The Supreme Court has set out five issues for determination in the 2020 election petition filed by the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr John Dramani Mahama.
A determination of the five issues by the court will enable the court to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the petition has any merit
The five issues include: whether or not the petition discloses any cause of action – that is if there is any legal grounds for the petition, whether or not the second respondent [Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo] met the Article 63 (3) threshold of the 1992 Constitution – this constitutional provision states that a presidential candidate must obtain more than 50 per cent of the total valid votes cast to be declared as President-elect, whether or not the 2nd respondent [Nana Akufo-Addo] still met the Article 63 (3) of the 1992 threshold by the exclusion or inclusion of the Techiman South constituency presidential election results.
Other issues are: whether or not the declaration by the first respondent (EC) on December 9 of the presidential election conducted on December 7 was in violation of Article 63(3) of the 1992 Constitution, whether or not the alleged vote padding and other errors complained of by the petitioner affected the outcome of the presidential election results of 2020.
Meanwhile, Counsel for the petitioner in the ongoing 2020 Presidential Election Petition, Tsatsu Tsikata, has told the Supreme Court that much as the court may want to stick to the timelines specified in C.I 99 for the adjudication of election petitions, it should not be done in disregard of justice.
Tsikata was reacting to orders by the court for parties file their witness statements by 12 noon Thursday, January 21, a timeline the lawyer deemed too short.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s insistence of such a short timeline is not justified in law.
But the bench explained the modification of the law which culminated in C.I 99 requires the court to operate within strict timelines, a requirement the court cannot compromise.
The bench was also of the view that lawyers should have known that they will be required to file witness statements and that those should have been prepared ahead of time.
