The Ho High Court has ordered Honorable John Peter Amewu, the Member of Parliament for Hohoe Constituency to provide his testimony in the ongoing parliamentary election petition involving the exclusion of the residents of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi in the 2020 parliamentary elections on July 2, 2024.
This decision follows repeated delays attributed to Mr. Amewu’s national assignments. During today’s proceedings, Counsel for Mr Amewu informed the court of his client’s inability to attend due to official duties.
However, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, counsel for the Petitioners argued that such actions were undermining the court’s authority, noting that the trial was set to continue today, June 26, 2024, with Mr. Amewu expected to testify.
Court Outlines Two Issues for Trial
In other developments, the Ho High Court outlined two more issues for trial, as filed by Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Hon. Peter Amewu.
The issues included whether the court has the authority to declare that the enactment of C. I 128 violated Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution and whether the court can declare that the 1st Respondent had no power to place the SALL communities under the Jasikan District as per C.I 119 and Article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
The addition of these two issues by the presiding judge, His Lordship Justice Owoahene Acheampong was after an extensive legal exchange between counsel for the various parties.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata emphasized that the issues already set down by the court covered the two additional issues.
He referred in particular to the fact that the court has already set down as an issue whether C. I 95 had been validly amended by C.I 128.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata further argued that there was no dispute about the interpretation of Article 47(5), and therefore, the court was only being called upon to apply the provisions according to its terms.
This, he posited, did not require a reference to the Supreme Court for the exercise of its powers to enforce or interpret the Constitution.
He referred to some Supreme Court decisions to buttress his argument, arguing that C.I 119 was inconsistent with the Local Governance Act and so did not change the composition of the Hohoe Municipality.
Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, representing the petitioners, contended that the issue was specific to the Hohoe constituency and the validity of C.I 128 in removing SALL traditional areas from it.
He also argued that C.I 119 was inconsistent with the Local Governance Act, hence it did not alter the composition of the Hohoe Municipality.
However, Counsel for Mr. Amewu argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to declare C.I 128’s enactment as a violation of the Constitution, citing Article 130(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
The Electoral Commission’s counsel also supported this view, insisting that C. I 128 was the instrument under which the 2020 election had been conducted throughout the country.
In the end, the court ordered that should the 2nd Respondent wish to file an additional witness statement after filing the additional issues, they should do so within three days from today.
However, counsel for the 2nd Respondent indicated that they may not file additional witness statements and may opt not to testify at all.
In the previous proceeding the Presiding Judge of the SALL parliamentary election petition at the Ho High Court, His Lordship Justice Owoahene Acheampong expressed his profound displeasure over the consistent absence of legal representatives for the Electoral Commission (EC) during court proceedings.
Justice Acheampong lamenting over the unfortunate development recalled a prior instance where he had similarly criticized the absence of the lawyers of the Electoral Commission.
READ ALSO: Concerns Intensify Over $12 Billion Petroleum Hub Project in Jomoro
