A public-spirited lawyer, professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, known as Kwaku Azar has described the unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court against the petitioner in the 2020 election petition hearing as unconvincing and weak.
Prof. Azar noted on a social media post that the reasons given by the Supreme Court for the dismissal of Mahama’s numerous applications which includes an application for, interrogatories, an examination of the Electoral Commission documents, cross-examination of Jean Mensa, and reopening of the case are unconvincing and weak, “the many unanimous decisions by the Court to deny the petitioner’s prayer remain unconvincing and weak” he said.
He believes strongly “that the petitioner is entitled to examine the election manager on Form 13 and the changing total votes cast”.
The many unanimous decisions by the Court to deny the petitioner’s prayer remain unconvincing and weak.
The legal luminary maintained that “the Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from the examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined.
The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as a legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross-examine on it”.
To the purpose of his advocacy for Jean Mensa as Chairperson of the EC to be crossed-examined, he stressed “the election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner. I strongly believe that more harm will be done by her failure to do so. It is also procedurally unfair for any petitioner to be denied some of these basic requests, prof. Azar concluded.
Read his full post below:
It is disturbing that the petitioner has failed to file its closing statements as ordered by the Court.
I understand that the petitioner has filed a review and a stay. But I do not think this is enough for it to ignore the Court’s order.
The better action, in my opinion, is to file a provisional statement with a caveat that it is incomplete and will be substantially revised after it has called the election manager into the box.
Having said that, I also strongly believe that the petitioner is entitled to examine the election manager on Form 13 and the changing total votes cast.
The many unanimous decisions by the Court to deny the petitioner’s prayers for some very basic procedural tools remain unconvincing and weak.
The Court seems to be needlessly shielding the election manager from the examination, including having problems with her name being mentioned, her responding to discovery and her being examined.
The Court should not take the position that affidavits and witness statements do no matter and can be used as a legal strategy. Witness statements matter. Once they are served they have an effect, which at a minimum includes the opposing party being able to assume that it can cross-examine on it.
The election manager will do the country a lot of good by mounting the box and addressing any and all questions by the petitioner.
She has pledged commitment to transparency and integrity. Her actions in Court must be in that direction.
I strongly believe that more harm will be done by her failure to do so. It is also procedurally unfair for any petitioner to be denied some of these basic requests.
#SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament. Will anyone be held accountable or it will be another fa ma nyame?
Da Yie!
Filed By : Agaatorne Douglas Asaah / awakenewsroom.com
