Eugene Nyavor
The seven justices (and sometimes nine judges) hearing the 2020 Election Petition have been called upon on 10 occasions to rule on various issues.
These are matters that have seen lawyers representing the respondents (EC and President Akufo-Addo) take positions contrary to that of the petitioner, John Mahama.
The seven judges hearing the case are Chief Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, Justices Yaw Appau, Marful Sau, Nene Amegatcher, Prof. Kotey, Mariama Owusu, and Gertrude Torkonoo .
They have on two occasions been joined by Justices Amadu Tanko (both occasions) and Prof Henrietta Mensa Bonsu (once) and Lovelace Johnson (once).
The rulings so far:
All the court’s decisions in the last few weeks have been unanimous 7-0 and 9-0 on three occasions.
1.First, it unanimously granted the petitioner’s request to amend the initial petition i.e correct minor mistakes that did not affect the substance of the petition.
2. It unanimously dismissed a request for interrogatories to be served. These were 12 questions they wanted the EC Chairperson to answer
3. Constituted as a 9 member panel, it unanimously dismissed a request to substitute a paragraph and add additional ground in a push by the petitioner to have the interrogatories ruling reviewed.
4. This 9 member panel also unanimously dismissed the review of interrogatories ruling itself.
5. The original 7 member panel by a unanimous decision struck out portions of the petitioner’s witness (Asiedu Nketia) statement (7 paragraphs) while maintaining 3 parts following a request by the Respondents.
6. This panel also unanimously dismissed a request by the petitioner for documents to be inspected.
7. The panel unanimously struck out 5 parts of 32 paragraphs of the petitioner’s witness statement (Mettle-Nunoo)
8. The panel unanimously rejected the petitioner’s request to compel the EC to call Jean Mensa to testify
9. The panel unanimously dismissed the petitioners request to reopen his case
10. The enhanced 9 member panel dismissed the petitioner’s request that it reviews its decision not to compel Jean Mensa to testify.
From the above, it is only on one occasion that a request by the petitioner has been wholly granted.
This was the request to correct mistakes.
The petitioner’s viewpoint has been partly upheld on two occasions when it came to striking out portions of witness statements.
The legal arguments of the respondents have however swayed the judges 7 times.
Two judges are expected to join the 7 to hear another review motion seeking to set aside the court’s unanimous decision that did not allow the petitioner to reopen his case.
