On the 7th of December 2020, Ghana elections were conducted and on the 9th December 2020 the presidential results were announced by the Electoral Commission (EC) chairperson, Madam Jean Adukwei Mensa and per her results, she declared the candidate for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo as the winner for the 2020 presidential election with a 51.953% of the total votes cast.
The National Democratic Congress(NDC) who had 47.35% on hearing the declaration by the EC chairperson were not happy with the declaration because they claimed there were some irregularities in the election and claim no one had the Constitutional mandated 50+1% so the election should be a runoff.
John Dramani Mahama and his party leaders took the election to court for a runoff. The election petition was sent to the Supreme Court on the 28th of December 2020 and the Supreme Court trial ruling started on 1st February 2021.
When the election petition started the lawyer for the NDC, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata and the petitioner filed for a stay of preceding and after that, they filed an application to the Court on the request to asked the EC chairperson 12 interrogative questions.
The lawyer of the 1st respondent, lawyer Justin Amenuvor for the EC and lawyer Akoto Ampaw of 2nd respondent for NPP oppose their request to the Court and after further arguments, the request of the petitioner was denied.
The petitioner, John Mahama and his lawyer Tsikata then filed for review of the request they were denied of and upon all argument by Tsatsu Tsikata, they were still denied again.
After the NDCs were denied, they filed for inspections of documents. The NDC party wanted to inspect certain 6 documents and the lawyers for the first and second respondent oppose the request to the inspection of documents. The lawyers were allowed to explain their reasons and after their explanation, the Supreme Court ruling went in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Again, Tsatsu Tsikata filed for review and was denied by the Judges of the court.
The Supreme Court Judges then ordered for the witnesses of the petitioner and the 1st witness of the NDC was Hon. Johnson Asiedu Nketia followed by Dr Kpesse Whyte and then Rojo Mettle-Nunoo. They were cross-examined by the lawyers of 1st and 2nd respondent and on the 3rd witness Rojo Mettle-Nunoo, the Tsatsu Tsikata close his case for the petition.
Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata ideal for closing his case became a flame in the air as the lawyer Justin Amenuvor for the 1st respondent, Mrs Jean Adukwei Mensa told the Court that, they no longer file for any more witness and that Jean Adukwei Mensa will not mount the witness box for cross-examination. Lawyer Akoto Ampaw for the 2nd respondent, Nana Addo also side with lawyer Amenuvor.
The Supreme Court Judges asked them to come the following day and argue on the said request as to whether Madam Jean Mensa should or not mount the witness box.
The argument for the lawyers begun and Lawyer Tsikata in his efforts did what he could to get Madam Jean Mensa Adukwei to mount the witness box but unfortunately for him, the Judges ruled against him.
Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata and the petitioner did not give up on the EC so they filed for an application to reopen their case to get the EC chairperson to testify but the Judges again denied them.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COURT PETITION
Per the information from all lawyers been heard about this court petition, it seems the NDC party are now shaking. If they are still wishing for the EC chairperson to testify then it means they have not given the court a concrete reason for their petition and now wishes to build their evidence around the EC chairperson.
It could have been in the interests of the NDC that the lawyer of the 1st respondent has decided not to allow his client to testify, that means any evidence provided by the NDC will be what the Judges will stand on and give their final ruling.
Per what is on the ground now, it means the NDC as a party do not believe in the evidence witness of their 3 witnesses and now wishes to build new evidence by using the EC chairperson.
When you come to the lawyer of the 1st respondent Amenuvor, he as it looks has seen the weakness of the bases of the NDC evidence and to put more fire on it decided not to allow his respondent to testify for the NDC to get the chance of building any evidence.
In conclusion, if you had followed the petition and have read the analysis well you can get a clue of what the final verdict will be.
Content created and supplied by: Glasss (via Opera News )