The counsel for the first respondent, Jean Mensa, in the ongoing presidential election petition, has described the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama’s application which is seeking permission from the court to reopen his case in order to serve a subpoena on its chairperson Jean Mensa to testify, as one that is not warranted in any rule of law and should be dismissed.
In court today, February 15, 2021, the Electoral Commission, in an affidavit read in court posited that, the application by the petitioner does not give enough reason for the reopening of the case.
“I am advised and verily believe that the application does not show sufficient reason for the court to permit the petitioner to reopen his case. I am advised that reopening a case is not a remedy for the asking; the applicant must show the harm to be suffered if the case were not reopened. The petitioner skipped this requirement.”
Additionally, the EC said it was advised that the petitioner’s lawyers were confident when they closed his case without reservation, and as a result, the Court ought not to permit proceedings before it to drag unduly on the basis of a “party’s afterthought and inability to prove its case in Court.”
The EC further argued that, the petitioner entered into the contest believing that he would testify if need be. It then averred that, it decided not to waste time and effort over the tottering case hence, the EC chairperson’s decision not to testify because there was nothing to testify about.
“It became clear too soon that the Petitioner’s case drifted into departures from the Strong Room by the petitioner’s agent of his own volition and grievances that I had served ‘tea without biscuits’ to the Petitioner’s agent who had left the Strong Room to be in my Secretariat.
“Again, the petitioner deposes in support of his case to matters concerning ‘the biometric verification process for which huge sums of taxpayers money was spent. These are matters that have sprung up in this application for the first time and do not form the basis of the Petitioner’s Petition.”
Making a case for the re-opening of their case, Mr Tsikata said the petitioner closed his case because the EC Chairperson, had assured the court that she will make herself available for cross examination.
That assurance, he pointed out led to the dismissal of the petitioner’s interrogatories application, which sought to ask the EC Chairperson 12 key questions they claimed were critical to the case.
“We had the expectation that the chairperson of the first respondent (Jean Mensa) will testify hence the closure of the case.
“The Chairperson of the first respondent has in the affidavit made clear that, the petitioner will in no way be prejudiced because the questions that the petitioner sought to have in interrogatories those will be subject matter in cross-examination.”
He further said the two respondents [Electoral Commission and Nana Akufo-Addo], should rather be eager to mount the witness box to clear its names in the ongoing petition.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the election petition hearing to February 16, 2021, to decide whether or not the petitioner’s legal team should be allowed to re-open its cases.
