The Supreme Court has dismissed former President John Mahama’s review application to reopen his case in the ongoing election petition trial.
The unanimous decision of the nine-member panel chaired by Justice Kwasi Anin Yebaoh held that the application is without merit.
This is the third review application from the Petitioner that ha been dismissed.
Other members of the panel are Justice Yaw Appau, Justice Samuel Marful-Sau, Justice Nene Amegartcher, Justice Prof Nii Ashie Kotey, Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Justice Amadu Tanko and Justice Henrietta Mensah Bonsu.
Moving the motion in court on Monday, Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Lead Counsel for the Petitioner argued that, there was no reference made to Section 72 of the Evidence Act.
He argued that, for the court to make reference to Black Law Dictionary at the expense of a statute of Ghana constitutes a fundamental error.
Mr Tsikata argued that provisions in the statutes supersede that of subsidiary legislation and therefore shows that there was a miscarriage of justice made to the Petitioner in that ruling.
It was the submission of Mr Tsikata that, the court cannot sideline the operations of a statute with subsidiary legislation that has no relevance to Section 26 of the Evidence Act.
Mr Tsikata argued further that the court also made no reference to order 38 rule 10 when ruling on their application.
According to Mr Tsikata, the ruling of the court was completely unreasonable considering no consideration was made to Article 296 and that, the Chairperson of the EC must be held accountable for her constitutional duties.
Justin Amenuvor, Lead Lawyer for the EC opposed to the application while making reference to Article 133 (1) to the effect that, the court may review any decision as may be prescribed by the rules of the court committees.
He argued that there were certain criteria that ought to be met under the specific rule of review Rule 54, and submitted that, the Petitioner did not satisfy those conditions.
He argued that, the grounds in the review application were misconceived and have no bearing on the ruling of the apex court on February 16.
He submitted that the Petitioner has been given enough opportunities to make his case.
He prayed that the application does not satisfy the requirements for a review and ought to be dismissed illumini (entirety).
Akoto Ampaw, lead Counsel of the 2nd Respondent Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo also opposed the motion saying that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that there was a miscarriage of justice.
He argued that the application be dismissed summarily because the reference to Section 72 makes the application totally unmeritorious.
According to him, for Mr Tsikata to say that Order 38 (3)(E)(5) is subsidiary legislation as against Section 26 of the Evidence Act is unacceptable, and argued that all those sections are part of the laws of Ghana.
He said the Petitioner failed badly to establish the grounds of unreasonableness in the case.
He said the application is devoid of merit, deserving of summary dismissal and be dismissed as an abuse of court processes