Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, the spokesperson for the President Akufo-Addo’s legal team in the election petition hearing, has revealed that the actions of the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama, in the ongoing trial is merely an occasion to cause delay.
Expressing his disappointment at the unfolding of event, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah said, the new process filed by the NDC flag bearer was unfortunate.
“The court has given Tuesday to complete pre-trial and then give the necessary orders to start the hearing. We are already behind schedule but this afternoon, we were informed that the lawyers of Mr. Mahama have filed a new process aimed at amending some of their previous processes, and we have been served accordingly”.
The Ofoase-Ayirebi legislator, Mr. Oppong Nkrumah, further stated that, the new application by the petitioner is just another strategy to stall the hearing of the substantive case at the Supreme Court and also to make amends and change original paragraphs with new ones.
“The effect will be that we are going to have a further delay in this enterprise. That is why we are a bit not surprised because it is becoming obvious that the tactic of the John Mahama team is always to occasion delays and find a way of preventing us from going unto the substantive matter. So we are not surprised, but we are disappointed that they keep playing these legal tricks.
“We have filed a response to the original statement of case. Having read our response, what they are trying to do is to use the back door to file a reply and also to amend and substitute their original paragraph with a new paragraph 28 after they have filed a response to their statement of case. Our lawyers will make the necessary submissions in court tomorrow, but we are not surprised but disappointed that they are going round in circles just trying to delay us from getting to the substantive five issues that the court says are in question. We are not surprised that they are doing this”.
Mr. Mahama on Monday, January 25, filed another process asking to be permitted to file additional ground to support the review requested.
This ground seeks to argue that the court’s ruling was characterized by a lack of due regard to the law or facts (per incuriam) relative to article 129 (4) of the constitution and the court’s decision in Ex Parte Magna International Transport Ltd and Bernard Mornah v AG.
129(4) states that; “For the purposes of hearing and determining a matter within its jurisdiction and the amendment, execution or the enforcement of a judgment or order made on any matter, and for the purposes of any other authority, expressly or by necessary implication given to the Supreme Court by this Constitution or any other law, the Supreme Court shall have all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in any court established by this Constitution or any other law”.
They also want to replace paragraph 28 of the original statement of case (that of the review) and additionally file a supplement to the statement of case.
Paragraph 28 in the initial review document stated among others “there is no reference in rule 69(c) 4 of CI 99 to amendments.
In the proposed new paragraph “it is rather” quoted 68(7) instead of the 69A (6) quoted earlier.
The petitioner and his legal team by this move are basically seeking to file another ground to support the review application on the interrogatories they intend to serve on the 1st Respondent, the Electoral Commission (EC).
