For those of us without legal brains, our only job when there is a legal battle is to cross our legs and watch, listen and observe proceedings. And if we have any comment to make about proceedings, we do that cautiously to avoid court contempt.

The few past weeks witnessed some competitive legal wrangling between the petitioner and the two respondents in the petition case filed by the former flagbearer of the National Democratic Congress(NDC), John Dramani Mahama.

Indisputably, we cannot deny the fact that, hearing of the petition was characterized by some agreements and disagreements of some decisions by the Apex Court.

Again, we cannot dispute the fact that, the petitioner has filed several applications prior to the hearing and during the hearing of the main petition case.

However, monitoring and observing closely from the audience and viewers seats, one can easily tell that, almost all the request applications filed by the petitioner were all aimed at one thing - The EC must give them something.

Yes, apart from the request to make amend on the main petition and the request for a live telecast of court proceedings, all other request filed by the petitioners were to compel the EC to provide one thing or the other.

Again, a good observer can also tell that, almost all the requests filed by the petitioner demanded for the same thing. Yes, it looks like demanding for same thing in different languages.

Find below some of the request filed before and during the petition hearing.

1. Among others, lawyers for the petitioner are asking the EC to answer if the National Communications Authority (NCA) played any role or facilitated in any way, the transmission of the election results to its headquarters.

2. Again, Mr Mahama wants to know how the Chairperson of the EC, Jean Mensa, arrived at the figures she used in declaring candidate Nana Akufo-Addo as the winner of the 2020 presidential poll.

3.  “Interrogatories sought to ask “12 questions” about the processes leading up to the declaration of results as explained in the EC’s own response to the petition.

4. Counsel for John Mahama, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata also requested to inspect the original copies of EC documents which he said will determine if he should call for more witnesses.

5. Again the petitioner's legal team asked for the original constituency presidential election results collation forms for all the constituencies (form 9),

6. Originals for all the constituency presidential election results summary sheets (form 10).

7. Also, they asked for originals of the regional presidential election collation forms (form 11).

8. The regional presidential election results summary sheets (form 12) for all 16 regions of Ghana.

9. They again requested for original copy of the declaration of presidential results form (form 13) and updates of results from four constituencies for Greater Accra.

 10. How were results transmitted from the Constituency Collation Centers to the Regional Collation Centers?

11. How were results transmitted from the Regional Collation Centers to the Headquarters of 1st Respondent?

Interestingly all the above were filed in different applications. And you are seeing it the way I do, you will observe only two things:

1. EC must provide something to the petitioner.

2. All the request applications filed went round the same thing. Yes, forgive me but, they are all the same. They all seek for one thing which is how the EC got its presidential election figures.

The petitioner however, tried his possible best to ask for the same thing in different languages. For this reason, even if you will give numbers to the petitioners dismissed cases, including review applications, I will tell you the number of petitioner's dismissed application(s) is only one.

And that particular one is the one the petitioner seeks to know how the Electoral Commission got the presidential election figures.

Again, all the request applications seem to compel the EC to provide something to the petitioner. Well, we may be wrong with our zero legal brains, but what we at the Legal 'Mumu' Chambers know is that, " If you talk say somebody cheats you p3, you for show how the person manage cheats you. You no fit come begin dey ask the person who cheats you to bring things he use cheats you"

And if our principle at the Legal 'Mumu' Chambers, is anything to go by, then I think you shouldn't be surprise why Tsatsu's legal trap fails to catch even one fish.

Drop your comment if you agree or disagree with the Legal 'Mumu' Chamber's legal principles.

You can share and follow for more updates.

Seth K. Nartey

[email protected]

Content created and supplied by: STBrain (via Opera News )