The Electoral Commission says the petition filed by 2020 NDC Presidential Candidate John Dramani Mahama is based on “extreme speculations” and an actual waste of the court’s time.

The Commission explains these speculations thrive on the existence of two wrong assumptions.

This is the decision by Mr. Mahama to hold on to the wrong figure mentioned as valid votes (13,434,574) even though the right figure is known.

The other assumption the EC says is the flagbearer’s determination to strangely assign all the Techiman South votes to himself even though the actual results were known to him at the time he decided to file the petition.

The EC however insists the Chairperson’s inadvertent mistake made during declaration did not change how Ghanaians voted on December 7.

It states that the 13,434,574 mentioned as total valid votes is an error.

Nana Akufo-Addo, the EC says obtained 6,730,413 representing more than 50% of the 13,121,111 valid votes (specifically 51.295%).

The EC further argues in this document that the petition fails to disclose how the alleged vote padding influenced the outcome of the elections.

The EC concludes that the petition does not merit a trial and is a total waste of the court’s time.

Source: MyJoyOnline.Com

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) flagbearer for the 2020 polls, John Mahama, has argued that denying him the opportunity to serve interrogatories on the Electoral Commission (EC) will damage his election petition case at the Supreme Court.

Mahama’s concern is contained in his fresh application seeking to halt the election petition until the Supreme Court reviews it’s ruling on some 12 questions (interrogatories) he wants the Electoral Commission to answer.

The apex court in dismissing the interrogatories application said Mr. Mahama’s legal team failed to convince the court on the relevance of the questions.

In the application for a stay of proceedings, Mr. Mahama said he was compelled by “certain fundamental errors of law that the court made in its ruling leading to a miscarriage of justice.”

He said the denial of the chance to pose the interrogatories to the EC was “a serious miscarriage of justice which we expect to have remedied in the review.”

“At the hearing of this application, counsel will crave the indulgence of the Court to refer to the statement of case in support of the application for review, particular, to show that there are indeed serious matters of law that are to be determined in this review application, and I am likely to succeed, as the ruling of the court is manifestly in error.”

Though time has been noted as a concern in the case, Mr. Mahama further maintains that the “use of the mechanism of interrogatories will ensure a speedier trial.”

On why he wants the petition halted, Mr Mahama said there would be “irreparable harm” caused to his case because of the effect on pre-trial processes.

Source: CitiNewsRoom

The Supreme Court (SC) said the crucial issue of relevancy has not been established in the application in the determination of the motion filed by Former President John Dramani Mahama, the Petitioner in Election 2020 Petition.

The Petitioner/Applicant has prayed the Court to grant the application to serve interrogatories. The basis for the application as argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Applicant was to assist the Court to narrow issues for the trial of the Petition.

A Seven-Member SC Panel Chaired by Chief Justice Anin Yeboah said interrogatories under Common Law was discretionary, it should be granted or refused when all the circumstances are taken into consideration.

Other members are Justice Y. Appau, Justice S. K. Marful-Sau, Justice N. A. Amegatcher, Professor N. A. Kotey, Ms Mariama Owusu and Mrs Gertrude Torkornoo.

It should be noted that the questions seeks to elicit answers to the issues raised by and the reliefs sought in the Petition.

It said interrogatories must be relevant to the issues and relate to the matters in controversy between the parties, in this case the Petitioner and the Electoral Commission, the First Respondent.

The Court said reference was made to the 2013 Election Petition titled: Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and two others vrs President Mahama and two others [2013] SCGLR 50, in which an application to serve interrogates was granted by this Court.

However, subsequent to 2013, several statutory amendments have been made by Constitutional Instrument 99 of 2016 which has restricted the practice and procedure of this Court as regards Election Petition.

It said indeed, Rule 69 (c) (4) of the Supreme Court amendment Rules C. I. 99 directs the expeditious disposal of the Petition and sets timelines for this Court to dispose of the Petition.

It implies that, even amendments ought not to be sought and granted as well as joinder of parties. Subsequent statutory amendments pointed out after 2013 have provided us with new procedural regime and strict timelines.

The Court said; “we are strictly bound to comply with C. I. 99 and therefore we will not apply Order 22 of C. I. 47 of 2004 in this circumstance.

“We accordingly refuse to grant the application and same is accordingly dismissed,” it added.

The Court, then directed the parties to file the issues for determination.

Source: GNA