A seven-member review panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Yaw Appau has refused a request for live transmission of hearing of the review motion regarding the quashing of Ho High Court’s decision injuncting John Peter Amewu from being gazetted.
Lawyers of interested parties of persons of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe and Lololo (SALL) have filed a motion for review of the apex court to review its own decision.
On January 4, this year, a panel of five chaired by Justice Appau unanimously granted a Certiari application filed by the Attorney General’s Department.
The grant of that application means that the orders made by Ho High Court placing an interim injunction on the gazetting and swearing-in of Member of Parliament-elect for the Hohoe Constituency, John Peter Amewu has been quashed.
It, therefore, directed the court to refer matters regarding human rights infringement to the apex Court for determination.
But the interested parties have since filed an application seeking a review of the court’s ruling.
Before the court could hear that review application, the interested parties from SALL moved a motion for the review application to be transmitted live on television on Monday, January 26, 2021.
It was the case of counsel for the interested parties that, due to the public order restrictions following the Covid-19 pandemic, movement of the SALL people has been limited.
According to him, live telecast of the proceedings as was the case of the Supreme Court election petition will help and also put the safety of the people in check including the justices sitting on the matter.
The state represented by Grace Awul, Chief State Attorney while opposing to the motion said, this is not a matter that warranted live television broadcast.
According to her, no harm would be occasioned or visited on the interested parties if the application was not granted.
The review panel of seven after listening to the parties ruled that it did not find any merit to transmit live this short application for review.
The court accordingly dismissed the motion for live transmission of the review hearing.
The court also dismissed another application from the interested parties for grant of leave to file further grounds of relief for the review filed.
Source: StarrFmOnline
