Lead Counsel for the 1st Respondent in the Election Petition hearing, Justin Amenuvor, has shown solidarity to colleague Lawyer Dominic Ayine who was cited for Contempt by the Supreme Court.

According to Justin Amenuvor, he has been friends with the spokesperson for the Petitioner for as long as possible and was even the best man at his wedding thus he was only there to show support.

His statement comes after a judge asked whether he [Amenuvor] came to support his roommate adding that his name was not part of the Lawyers involved in the case.

“Yes my Lord, I came to support my roommate, best man and my best friend. I am not appearing as Counsel but as a friend of Dominic Ayine and a best man at his wedding. He was Commonwealth Hall Secretary in our year, he’s a very good friend of mine. We go way back.”

Dr Ayine was found guilty for some comments he made while addressing the media on February 16, 2021. According to him, the apex court had a “pre-determined agenda” to rule against the Petitioner and flagbearer of the National Democratic Congress, John Dramani Mahama.

Following the hearing on February 21, Dr Dominic Ayine was called to mount the witness box to explain the reason for his utterances. According to him, it wasn’t his intention to mar the reputation of the Supreme Court and quickly apologized to the Justices on the bench.

The Chief Justice, Kwesi Anin-Yeboah, conditioned that he would only be forgiven if he [Ayine] rendered an unqualified apology and retracts the ‘scandalous statement’ through the medium he defamed the apex court of Ghana on.

Following the retraction and apology, the Supreme Court discharged the case while advising the former Attorney General to be cautious with his utterances and not cause further him to his profession and the Supreme Court.

“We want to struck out having apologized and purge yourself from contempt”. The Chief Justice noted.

Meanwhile, the Election Petition hearing will continue on March 4 for judgement.

Source: GhanaWeb

The lawyers of the Electoral Commission (EC), first respondent in the ongoing petition hearing say it is unfortunate that they were dragged to court by the NDC’s 2020 Presidential Candidate, John Mahama.

According to them, the harmless mistake made by EC boss, Jean Mensah while declaring the election results on December 9 had no bearing on the outcome of the election which has triggered the petition.

They further stated that the former President has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to challenge the election results and for that matter, the declaration of the result and hence, they are calling on the court to dismiss the petitioner’s case.

The submission is contained in the written closing address filed by the lawyers in compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders.

Source: MyJoyOnline

Lawyers for President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo have prayed the Supreme Court to dismiss the Petitioner’s case as it discloses no reasonable cause of action.

President Nana Addo said “our submission is that the petition is frivolous and discloses no reasonable cause of action remains unshaken, notwithstanding the evidence led in aid of the Petition.

In fact, the woeful performance of the Petitioner’s witnesses during their respective cross-examination has further buttressed our position that the instant Petition with all due respect, ought not to have proceeded to trial.”

In the second respondent’s closing address filed at the Supreme Court, Nana Addo said the Election Petition was one that in all shape and form relate to an attack on the process for the conduct of the presidential election itself.

“In the instant matter, it is clear on the face of the Petition and indeed the evidence of Mr. Asiedu Nketia in particular that the Petitioner was not in court to challenge the validity of the election but the case concerns the performance of the function 1st respondent (EC) and its Chairperson pertaining to the declaration of the Presidential election of December 2020, shows that the petition is not an election Petition properly so-called.”

The second respondent argued that from the Petitioner’s reliefs he did not contest the propriety of the conduct of the elections hence his call for another election between him and the Petitioner.

According to the second respondent even though from the reliefs of the Petitioner that, no one had 50 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in the Election and there seek a ” second election with the Petitioner and the second respondent as a candidate…”, the Petitioner did not indicate his percentage or number of votes in the December 7, 2020 polls.

“Not having pleaded these fundamental material facts and no evidence having been led on same, it is our humble submission that this Petition does not qualify to be an election Petition.”

Incidentally, the Petitioner has also not contested any of the EC processes when it’s come to the process of voting, counting of votes, and declaration of results at polling stations among others.

The second respondent says that, the instant Petition belongs to the class of actions that could be best described as “suits challenging the declaration” rather than the validity of the election itself.

“The court is invited to hold that no challenge of the conduct of the election is stated from paragraph one to 30 of the Petitioner’s Petition.

Nana Addo held that Article 64 (1) of the Constitution set out the criteria for the invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction on the conduct of a presidential election.

“The Supreme Court, therefore, is not, clothed with jurisdiction to entertain any matter clothed with apparel of presidential election Petition when in fact it is not.”

The second respondent said based on the evaluation of facts and the law, in terms of Mr Asiedu Nketia, one of the Petitioner’s witnesses, the Court’s jurisdiction has not been properly invoked.

The second respondent said it was not in dispute that a summation of the total valid votes announced by the EC Chairperson, Mrs. Jean Mensa as having obtained by the 12 candidates yielded a total of 13,121,111.

“Apart from the fact that this figure is incontrovertible, Petitioner failed or refused to provide any contrary evidence that would establish or least suggest that the valid votes declared for the 12 candidates were erroneous.

The second respondent argues that apart from reproducing the figures declared by the EC Chairperson and making fanciful analogies based on her innocuous errors, the Petitioner failed to provide his own data or independently attained figures to controvert what was declared as the valid votes obtained by each of the 12 candidates.

Nana Addo, therefore, prays the court to ignore allegations of arbitrariness and lack of transparency in the National Collation Centre, saying that “these allegations are of little probative value.”

Source: GNA