We still have a strong case despite Supreme Court’s constants dismissal of our applications— Marrietta
One of the Spokesperson for the petitioner’s legal team, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong has maintained that the petitioner, John Dramani Mahama still has a strong case despite court’s ruling against them in the ongoing election petition hearing.
According to her, she disagrees with the court for dismissing their request to inspect some documents which is in the Electoral Commission’s custody.
Explaining its decision, the seven-member panel stated that as stipulated by law, copies of the documents being requested were given to every candidate who participated in the 2020 general elections which the petitioner was included.
Justice Anin-Yeboah indicated that the lawyer of the Petitioner, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata has so far failed to demonstrate that he has no copies of the documents in question.
Additionally, he said the proceedings so far showed that the Petitioner has all the copies of the documents, “the subject of this application.”
Consequently, the judges held that “no proper case has been made to warrant the exercise of their discretion in favour of the applicant.”
Today’s ruling brings the tally of dismissals of various applications brought before the court by the petitioner to three.
This has caused many to question the future of the petitioner’s case in the Supreme court.
Reacting to this, Mrs Appiah-Oppong insisted that the petitioner still has a strong case despite the odds against them.
We still have a strong case despite Supreme Court’s constants dismissal of our applications
“Irrespective of the fact that our applications have been refused, we came to the court prepared and we are ready to continue with the case. And we will go through with the case till the very end,” she stated.
Already, Mrs Appiah-Oppong has bemoaned the fact that the petitioner was being denied a fair hearing due to the dismissal of certain applications pertinent to their case.
She noted that the adjudicators were not providing a comprehensive explanation for their rulings.
“Our application was refused. Now it is unfortunate that these rulings that are coming out of the court are so short. In the past, especially in 2013, we had detailed reasons behind rulings on why applications were either granted or refused. That has not happened this time.
“Now, when you examine or listen to the ruling of the Court, the only reason they gave is that the rules do not allow for it. So if the rules do not allow for it, why has it been permitted in the past?” She queried.
Citing legal references, to back their ruling, Justice Anin-Yeboah explained that so long as the authenticity of the documents in question of which the petitioner has a copy is not in doubt, they find no merit in upholding their request for the Electoral Commission to produce the originals.
Dismissal of cases
The Court first dismissed former President Mahama’s motion which sought permission to elicit answers to some 12 interrogatories from the EC.
It indicated that counsel was relying on CI 47 while the current rule in force relating to the Supreme Court is the CI 99.
The Apex Court subsequently dismissed an application filed by the petitioner asking it to review its decision to disallow him from asking the EC some 12 questions.
The court was of the view that the threshold required to enable it to review its decision has not been met.
The case was subsequently adjourned to Friday February 5, 2021.