request to put the chairman of the EC to 12 questions.
Mr. Mahama’s lawyers filed another petition Thursday morning.
This time around, they are asking the court to stop all proceedings relating to the case until it rules on their request for review.
Lawyers argue that a serious miscarriage of justice will occur if the court proceeds without the request for review being pronounced. This, they explain, will cause irreparable harm that cannot be repaired.
But President Akufo-Addo, whose electoral victory is disputed, disagrees.
The document filed on his behalf by his lawyers argues that John Mahama was well aware of the strict 42-day deadline imposed on the Supreme Court to process election petitions.
He further states that the law imposing such a requirement was published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on January 5, 2017 when Mr. Mahama was President of Ghana.
They further contend that Mr. Mahama could have filed his interrogation request shortly after filing his petition on December 30, 2020 or at least January 9, 2021 when he received the response from the EC and President Akufo-Addo. .
Lawyers say the request was deliberately made belatedly as part of a conspiracy to overturn clear deadlines on the Supreme Court.
The lawyers conclude by saying that “there are no exceptional circumstances giving rise to a miscarriage of justice which justify the right to an immediate request for a stay of proceedings.
“This honorable court should dismiss the request as unfounded and calculated to block the hearing of a petition that it itself initiated.”
Source link
