Supreme Court sets February 16 to decide whether or not petitioner can reopen case


The first and second respondents in the ongoing election petition hearing have opposed the application filed by the petitioner for leave to re-open his case and subpoena the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission for Cross-examination.

It was the case of the lawyers for the respondents Justin Amenuvor and Akoto Ampaw that the alleged engagement with the EC chairperson was not acceptable.

They said it would not have any material effect on the results. They explained that the position of the law does not allow the petitioner to do what he is seeking from the court. Backing their arguments with decided cases, they explained that once a person closes his case he has no right to call for further evidence.

They were of the view that what Mr Tsikata is seeking is an abuse of the court process, since they themselves have closed their case. They averred that since 1846, it has never happened, saying it undermines the court system and it must be strongly rejected.

They also argued that the various ruling by the court on interrogatories, reviews and inspection of documents have all been addressed therefore there is no need for the petitioner to reopen his case.

On the issue of the petitioner for the court to subpoena the EC chairperson, lawyers for the first and second respondent were of the view that the Chairperson cannot be compelled to adduce evidence.

Spokesperson for the respondents Kojo Oppong Nkrumah explained to the media after court proceedings some of the concerns raised by the petitioner in opposing the motion filed by the petitioner.

A member of the legal team for the petitioner, Dr. Dominic Ayine, in a media briefing said they are not seeking a party to testify, but compelling Jean Mensah to testify.

This does not mean that their case is not made but if the respondents have decided not to put their clients to testify, they leave it to the court to rule on that. They have made their case that Jean Mensa should be subjected to cross-examination.

Dr. Ayine said there is nowhere in CI 99 that a party cannot be subpoenaed before the court.

A seven member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Anin Yeboah has however adjourned the case to Tuesday, February 16, to give ruling on whether or not the petitioner can reopen his case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *