Not good enough for your customer on the off chance that you didn't know about avoidance of questioning – Ampaw to Tsatsu
Tsatsu Tsikata is the lead legal advisor for Mr. John Dramani Mahama, the applicant
Guidance for the second Respondent in the progressing political decision request hearing, Mr Akoto Ampaw has said that lead counsel for the candidate Mr Tsatsu Tsikata ought to have foreseen that the respondents could utilize the avoidance of questioning methodology since that is allowed under the law.
"In the event that you didn't think about this procedure, at that point that is not good enough for your customer," Mr. Ampaw said in court on Monday, February 15.
He further contradicted the use of the candidate to return his case in light of the fact that in his view, the solicitor is looking for a chance to summon the Chairperson of the first respondent Jean Mensa and observer of the second Respondent Peter Mac Manu for interrogation.
On the off chance that this is in all actuality, he said, the respondents' observers will be presented to help the candidate put forth his defense by showing proof. This, is he contended, is against the weight of confirmation under the law for which the application ought to be denied.
"This is an endeavor to call for additional proof and he should be held to the standard on the condition to be met to show additional proof," he said.
Guidance for the first Respondent in the progressing political decision request hearing Justin Amenuvor has told the Supreme Court on Monday, February 15, that the candidate's application to return his case is a maltreatment of the court interaction.
Mr. Amenuvor told the court that broad examination he directed so far on resume of cases focuses that since the Precedent-based law arose in Ghana as far back as 1876 no such endeavor has at any point been made.
This is a maltreatment of the court measures, he said.
Mr. Tsikata had told the Supreme Court that he shut the candidate's case since he thought the Chairperson of the first Respondent, Mrs. Jean Adukwei Mensa will make herself accessible for interrogation.
He said that the testimony of the first Respondent demonstrated that she will affirm for the situation thus, their prior choice to close their case for that to occur.
"We had the assumption that the administrator of the first Respondent will affirm" consequently the conclusion of the case.
"The Chairperson of the first Respondent has in an oath clarified that the candidate will not the slightest bit be biased on the grounds that the inquiries that the solicitor looked to have in interrogatories those will be topic in questioning," Mr. Tsikata told the court.
Then, Mrs. Adukwei Mensa has sworn an oath, asking the Supreme Court to excuse a new application recorded by solicitor in the political decision appeal case John Dramani Mahama to resume the case.
As indicated by Mrs. Mensa, the application isn't justified by any standard of law or system "and the equivalent ought to be excused by this Honorable Court".
She demonstrated that Mr. Mahama's application is "making the incorrect impression that this application is made at my command.
The Chair of the Commission clarified that at no time had she educated the solicitor nor his legal counselors of her craving to affirm for the situation.
Legal advisors of Mr. Mahama on Thursday, February 11 pronounced their goal to Reopening the case to summon Mrs Mensa as the Returning Officer of a year ago official decisions to affirm.
It followed the consistent excusably of a prior application to constrain observers of the two respondents – EC and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo – to show up in the observer box.
The respondents had shut their case by casting a ballot not to introduce their observers in court.
Be that as it may, the solicitor recorded the application to get the Chair of the EC, specifically, to show up in light of a legitimate concern for general society.
In her affirmation, requiring the excusably of the candidate's application, Mrs Mensa expressed: "I accept that there are more advantageous fora (discussions) for ventilating the alleged public interest issues and further that this ought not frame the premise of the Petitioner reopening his case in a Presidential Elections Petition in Court."
She communicated shock how the solicitor, in the wake of shutting his case on his own volition, will return again to demand that the case be reopening.
I'm prompted that regardless of whether this Court awards leave for the Petitioner to return its case; it should not reason a summon to be given against me on the grounds that a summon is given with coercive impact.
"The Honorable Court, having held that I properly practiced the choice of my privilege not to affirm would be abrogating its prior choice to arrange that I be constrained to affirm."
Content created and supplied by: Codedbeano20 (via Opera News )