Tsikata Calls for Reconsideration of Supreme Court Decision on EC Boss | Politics

Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata requests a reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirming the position of the first defendant (President of the EC) not to testify in the ongoing election petition trial.

Mr Tsikata, lawyer for the petitioner, (former President John Dramani Mahama), said the Court made fundamental errors of law in the February 11 decision and that this resulted in “a judicial error against him (the petitioner)” .

The Applicant stated that these fundamental errors of law constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the request for review.

On February 11, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected a petitioner’s request to force the President of the Electoral Commission (EC) to raise the witness stand to cross-examine her witness statement.

The applicant, after closing his case, asked the Court to compel the first respondent, Ms. Jean Mensa, and the second respondent, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, to raise the witness stand for cross-examination after closing their files.

The court, however, in a unanimous decision, ruled that in a civil lawsuit, it could not compel a party to raise the witness stand.

The seven-member panel said the inherent jurisdiction of the court does not require it to expand its powers beyond what the law says.

He further noted that although the patroness of the EC was mandated to fulfill a constitutional duty, a new set of procedural rules could not be set for her.

“We will not give in to counsel’s invitation to compel the first and second respondents to raise the witness stand,” the court said.

EC lawyers and President Akufo-Addo said they closed their case and did not call any witnesses at trial after the petitioner called three witnesses and closed his case, although they filed statements by witnesses.

Mr Justine Amenuvor, lead counsel for the EC, cited Article 36 of Rule 43 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 87, Rule 3 (e) 5, Article 62, paragraph (2) of the law of evidence to support its position.

He said the EC would not need further evidence to decide the issue in court after the petitioner closed his case.

He argued that it was the petitioner who brought them to court, presented evidence and closed his case after calling three witnesses.

“We think we have nothing to say. If he has a good deal, he should go ahead and be happy to dance. We ask the Court to confirm our request, ”he said.

Mr Akoto Ampaw, lead counsel for President Akufo-Addo, associated himself with the observations of counsel for the EC, arguing that the arguments of counsel for the applicant, opposing the action of not calling witnesses, were “ill-founded”.

He said that the position taken by his client had rather worked in favor of the petitioner.

Under English law, a party can argue or notify the court that it “does not intend to present evidence in a trial” and the same should be done in time, a t -he declares.

“We are of the opinion that in the light of CI 37, we are entitled not to produce evidence. The petitioner could file our witness statement as hearsay evidence, ”said Ampaw.

Mr. Tsikata, however, objected to the EC’s position, which he viewed as an “evasion of cross-examination”, adding that Ms Mensa, who represented the EC, had informed the Court that she would set up the witness box for examination.

He stated that the President of the EC explicitly stated this in her affidavit in opposition to the petitioner’s stay of proceedings and her request for interrogatories.

“The president of the EC has made representations to the Court and she cannot resign from these approaches”, he declared.

Mr Tsikata said Ms Mensa had taken a special responsibility in the conduct of the 2020 elections and that she should be accountable.

On Monday February 8, the petitioner closed his case after calling three witnesses; Johnson Asiedu Nketia, NDC General Secretary Dr. Michael Kpessa-Whyte and Mr. Robert Joseph Mettle Nunoo, both members of the National Democratic Congress.

The first and second respondents also closed their cases by saying that in view of the evidence presented by the petitioner’s witnesses, they would not call any more witnesses because they believed that the burden of proof had not changed. for them to open a defense.

The petitioner is in court to challenge the validity of the 2020 presidential election results declared by the boss of the EC.