Lead Counsel for the petitioner in the ongoing election petition hearing, Tsatsu Tsikata on Thursday, February 18 told the justices of the Supreme Court they were cutting his submissions short.
This was when one of the justices, Getrude Torkonor sought to ask Mr Tsikata questions when he was on his feet making his argument in the application for a review of the court’s earlier ruling that witnesses cannot be compelled to testify.
Mr Tsikata who was not too happy about the development, at least from his body language on television, said “You can’t be satisfied when I have not completed my answer. I have not concluded my answer and his Lordships say you are satisfied with my answer. You are cutting me short. I am giving an answer that will address what underlies your question.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has dismissed the review application filed by lawyers of Mr John Dramani Mahama against an earlier ruling that witnesses cannot be compelled to testify.
Lawyers of the petitioner were seeking a review of the ruling to enable the chair of the 1st respondent Jean Mensa mount the witness box for cross examination.
The Chief Justice in the ruling said “We have also taken into consideration the applicants’ reliance on Article 19 Clause 13 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution. We are of the view that the applicant has failed to satisfy the court with new or important matter in reference to the constitutional provisions. In the result, the application fails and it is hereby dismissed.”
During proceedings in court on Thursday, February Counsel for the 2nd respondent in the ongoing hearing of the election petition, Mr Akoto Ampaw asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the review.
Mr Akoto Ampaw argued that Mr Mahama’s review application smacks of an emotional party seeking to re-argue case hence the application should be dismissed.
His argument comes after lead counsel for the petitioner Mr Tsatsu gave the court the reasons why they want the ruling to be reconsidered.
But Mr Ampaw said “We are opposed to the application for a review and we rely on our affidavit in opposition and statement of case filed on the 17th of February.
“My Lords it is our respectfully view that this application does not appropriately invoke the special review jurisdiction of the court under Article 133 as well as Rule 54 of CI 16.”
“My Lords, we are submitting to this honourable court that this application is a classic case of an aggrieved party who has become emotional by the decision of the court who seeks to re-argue his case through the backdoor of an apparently review application, which it is not,” Mr Ampaw said.
He further told the court that the application does not satisfy the stick conditions that needed to be met.
“This is an abuse of court process,” he told the court.
