[ad_1]
The seven judges and sometimes nine judges who heard the 2020 election petition have been called upon 11 times to speak out on various issues.
These are questions on which the lawyers representing the defendants (EC and President Akufo-Addo) have taken positions contrary to the position of the petitioner, John Mahama.
The seven judges handling the case are Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Nene Amegatcher, Professor Kotey, Mariama Owusu and Gertrude Torkonoo.
They were joined on three occasions by judges Amadu Tanko (all three times) and Professor Henrietta Mensa Bonsu (twice) and Avril-Lovelace Johnson (once).
Decisions so far
All court rulings in recent weeks have been unanimous 7-0 and 9-0 on four occasions.
- First, he unanimously accepted the petitioners’ request to amend the petition, that is, to correct minor errors which did not affect the substance of the petition.
Mahama lawyers try to correct errors in 2020 election petition
2. He unanimously rejected a request for service of the interrogations. These were 12 questions they wanted the President of the EC to answer
Supreme Court rejects 12 interrogations of Mahama for EC
3. Constituted as a group of 9 members, it unanimously rejected a request to substitute a paragraph and add an additional reason to the applicant’s request to have the decision on the questioning reviewed.
Allow me to further demonstrate that your ruling was against the law – Mahama in Supreme Court
4. This 9-member panel also unanimously rejected the review decision itself.
Supreme Court rejects request to review Mahama’s decision on interrogations
5. The initial panel of 7 members, by a unanimous decision, struck out parts of the statement of the applicant’s witness (Asiedu Nketia) (7 paragraphs) while retaining 3 parts following a request by the respondents.
Election petition: Supreme Court strikes out 7 parts of Asiedu Nketia’s declaration
6. This panel also unanimously rejected a petitioner’s request to inspect the documents.
Supreme Court rejects Mahama’s request to inspect 6 EC documents
7. The Committee unanimously struck out 5 parts of 32 paragraphs of the Applicant’s witness statement (Mettle-Nunoo)
Supreme Court deleted 5 paragraphs from Mettle-Nunoo witness statement; 27 maintained
8. The panel unanimously rejected the petitioner’s request to compel the EC to call Jean Mensa to testify.
We cannot compel Jean Mensa to testify – Supreme Court justices
9. The panel unanimously rejected the Applicant’s request to reopen his case.
Can’t reopen your case – Supreme Court rejects Mahama’s claim
10. The enhanced 9-member panel denied the Applicant’s request to reconsider his decision not to compel Jean Mensa to testify.
Jean Mensa cannot be compelled to testify – Supreme Court upholds earlier ruling
11. An enhanced panel of 9 members rejected a request to review its decision not to allow the Grievor to reopen his case.
Review jurisdiction should not be used as an emotional reaction to an adverse judgment – Supreme Court rejects Mahama’s latest claim
According to the above, it was only on one occasion that the petitioner’s request was fully granted.
It was the request to correct the errors.
The petitioner’s point of view was partly confirmed on two occasions when it came to striking out parts of witness statements.
The respondents’ legal arguments, however, influenced the judges 8 times.
Source link
